Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So a couple of ideas came up, over some beers, on how to give close combat armies a bit more of a chance.

One was to make overwatch only ever hit on a natural roll of 6. Nothing is more annoying to a close combat army than finally getting to charge, but wait, strategem that basically makes it an extra shooting phase for the unit being charged.

If the hit roll could only ever be on 6's it might tone it down a little bit.

The other idea was to change limit overwatch to only weapons of str 4 or less. This would logically account for why a tank couldn't overwatch with the bigger guns without involving facings and such.

Just curious what people think of the ideas.

Overwatch 1) only ever hits on a 6. If anyone has a strat that allows otherwise its exceedingly rare. 2) does so little all the time that its basically meaningless. Overwatch has little to no impact in any game. Changing overwatch doesnt improve anyones chances. Its mostly a waste of time.

I would remove overwatch, allow units to fall back and shoot at a -1 to hit but only at the unit(s) that they fell back from, and force people who want to fall back to make a Morale Test on 2D6 (with an immunity for characters and vehicles). The fall back and shoot replaces overwatch, and falling back at least carries some risk.

1) 2d6 for charge range is far too random. It's completely unfair that an assault army can make it all the way across the table, get 5 inches from an enemy, take overwatch, and then fail the charge, leaving them completely exposed. Make charge range something like Movement + d6. That immediately cuts down on the randomness and benefits armies that are naturally swift.

2) Overwatch is fine, but only once per squad. It is frustrating that one squad can overwatch as many times as they are charged granted the assaulting unit doesn't make it in. Just once is enough.

3) Falling back is way too overpowered. Sure, the squad who falls back can't attack, but literally every other squad can, once again leaving the assaulter completely naked. Easy fix without adding any rules- instead of falling back in the movement phase, you fall back in the assault phase. If a unit has fly, they can fall back in the movement phase instead.

These three rules buff assault appropriately and are extremely simple.

I never understood what the purpose of overwatch was anyway, it rarely matters and when it does it can feel really unfair. And weapons multiplying their rate of fire because their wielders get charged feels very unintuitive. If they wanted overwatch in the game it should be done in lieu of regular shooting, not in addition to it.

I also don't like the randomness of charge distances, too many times have I seen one or more 4"-7" charges fail and just ruin the game for one player. I'd really prefer that charge ranges weren't random at all, but I know that could make it too easy to stay just 0.1" out of charge range. Something like Vitali Advenil's suggestion would also reduce randomness.

I do like that you can retreat from close combat, I had some really sluggish close combats in 7th where no one died for several turns, and falling back prevents that from happening now. I'd rather cc was deadlier so there wouldn't be anyone left to fall back with as often. I don't see a reason why close combat should be so much less deadly than shooting.

Falling back is an issue, for sure.

I'm (currently) in the camp of CC needing to be Very Decisive. Whenever a melee is going on, I'm one for thinking both sides should be fighting (i.e. rolling) at the same time, every time.

The problem with melee is that shooting is too powerful and some armies have screeners that are way too cheap. I don't think anything in the core rules should be changed to make close combat more efficient.

Maybe just some changing about the possibility of falling back. A roll for falling back would be nice, just use the WS of a unit. If it's WS5+ it can fall back only on a 5+. That should make the retreat more difficult for those units that are not great in combat, and that would make perfect sense.

Overwatch is fine. Random charges aren't. It can have the potential to ruin a really good, closely fought game. Falling back should incur a free strike, a la Warmahordes. Call it Fly Hack or something, considering the 6 Nations is only round the corner.

I had an idea of falling back that'd make it more risky.

If a unit chooses to fall back, roll a D6 for every model in the unit. The unit suffers a Mortal Wound for every roll of 6.

It represents the unit making opportunist attacks at the retreating unit, will make you reconsider falling back if you've got some expensive units in there.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I had an idea of falling back that'd make it more risky.

If a unit chooses to fall back, roll a D6 for every model in the unit. The unit suffers a Mortal Wound for every roll of 6.

It represents the unit making opportunist attacks at the retreating unit, will make you reconsider falling back if you've got some expensive units in there.

Eh... Not a fan of that. That means that 30 Boyz falling back from 1 Grot take an average of 5 mortal wounds, but reverse the situation and the Grot only has a 1/6 chance of dying. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Get rid of fallback entirely. It was a mistake.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
I had an idea of falling back that'd make it more risky.

If a unit chooses to fall back, roll a D6 for every model in the unit. The unit suffers a Mortal Wound for every roll of 6.

It represents the unit making opportunist attacks at the retreating unit, will make you reconsider falling back if you've got some expensive units in there.

Eh... Not a fan of that. That means that 30 Boyz falling back from 1 Grot take an average of 5 mortal wounds, but reverse the situation and the Grot only has a 1/6 chance of dying. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Perhaps add a limit into this rule?

If a unit chooses to fall back, roll a D6 for every model in the unit up to the number of models in the attacking unit. The retreating unit suffers a Mortal Wound for every roll of 6.

This means in your example only 1 Mortal could be caused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Get rid of fallback entirely. It was a mistake.

