Falling back

[TorvaldTheMild]

Do you think it would be fair for a falling back unit to be shot by the unit its falling back from hitting on 6's?  This doesn't really effect me as my WE's take chainaxes and chainswords and what they charge don't really get the opportunity to fall back lol. but it does kinda make sense from a realistic point of view, its in the same vein as overwatch, which was more or less a realistic rule.  Just want to see how many people would be okay with it or at least think its realistic or fair or unrealistic and not fair?

[MegaVolt87]

If GW didn't mess with it with extra special rules on top like how we currently have some factions have overwatch+, then a power creep of ignore over watch, then sure. GW can't seem to help themselves in adding a base core rule that is unnecessarily buffed or ignored, thus robbing it of value/ consequence. So no, unless they can show restraint. 

[TorvaldTheMild]

If GW didn't mess with it with extra special rules on top like how we currently have some factions have overwatch+, then a power creep of ignore over watch, then sure. GW can't seem to help themselves in adding a base core rule that is unnecessarily buffed or ignored, thus robbing it of value/ consequence. So no, unless they can show restraint. 

I don't mind those rules for the odd unit, but I hate it when GW do that army wide, I agree with you on that but also with falling back, it takes away the safety of the unit that charged , as the next turn the unit can fall back and another unit can shoot at that unit, which I like as its dynamic and adds to tactics, like for my other armies, its amazing and gets you out of tight spots but yet again its another debuff for CC units and armies.  I think there should be a price for falling back, not being able to shoot isn't enough, you don't get to shoot when you advance either because you are running and they are running for their lives, they basically get to run out of combat for free, like if a unit fights and falls back they are going to get hit in their backs by axes etc.  I understand that GW want shooting to be more powerful and I can live with that as it should be, its better to have your enemy at a distance but I think they go a bit over the top with it sometimes.

[MegaVolt87]

Its not a bad idea I like it as a core rule of the game, I am just a bit jaded with how core mechanics of the edition are rendered irreverent or a minor annoyance, created by power creep. To me, whats the point of a core rule existing if its eventually going to be mitigated or ignored by faction(s) wide. Would be better if there were limited units that get such mechanics than faction wide boosts that mitigate core parts of the rules. 

[TorvaldTheMild]

Its not a bad idea I like it as a core rule of the game, I am just a bit jaded with how core mechanics of the edition are rendered irreverent or a minor annoyance, created by power creep. To me, whats the point of a core rule existing if its eventually going to be mitigated or ignored by faction(s) wide. Would be better if there were limited units that get such mechanics than faction wide boosts that mitigate core parts of the rules. 

Totally agree, its like moral everyone suffers from that even if its not in the lore yet you have units like Banshees that negate overwatch and Eldar is one of the armies I collect.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, either go back to 7th where the rules were fluffy or do the universal thing, you can't have both.  Especially considering the army traits, I mean some of these are way too powerful like the new SM's ones where they not only get extremely powerful chapter traits they also get another trait on top of that and you look at some other armies traits, like the SW's one is laughable, its so weak that I forget to use it, plus they don't even get their own special rule when other chapters have multiple.  Anyway that's my moan over.

[kombatwombat]

Since the change to being able to waltz away from combat uncaringly I’ve thought there should be something similar but different. As has been said, you turn your back on Khârn the Betrayer you’re copping a chainaxe where the sun don’t shine. Therefore I wouldn’t say the unit should be allowed to shoot the fleeing enemy, but rather hit them. Also, given the enormous power disparity between shooting and close combat this edition, and the fact that falling back is essentially a death sentence for the unit left out in the open, the penalty for falling back should be much sharper. You should still be allowed to fall back, but you should be lucky to escape alive. My proposal is:

 

“Cut Down: When a unit declares that it will make a Fall Back move, before any models are moved, the unit(s) it is Falling Back from may declare that they will make a Cut Down action.

 

Each model in a unit making a Cut Down action that is within 1” of the unit that is Falling Back may attack the unit that is Falling Back as if it were the Fight Phase, but may not make any Pile In or Consolidation moves. A model may not make Cut Down attacks if it is within 1” of any enemy model that is not part of the unit that is Falling Back.

