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.

This was brought up by myself in another thread, and I thought it might be fun to kick this around here, rather than hijacking someone else's discussion.

Add the following table to the basic rule book:

When you want to withdraw from close quarters combat:

Roll a D6, apply any modifiers to the result and consult the following table:

If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.

Anyone have thoughts on this they'd like to share?

This would need a drastic rework of all leadership in the game (maybe a return to the old leadership profiles for most units). This would also mean certain units would suffer severely in close quarters combat.... which is actually pretty good.

I don't agree with mortal wounds, I think giving them a chance to attack in a reverse overwatch, where the attacker (the one who is trying to remain in combat) gets to roll his attacks but can only hit on a 5+. Call it Attack of Opporunity.

It would also be a pretty interesting move in general as it would make combat kind of viable.

You wouldn't have any modifiers yet though, because you fall back in your shooting phase, so you always pass.

I'd rather a variation on the old sweeping advance rule, where you and your opponent roll off. If he rolls equal or greater than you, he catches some stragglers as you fall back, and you take a number of mortal wounds equal to half your squad size, rounded down. Then you fall back as normal.

So characters could fall back in good order, as could vehicles, but larger squads risk getting cut to pieces if they try to fall back.

 Asherian Command wrote:
This would need a drastic rework of all leadership in the game (maybe a return to the old leadership profiles for most units). This would also mean certain units would suffer severely in close quarters combat.... which is actually pretty good.

I don't agree with mortal wounds, I think giving them a chance to attack in a reverse overwatch, where the attacker (the one who is trying to remain in combat) gets to roll his attacks but can only hit on a 5+. Call it Attack of Opporunity.

It would also be a pretty interesting move in general as it would make combat kind of viable.

Agreed.

let me explain my reasoning on the MW part.

Right now, the goal seems to be to keep things that would bog down the game in terms of time to a minimum. MW does that by applying a direct result, checking to see if you have FNP and then moving on. If we added some sort of Attack of Opportunity mechanic, imagine how this would bog down the game, arguments over how many attacks you could make, who is within some set number of distance in order to attack. That sort of thing. With a MW mechanic, it's simple, you choose to leave, you roll equal, roll D3 get result of a 2 and pick up two models. Then you move out of CC. It's fast, simple and it rewards your opponent for you choosing to leave, evening out how deadly shooting could be, and weakening the unit that chose to leave.

One consideration would be how to handle this with Tanks. Tanks for example, could ignore this rule. They just leave, because it is impossible for a bunch of guard or marines to stop a landraider from just driving over them, crushing them to death as if they were putty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:
You wouldn't have any modifiers yet though, because you fall back in your shooting phase, so you always pass.

I'd rather a variation on the old sweeping advance rule, where you and your opponent roll off. If he rolls equal or greater than you, he catches some stragglers as you fall back, and you take a number of mortal wounds equal to half your squad size, rounded down. Then you fall back as normal.

So characters could fall back in good order, as could vehicles, but larger squads risk getting cut to pieces if they try to fall back.

This seems like a good compromise. Things like Tyranid Lashwhips could add + X to the result against a unit that is trying to leave, for example. Dark Eldar have nets so something similar too for them and anyone else with those types of weapons.

2d6 rolloff. Done

Make it so you leave combat, but the people hit you with their attacks on a 6+.

No reason to make it so complicated.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Make it so you leave combat, but the people hit you with their attacks on a 6+.

No reason to make it so complicated.

You can, but again, this leads into huge problems. How far away can they be to get their hit in? A lot of assault units have varying types of weapons, numbers of attacks. It exponentially grows if there were multiple charges, or units multi-charge different units. Arguments will become a problem. Having a roll off that leads into automatic wounds keeps it super simple.

Consider this change.

Roll off 2d6.

If you win, you leave combat. If you lose, you suffer 1 mortal wound and remain in combat for the next turn.