Fallback is a necessary mechanic, it's just badly implemented. It's not like in 7th where I could charge in a Fearless blob and your Commander is tied up for the rest of the game.

The complaints I hear about falling back mostly center around how it's consequence-free for the rest of a gunline army to get to shoot up your melee units; maybe looking at more consequences for the unit that's falling back isn't the best way of thinking about it? What if you imposed an extra -1 to-hit penalty on ranged attacks against units that were in combat at the start of the turn? Prevent tarpits, don't allow large melee units to roll up gunlines with impunity, but give melee units some protection from gunlines once they're up in their face?

I don't think it's necessary at all. It's just salt on the wound. Armies can put legions of cheap crap in the way of assaulters and then this on top of it.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think it's necessary at all. It's just salt on the wound. Armies can put legions of cheap crap in the way of assaulters and then this on top of it.

Except tarpits are stupid and I don't ever want to play a game where you negate an enemy units by locking it into a fight it cannot possibly escape while everyone involved in the fight is immune to outside interference again.

Being able to fall back is needed. There should be some kind of consequence to it, i agree. breaking and running from a melee should carry risk.

Just a thought, what if fall back caused an immediate morale test? You immediately run the risk of loosing models and screens are often the models with the weakest leadership attributes.

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think it's necessary at all. It's just salt on the wound. Armies can put legions of cheap crap in the way of assaulters and then this on top of it.

Except tarpits are stupid and I don't ever want to play a game where you negate an enemy units by locking it into a fight it cannot possibly escape while everyone involved in the fight is immune to outside interference again.

Being able to fall back is needed. There should be some kind of consequence to it, i agree. breaking and running from a melee should carry risk.

Just a thought, what if fall back caused an immediate morale test? You immediately run the risk of loosing models and screens are often the models with the weakest leadership attributes.

So, since fall back happens at the START of your turn, you roll 1d6, and for each point over your leadership you roll, you lose a guy?

That would affect...

Conscripts
Furies

And is there anything else with leadership 5 or less? Because those are the only people who'd be affected by that.

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think it's necessary at all. It's just salt on the wound. Armies can put legions of cheap crap in the way of assaulters and then this on top of it.

Except tarpits are stupid and I don't ever want to play a game where you negate an enemy units by locking it into a fight it cannot possibly escape while everyone involved in the fight is immune to outside interference again.

Being able to fall back is needed. There should be some kind of consequence to it, i agree. breaking and running from a melee should carry risk.

Just a thought, what if fall back caused an immediate morale test? You immediately run the risk of loosing models and screens are often the models with the weakest leadership attributes.

That's too weak. Another full round of free attacks would be far more fair. That way, the assault list is not cheated out of their attacks on the opponent's turn.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:
1) 2d6 for charge range is far too random. It's completely unfair that an assault army can make it all the way across the table, get 5 inches from an enemy, take overwatch, and then fail the charge, leaving them completely exposed. Make charge range something like Movement + d6. That immediately cuts down on the randomness and benefits armies that are naturally swift.

2) Overwatch is fine, but only once per squad. It is frustrating that one squad can overwatch as many times as they are charged granted the assaulting unit doesn't make it in. Just once is enough.

3) Falling back is way too overpowered. Sure, the squad who falls back can't attack, but literally every other squad can, once again leaving the assaulter completely naked. Easy fix without adding any rules- instead of falling back in the movement phase, you fall back in the assault phase. If a unit has fly, they can fall back in the movement phase instead.

These three rules buff assault appropriately and are extremely simple.

1. I completely agree with.
2. It is okay the way it is now. Overwatch is 1/6 chance to hit. Not really OP at all.
3. Completely disagree. That would make melee units immune to fire when they first reach the enemy line.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think it's necessary at all. It's just salt on the wound. Armies can put legions of cheap crap in the way of assaulters and then this on top of it.

Except tarpits are stupid and I don't ever want to play a game where you negate an enemy units by locking it into a fight it cannot possibly escape while everyone involved in the fight is immune to outside interference again.

Being able to fall back is needed. There should be some kind of consequence to it, i agree. breaking and running from a melee should carry risk.

Just a thought, what if fall back caused an immediate morale test? You immediately run the risk of loosing models and screens are often the models with the weakest leadership attributes.

So, since fall back happens at the START of your turn, you roll 1d6, and for each point over your leadership you roll, you lose a guy?

That would affect...

Conscripts
Furies

And is there anything else with leadership 5 or less? Because those are the only people who'd be affected by that.

Yeah was just a sudden thought I didn't think too far through on.

I feel like it needs to be a test that can be passed that favors melee centric units. Failure does cause a number of mortal wounds.

My general thought has always been M + 1d6 and compare the results. If the if the falling back unit is => the opponent then nothing happens. If < you suffer a number of mortal wounds = to the difference.

But at the extremes thats 5m terminators and necrons against 12M+ gargoyles, shrikes, melee fliers.

In some ways that makes sense. You can't really run from a harpy thats right on top of you. But it's still pretty brutal.