 

After the Cut Down attacks have been resolved, the Falling Back unit continues Falling Back as normal. A model (unit?) may not make more than one Cut Down action per turn.”

[Panzer]

Something like Overwatch against units that fall back sounds good, though I'd rather have the unit falling back requirering a LD test before doing so in the first place. LD (and LD reducing abilities) needs to become important again.

[TorvaldTheMild]

Since the change to being able to waltz away from combat uncaringly I’ve thought there should be something similar but different. As has been said, you turn your back on Khârn the Betrayer you’re copping a chainaxe where the sun don’t shine. Therefore I wouldn’t say the unit should be allowed to shoot the fleeing enemy, but rather hit them. Also, given the enormous power disparity between shooting and close combat this edition, and the fact that falling back is essentially a death sentence for the unit left out in the open, the penalty for falling back should be much sharper. You should still be allowed to fall back, but you should be lucky to escape alive. My proposal is:

 

“Cut Down: When a unit declares that it will make a Fall Back move, before any models are moved, the unit(s) it is Falling Back from may declare that they will make a Cut Down action.

 

Each model in a unit making a Cut Down action that is within 1” of the unit that is Falling Back may attack the unit that is Falling Back as if it were the Fight Phase, but may not make any Pile In or Consolidation moves. A model may not make Cut Down attacks if it is within 1” of any enemy model that is not part of the unit that is Falling Back.

 

After the Cut Down attacks have been resolved, the Falling Back unit continues Falling Back as normal. A model (unit?) may not make more than one Cut Down action per turn.”

That sounds good to me.

Something like Overwatch against units that fall back sounds good, though I'd rather have the unit falling back requirering a LD test before doing so in the first place. LD (and LD reducing abilities) needs to become important again.

I could also live with that but with a -modifier for falling back.  Say minus 2+ the models you lose in the fight.  Maybe even add in 'gone to ground' to give you some sort of defense after the unit has fallen back though I doubt that would gel well.  Still an idea though.

[MARK0SIAN]

Falling back units should have to take a morale check as if the unit had suffered 100% casualties.

 

It would make falling back a bit of a risk and could even see the unit wiped out like the old sweeping advance rules.

[Grimdark_Garage]

I would allow pistols to make an "Overwatch" attack when an enemy unit falls back.

Makes Pistols a little more useful.

[TorvaldTheMild]

I would allow pistols to make an "Overwatch" attack when an enemy unit falls back.

Makes Pistols a little more useful.

Nah, they'd have plenty of time to aim and fire with any weapons.  I'm suggesting it be overwatch just so its not so OP that no one would ever fall back, but in real like if you run you are pretty much dead, especially if they are out in the open and have no cover.

[Panzer]

 

I would allow pistols to make an "Overwatch" attack when an enemy unit falls back.

Makes Pistols a little more useful.

Nah, they'd have plenty of time to aim and fire with any weapons.  I'm suggesting it be overwatch just so its not so OP that no one would ever fall back, but in real like if you run you are pretty much dead, especially if they are out in the open and have no cover.

 

 

That's why they don't run when they fall back. It's a tactical retreat. If they actually 'run' that's represented by failing a morale check.

[Aarik]

I'd say that the unit that's being fallen back from should be able to make "overwatch" close combat attacks: they make their normal amount of attacks and hit on 6+ like overwatch.

 

Also wouldn't be opposed to a leadership test being needed to fall back.

[Lexington]

Falling back units should have to take a morale check as if the unit had suffered 100% casualties.

 

It would make falling back a bit of a risk and could even see the unit wiped out like the old sweeping advance rules.

This would be extremely rad, except for all the Ld mitigation/negation across so many units and factions. :(

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

 

I would allow pistols to make an "Overwatch" attack when an enemy unit falls back.

Makes Pistols a little more useful.

Nah, they'd have plenty of time to aim and fire with any weapons.  I'm suggesting it be overwatch just so its not so OP that no one would ever fall back, but in real like if you run you are pretty much dead, especially if they are out in the open and have no cover.

 

 

That's why they don't run when they fall back. It's a tactical retreat. If they actually 'run' that's represented by failing a morale check.