 Togusa wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Make it so you leave combat, but the people hit you with their attacks on a 6+.

No reason to make it so complicated.

You can, but again, this leads into huge problems. How far away can they be to get their hit in? A lot of assault units have varying types of weapons, numbers of attacks. It exponentially grows if there were multiple charges, or units multi-charge different units. Arguments will become a problem. Having a roll off that leads into automatic wounds keeps it super simple.

Consider this change.

Roll off 2d6.

If you win, you leave combat. If you lose, you suffer 1 mortal wound and remain in combat for the next turn.

1. As far away as normal before the opposing squad moves away
2. Multiple attacks really isn't a problem. Overwatch ain't a problem.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Make it so you leave combat, but the people hit you with their attacks on a 6+.

No reason to make it so complicated.

You can, but again, this leads into huge problems. How far away can they be to get their hit in? A lot of assault units have varying types of weapons, numbers of attacks. It exponentially grows if there were multiple charges, or units multi-charge different units. Arguments will become a problem. Having a roll off that leads into automatic wounds keeps it super simple.

Consider this change.

Roll off 2d6.

If you win, you leave combat. If you lose, you suffer 1 mortal wound and remain in combat for the next turn.

1. As far away as normal before the opposing squad moves away
2. Multiple attacks really isn't a problem. Overwatch ain't a problem.

Overwatch is shooting and this would be close combat, how would you count units leaving combat? Would you count all units even the ones not touching base... Its a jar of worms.

You're making it into a can of worms, not me. Same rules as for melee apply. See who would normally be in range to attack in melee, your opponent flees and you make your attacks.

I don't understand what's complicated about it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're making it into a can of worms, not me. Same rules as for melee apply. See who would normally be in range to attack in melee, your opponent flees and you make your attacks.

I don't understand what's complicated about it.

Because at tournaments it's going to lead to arguments, people trying to game the system. Pile ins will take more thought and will be argued to death. It's much more simple to just apply a straight effect and to add yet another round of rolling multiple dice, at multiple strengths, ap, and distances.

How is this not simple----> Roll 2d6. If you win, move away unharmed. If you lose, stay in combat and suffer one MW.

Make a roll, and apply the result and then move on. Seems to be the most simple and least hassled option to me.

I feel like i've seen this before, maybe it was with Ld+d6 vs opponents Ld+d6. IIRC tyranids were not having it, necrons were happy with it, marines felt like they should be better than everyone else. Seems like it could help keep T'au from kiting.

Personally, I'd prefer giving Melee overwatch to the unit you are disengaging from - they get their melee attacks, but only hit on 6.

Falling back from Tau isn't too hard. Turn your back on a bunch of Khorne Berserkers though....

I'm also in favor of leaving combat only with some penalties. Shooting is already too rewarding in comparison with melee and close combat needs more consideration.

Melee overwatch sounds fine and it's definitely easy enough to apply. Where are the complications?

 Asherian Command wrote:
This would need a drastic rework of all leadership in the game (maybe a return to the old leadership profiles for most units). This would also mean certain units would suffer severely in close quarters combat.... which is actually pretty good.

I don't agree with mortal wounds, I think giving them a chance to attack in a reverse overwatch, where the attacker (the one who is trying to remain in combat) gets to roll his attacks but can only hit on a 5+. Call it Attack of Opporunity.

It would also be a pretty interesting move in general as it would make combat kind of viable.

Uuu more dice rolls to slow down the already slowest edition of 40k.

Ok you've already had to add an exception to the rule for vehicals, which I get.
But how exactlly do you deal with flying units?
What about Monster's? Whould this apply to infantry falling back from a vehical?
What about a dreadnaught?

Back before 8th I was making a version of 40k that allowed you to leave combat called a Tactical Retreat.