Here's a couple changes that I think might be interesting:

- Units that fail a morale test while within 1" of an enemy double the number of models removed as a result of the test. (so if you pass, you're still fine)

- If an enemy unit started the movement phase within 1" of a friendly unit (but is no longer within 1"), subtract 1 from to hit rolls made against that unit.

- Units that "FLY" may make a shooting attack during their shooting phase if they withdrew from combat in the previous movement phase, but if they fire at units other than the unit they withdrew from they must subtract 1 from to hit rolls.

Also, change the AM order to force firing on the squad that engaged them.

How's this for a suggestion? A unit that wants to fall back rolls a D6 and if it's equal or higher to their WS they disengage safely, otherwise they die. Fly adds 2 to the roll.

This'd make units that actually know how to fight in melee better at disengaging than random conscripts and would be potentially lethal enough that falling back isn't automatic.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:
1) 2d6 for charge range is far too random. It's completely unfair that an assault army can make it all the way across the table, get 5 inches from an enemy, take overwatch, and then fail the charge, leaving them completely exposed. Make charge range something like Movement + d6. That immediately cuts down on the randomness and benefits armies that are naturally swift.

That works for low end of movement. On bigger(10"+) it gets too reliable long reach making basically automatic charges.

I also agree about the WS that should have some impact on the fall back mechanics.

Many suggestions posted above may actually work, generally speaking I think falling back shouldn't be automatic but determined by roll: a successful result should add some real penalty to the disengaged unit and a non successful one should be devastating for the unit that wanted to fall back. If you don't want any risk you just stay locked in combat.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How's this for a suggestion? A unit that wants to fall back rolls a D6 and if it's equal or higher to their WS they disengage safely, otherwise they die. Fly adds 2 to the roll.

This'd make units that actually know how to fight in melee better at disengaging than random conscripts and would be potentially lethal enough that falling back isn't automatic.

Most tanks wouldn't be able to fall back except on a 6, and since they usually only hit on sixes in melee as well that could lead to some very tedious close combats. It would in many situations mean a death sentence for a vehicle that gets charged. Successfully charging a flyer would mean a 50% chance of killing it, no matter your numbers. A single jetbike charges a Stormraven for a 50% chance of killing it - really?

 Cream Tea wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How's this for a suggestion? A unit that wants to fall back rolls a D6 and if it's equal or higher to their WS they disengage safely, otherwise they die. Fly adds 2 to the roll.

This'd make units that actually know how to fight in melee better at disengaging than random conscripts and would be potentially lethal enough that falling back isn't automatic.

Most tanks wouldn't be able to fall back except on a 6, and since they usually only hit on sixes in melee as well that could lead to some very tedious close combats. It would in many situations mean a death sentence for a vehicle that gets charged. Successfully charging a flyer would mean a 50% chance of killing it, no matter your numbers. A single jetbike charges a Stormraven for a 50% chance of killing it - really?

Didn't take vehicles into account obviously, give them some sort of exception too.

Fall back and the unit being falled back from gets an extra fight phase at -2 ws before it's resolved.

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think it's necessary at all. It's just salt on the wound. Armies can put legions of cheap crap in the way of assaulters and then this on top of it.

Except tarpits are stupid and I don't ever want to play a game where you negate an enemy units by locking it into a fight it cannot possibly escape while everyone involved in the fight is immune to outside interference again.

Being able to fall back is needed. There should be some kind of consequence to it, i agree. breaking and running from a melee should carry risk.

Just a thought, what if fall back caused an immediate morale test? You immediately run the risk of loosing models and screens are often the models with the weakest leadership attributes.

Tarpits WERE a legit strategy though and definitely exposed problem units, good or bad. Pretty much all the tarpits at that point of time were slow overall, so if it happens it rewards the better player.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think it's necessary at all. It's just salt on the wound. Armies can put legions of cheap crap in the way of assaulters and then this on top of it.

Except tarpits are stupid and I don't ever want to play a game where you negate an enemy units by locking it into a fight it cannot possibly escape while everyone involved in the fight is immune to outside interference again.

Being able to fall back is needed. There should be some kind of consequence to it, i agree. breaking and running from a melee should carry risk.

Just a thought, what if fall back caused an immediate morale test? You immediately run the risk of loosing models and screens are often the models with the weakest leadership attributes.

Tarpits WERE a legit strategy though and definitely exposed problem units, good or bad. Pretty much all the tarpits at that point of time were slow overall, so if it happens it rewards the better player.

No, it was a dumb ass strategy that could negate a massive amount of points with very few points simply because the mechanics of 7th were bad. My hormagants would be one of the greatest tarpit units in the game. Or better my gargs. 12" M massive foot print. Inescapable. Want me to bury your vehicle in bodies so the people it's transporting can never disembark and there is noting you can do about it? Done.

Bad news: you can still do that to a non-flyer.

Martel732 wrote:
Bad news: you can still do that to a non-flyer.

I am aware. I think VEHICLES should be able to fall back over Infantry as well. But they are suggesting to extrapolate this issue out to a core mechanic of the whole game. Anything being tied up by anything. Not needing to have the bodies to surround it but simply make it into combat.