 

No its, both.  GW doesn't specify that and in real life you have both holy grail 'run away' and a 'tactical retreat', though you are still going to get shot up by a tactical retreat in most cases.

[toaae]

White Scars have a stratagem that I, in my bias as a CC-focused player, would love to be implemented into the base rules:

 

Butchered Quarry (1CP) - Use this stratagem when an enemy unit Falls Back within 1" of any White Scars Infantry or White Scars Biker units from your army, before it moves. Select one of those White Scars units that is not within 1" of any other enemy units; each model in the selected unit can make one attack with a melee weapon against that enemy unit as if it were within 1" of it. After these attacks are made, if that enemy unit is not destroyed, it can then make its Fall Back move; after it has moved, each model in the selected unit can move up to 3", so long as they end this move closer to that enemy unit and not within 1" of any enemy units

A reverse overwatch that is actually thematic and practical. If it were a base rule (or another universal stratagem, even), then there would be room for chafe units to stand by important units, for the purpose of protecting the important units during fall back. A lot of balance issues would probably come up, with the importance of tri-pointing and everything, but it's just something I really like from that supplement.

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

White Scars have a stratagem that I, in my bias as a CC-focused player, would love to be implemented into the base rules:

 

 

Butchered Quarry (1CP) - Use this stratagem when an enemy unit Falls Back within 1" of any White Scars Infantry or White Scars Biker units from your army, before it moves. Select one of those White Scars units that is not within 1" of any other enemy units; each model in the selected unit can make one attack with a melee weapon against that enemy unit as if it were within 1" of it. After these attacks are made, if that enemy unit is not destroyed, it can then make its Fall Back move; after it has moved, each model in the selected unit can move up to 3", so long as they end this move closer to that enemy unit and not within 1" of any enemy units

 

A reverse overwatch that is actually thematic and practical. If it were a base rule (or another universal stratagem, even), then there would be room for chafe units to stand by important units, for the purpose of protecting the important units during fall back. A lot of balance issues would probably come up, with the importance of tri-pointing and everything, but it's just something I really like from that supplement.

 

There isn't really balance issues as anyone can fall back and anyone will be able to use said rule if its made universal, some armies will benefit more but CC need a buff as well so it still won't even close the gap compared to dakka armies.  Dakka is not only extremely strong but they have lots of rules like overwatch 'eldar and taus over watch is brutal' and overwatch only makes sense as a realistic rule and is basically a free round of shooting, because if they wanted to follow through on the realism we would have the rule we are discussing and also you'd be able to at least shoot your pistols at a unit you are charging.  That's always seemed really daft to me, GW say that units aren't just going to sit there and let you charge them without shotting but by the same token a unit that is charging with pistols isn't going to forgo shooting them just because they are charging, they'd shoot them until they were close enough to use their melee weapons, also even rapid fire/flamer bearers would spray at the unit they are charging and then shoulder barge into the unit after charging.  I think GW are really selective when it comes to "realism".  

[Grimdark_Garage]

 

I would allow pistols to make an "Overwatch" attack when an enemy unit falls back.

Makes Pistols a little more useful.

Nah, they'd have plenty of time to aim and fire with any weapons.  I'm suggesting it be overwatch just so its not so OP that no one would ever fall back, but in real like if you run you are pretty much dead, especially if they are out in the open and have no cover.

 

 

When ive discussed this in the past i have suggested the exact same. However its just adding more bloat to an already bloated game. Hence the  idea for just pistols.

 

Like has been suggested, a simple mechanic to see if that unit can even fall back?

 

Players Roll off

Move characteristics are added to the result

If the unit wishing to fall back wins, it falls back

If it loses, they suffer a -1 to hit penalty in the proceeding combat phase

 

Risk vs Reward !

 

This could even replace the FLY "fall back for free" rule considering the FLY unit likley has an unbeatable move charcterstic against infantry, but not against other FLY units ;)

 

Infact i like this!

 

You would need to add a rule to FLYERS to say they cant stay in combat but thats simple enough.

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

 

I would allow pistols to make an "Overwatch" attack when an enemy unit falls back.

Makes Pistols a little more useful.