You rolled 1d6 + Movement characteristic. Opponent rolled 1d6 + movement. If the retreating unit rolled higher they got away fine. If the enemy rolled higher you suffered a number of wounds that could not be negated by any means (mortal wounds) = to the difference in rolls. (if the retreating unit rolled a 7 but the enemy rolled a 9 you suffered 2 mortal wounds) Important to note, the unit gets to retreat no matter what. You ALWAYS get to leave combat. The only question is if you get to leave unscathed.

I.E. terminators running from bikes was generally never going to work out for the terminators. But bikes and jump infantry could do hit and run tactics fairly reliably because of their speed and mobility. Tyranids were a nightmare to escape from and their speed and numbers made them n overwhelming threat once they were on you. But mostly infantry vs infantry had a fair shake at escaping unscathed but always a risk.

 Blackie wrote:
I'm also in favor of leaving combat only with some penalties. Shooting is already too rewarding in comparison with melee and close combat needs more consideration.

Melee overwatch sounds fine and it's definitely easy enough to apply. Where are the complications?

The complications arise from: how many hits do you get? Base it on the number of models that would fight if it were a fight phase, arguments on who's in range and so on.
Also its a slew of extra dice rolling. You're rolling to hit, maybe separating out which weapons at doing the hitting, rolling to wound, and rolling to save - that's potentially a lot more dice rolling added to any one game, depending on how often you fall back.

It may be the least abstract way to represent it, and seems like it makes sense, but its awkward, can lead to arguments, and adds a bunch of time to the game either way.


Something simpler, though considerably more abstract would be: Roll a D6 for every model in the unit Falling Back, for every 1, that unit suffers a mortal wound.
Representing the enemy getting a lucky hit or two in on the back of a fleeing opponent. Characters and vehicles won't really care too much, small units are likely to be fairly ok, makes it risky for larger units - but then it probably should be. Quick, easy and leaves no room for argument on the field. Some units might get special rules to reduce or evade this entirely perhaps.

Play it exactly like overwatch, just using attacks instead of number of shots the melee weapons' profiles instead of ranged ones. Where's the complication? Is overwatch complicated?

As others have said, an Melee Overwatch is the easiest solution and is NOT very complicated.

Just follow all that same rules as Overwatch in reverse, but instead of shooting, you attack with your melee weapons hitting on 6 regardless of modifiers prior to the enemy unit moving
It works just fine.

If multiple units are in the combat, you would only get this "Attack of Opportunity" if the leaving unit would leave YOUR unit unengaged.
If another units is still engaged with yours, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn't be able to attack, just like Overwatch doesn't allow it on subsequent units charging. You are too occupied with the unit you are STILL engaged with to be able to attack the Falling Back/Charging unit.

-

Ice_can wrote:
Ok you've already had to add an exception to the rule for vehicals, which I get.
But how exactlly do you deal with flying units?
What about Monster's? Whould this apply to infantry falling back from a vehical?
What about a dreadnaught?

I don't think you should ever be able to charge a flying vehicle. Flying infantry, it makes sense because they can land.
Dreadnoughts and monsters would follow infantry rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
As others have said, an Melee Overwatch is the easiest solution and is NOT very complicated.

Just follow all that same rules as Overwatch in reverse, but instead of shooting, you attack with your melee weapons hitting on 6 regardless of modifiers prior to the enemy unit moving
It works just fine.

If multiple units are in the combat, you would only get this "Attack of Opportunity" if the leaving unit would leave YOUR unit unengaged.
If another units is still engaged with yours, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn't be able to attack, just like Overwatch doesn't allow it on subsequent units charging. You are too occupied with the unit you are STILL engaged with to be able to attack the Falling Back/Charging unit.

-

It still feels like it would slow down the game too much. What exactly is wrong with Roll 2d6, win, move away or Roll 2d6 lose, suffer a wound and stay. That is literally the most simple, direct and easy to use rule you could make. No extra die rolling, no calculating different AP. No special rules to allow models to hit on a 5+ or something like that. Just roll, apply affect, move on.

The problem is failing the roll meaning you CANNOT fallback. Many units are designed to be able to do stuff when they fall back. This change would bring back tarpitting, which IMO is too far in the opposite direct.
There does need to be a stronger consequence for Falling back than not being able to shoot or charge, but making it so risky that you might not even get to fall back is too much.

Allowing the unit to be attacked also scales better according to the unit you are falling back from.
A Rhino, for example isn't going to be able to do as much to you as a unit of 20 Berserkers.
Just making it MWs takes this scale away.

There's a difference between making a rule simple for simplicity sake, and making simple rules that also make sense.

-

I wouldn’t say it is. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. It mostly depends on the narrative and “detail level” you want to put forth. Personally, I’d like to avoid anything that dishes out mortal wounds - I just think that MW’s are bad for the game.

 Stormonu wrote:
Personally, I’d like to avoid anything that dishes out mortal wounds - I just think that MW’s are bad for the game.

Agree and disagree. I think MWs are great for the game....so long as they aren't overused.

I'd be fine with Fall Back doing damage somehow, based on a roll of some kind, but having that roll fail mean the unit cannot fall back is too far. 40K doesn't need tarpits again

-

 Galef wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Personally, I’d like to avoid anything that dishes out mortal wounds - I just think that MW’s are bad for the game.

Agree and disagree. I think MWs are great for the game....so long as they aren't overused.

I'd be fine with Fall Back doing damage somehow, based on a roll of some kind, but having that roll fail mean the unit cannot fall back is too far. 40K doesn't need tarpits again

-

How about you just have to make an armor save? Instead of a mortal wound?

 Galef wrote:
The problem is failing the roll meaning you CANNOT fallback. Many units are designed to be able to do stuff when they fall back. This change would bring back tarpitting, which IMO is too far in the opposite direct.
There does need to be a stronger consequence for Falling back than not being able to shoot or charge, but making it so risky that you might not even get to fall back is too much.

Allowing the unit to be attacked also scales better according to the unit you are falling back from.
A Rhino, for example isn't going to be able to do as much to you as a unit of 20 Berserkers.
Just making it MWs takes this scale away.

There's a difference between making a rule simple for simplicity sake, and making simple rules that also make sense.

-

That makes sense. Someone else in the thread suggested that the wounds be applied, and then you are still allowed to charge.

Roll 2d6, pass, fall back.
Roll 2d6, fail, X MW, fall back.

Is this maybe a bit better.

What if a unit can elect to move instead of attack in combat?

so, if you are charged, then the charged unit gets to fight in combat before you anyway, so no running before they swing. If you elect to move away then you sacrifice your attacks, unlike now.

so to summarise:

Flee: Instead of attacking, move D6", and if not within 1" of an enemy unit after this move then you are no longer engaged in combat. units with a movement of 10" or more move 2D6".

Piling in would still work the same, so if you start 1" away, roll a 3 and move 3", and do so before the opponents attack, their pile-in will still get them in range and you'll still be attacked - but you sacrifice attacking back to try it. so infantry have a 50:50 or less chance of escaping, bikers are much more likely to, but if you wait and weather the attacks, you will almost certainly escape as the enemy will already have piled in.

I don't recall if "end of phase pile in" is still a thing, but if it is then it would have to be removed as well.


This would bypass the whole "we get to attack but not pile in and hit on 6's" thing of melee overwatch, which would really cause issues with multiple units as, if you don't pile in, people will remove models to try and mitigate any other units attacks etc.

It is also an easy thing to work in with modifiers to make units better or worse at it - for example, meganobs could get -1 to their flee rolls because they're so slow. hormagaunts could get +1" to pile in, to make them harder to escape.

crazy off-beat idea not to be taken seriously:


I think that this would work well with the current rules without adding too much, as the chance of not escaping is covered by the pile-in move and subsequent attacks, where you have not attacked at all. It makes the decision of running before or after more key on what you're fighting - If it will kill you in one round, then run before it swings and hope you roll well. if you can weather it's attacks, then flee afterwards for a more guaranteed result.

Pre-empted response: "Bezerkers attack twice so will be impossible to escape" - can they pile-in / attack again if not engaged in combat? if not, then successfully fleeing will cut short their rampage. if they can, then yes, the scariest psychopaths in the game are a bad thing to be in combat with.

edit - additional rules for what you can/cannot do if you fled in the last combat phase will need to be applied, so people don't flee so that they can charge for bonuses. only hit on 6's in shooting and cannot charge would be a good option, which is then affected by all the "can shoot or assault normally after fleeing but not both" rules that are in place now.

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The problem is failing the roll meaning you CANNOT fallback. Many units are designed to be able to do stuff when they fall back. This change would bring back tarpitting, which IMO is too far in the opposite direct.
There does need to be a stronger consequence for Falling back than not being able to shoot or charge, but making it so risky that you might not even get to fall back is too much.

Allowing the unit to be attacked also scales better according to the unit you are falling back from.
A Rhino, for example isn't going to be able to do as much to you as a unit of 20 Berserkers.
Just making it MWs takes this scale away.

There's a difference between making a rule simple for simplicity sake, and making simple rules that also make sense.

-

That makes sense. Someone else in the thread suggested that the wounds be applied, and then you are still allowed to charge.

Roll 2d6, pass, fall back.
Roll 2d6, fail, X MW, fall back.

Is this maybe a bit better.

Yeah, that's better, but rather than X MWs, why not make it X auto-wounds, with X being the number of enemy models within 1" of the unit Falling back.
That's easy to calculate and scales well with the enemy unit you're Falling back from

And being auto-wounds rather than MWs avoids the over saturation of MWs, while also avoiding weird situations like a Land Raider taking MWs from Grots
It might make sense to take auto-wounds (that are savable) while it is in retreat since the enemy can hit a unit's vulnerable spots, but MWs is just too much

-

Melee overwatch is a lot of pointless rolling for little damage, and has little effect on the units that makes fall back such a pain.

If you want a simple solution? Any unit that was fall back'd from can make a consolidate move. This prevents units falling back just a inch, gives assault units a chance to run into cover or other nearby units, and encourages taking counter assault units to allow safe extraction from a brawl.That last one is kind of important, actually. melee overwatch doesn't really encourage different actions, since the units you're normally going to be assaulting first are expendable that people don't care about taking a little extra damage.

 Galef wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The problem is failing the roll meaning you CANNOT fallback. Many units are designed to be able to do stuff when they fall back. This change would bring back tarpitting, which IMO is too far in the opposite direct.
There does need to be a stronger consequence for Falling back than not being able to shoot or charge, but making it so risky that you might not even get to fall back is too much.

Allowing the unit to be attacked also scales better according to the unit you are falling back from.
A Rhino, for example isn't going to be able to do as much to you as a unit of 20 Berserkers.
Just making it MWs takes this scale away.

There's a difference between making a rule simple for simplicity sake, and making simple rules that also make sense.

-

That makes sense. Someone else in the thread suggested that the wounds be applied, and then you are still allowed to charge.

Roll 2d6, pass, fall back.
Roll 2d6, fail, X MW, fall back.

Is this maybe a bit better.

Yeah, that's better, but rather than X MWs, why not make it X auto-wounds, with X being the number of enemy models within 1" of the unit Falling back.
That's easy to calculate and scales well with the enemy unit you're Falling back from

And being auto-wounds rather than MWs avoids the over saturation of MWs, while also avoiding weird situations like a Land Raider taking MWs from Grots
It might make sense to take auto-wounds (that are savable) while it is in retreat since the enemy can hit a unit's vulnerable spots, but MWs is just too much

-

Because one Dreadnought should be scarier to run away from than two grots.