Nah, they'd have plenty of time to aim and fire with any weapons.  I'm suggesting it be overwatch just so its not so OP that no one would ever fall back, but in real like if you run you are pretty much dead, especially if they are out in the open and have no cover.

 

 

When ive discussed this in the past i have suggested the exact same. However its just adding more bloat to an already bloated game. Hence the  idea for just pistols.

 

Like has been suggested, a simple mechanic to see if that unit can even fall back?

 

Players Roll off

Move characteristics are added to the result

If the unit wishing to fall back wins, it falls back

If it loses, they suffer a -1 to hit penalty in the proceeding combat phase

 

Risk vs Reward !

 

This could even replace the FLY "fall back for free" rule considering the FLY unit likley has an unbeatable move charcterstic against infantry, but not against other FLY units

 

Infact i like this!

 

You would need to add a rule to FLYERS to say they cant stay in combat but thats simple enough.

 

Your version is more complicated though.  

[Grimdark_Garage]

 

 

 

I would allow pistols to make an "Overwatch" attack when an enemy unit falls back.

Makes Pistols a little more useful.

Nah, they'd have plenty of time to aim and fire with any weapons.  I'm suggesting it be overwatch just so its not so OP that no one would ever fall back, but in real like if you run you are pretty much dead, especially if they are out in the open and have no cover.

 

 

When ive discussed this in the past i have suggested the exact same. However its just adding more bloat to an already bloated game. Hence the  idea for just pistols.

 

Like has been suggested, a simple mechanic to see if that unit can even fall back?

 

Players Roll off

Move characteristics are added to the result

If the unit wishing to fall back wins, it falls back

If it loses, they suffer a -1 to hit penalty in the proceeding combat phase

 

Risk vs Reward !

 

This could even replace the FLY "fall back for free" rule considering the FLY unit likley has an unbeatable move charcterstic against infantry, but not against other FLY units

 

Infact i like this!

 

You would need to add a rule to FLYERS to say they cant stay in combat but thats simple enough.

 

Your version is more complicated though.  

 

 

 

In comparison to an overwatch attack? Potentially but is applicable to all units without having to roll a bunch of dice again, splitting the different wepaon profiles and any re-rolls etc etc.

 

I think both methods have merit, though the "overwatch" approach could get messy and incur more "odd" moments and rule clarrifications than a roll off with effects.

Its also a different mechanic than re-hashing overwatch.

[Wulf Vengis]

There used to be a rule for falling back where the two units rolled a d6+initiative and the highest roll wings. Falling back unit wins they break away, falling back unit loses they were considered wiped out and removed. I believe units with ATSKNF weren't wiped out the combat just restarted/continued and no models were moved.

 

All of this came AFTER the usual morale etc for losing combat.

[Grimdark_Garage]

@Wulf Vengis that's exactly how I remeber the rule prior to 8th (it could have been different in 7th but I didn't play all that much in 7th)

 

Could be the reason I think falling back should incur some risk

[Panzer]

It got pretty much replaced with the casualties for failing the morale check based on lost models. Hence why I think falling back shouldn't make you lose any models. A LD check whether you can fall back in the first place makes a LOT more sense this edition.

[TorvaldTheMild]

It got pretty much replaced with the casualties for failing the morale check based on lost models. Hence why I think falling back shouldn't make you lose any models. A LD check whether you can fall back in the first place makes a LOT more sense this edition.

well that's another problem in my opinion.  I hate morale in this addition, I think its silly to lose models to morale, its just a contrived way to make the game shorter, which is made worse by all the mortal wounds in the game. I'd rather have negative modifiers for models losing morale, like they can only hit on 6's as they are trying to run for cover or they can't advance or charge, or something like that.  Because its so bad for units like cultists or guard etc.  They are already glass and morale just makes them so much more fragile.  

[Lemondish]

 

 

It got pretty much replaced with the casualties for failing the morale check based on lost models. Hence why I think falling back shouldn't make you lose any models. A LD check whether you can fall back in the first place makes a LOT more sense this edition.

well that's another problem in my opinion. I hate morale in this addition, I think its silly to lose models to morale, its just a contrived way to make the game shorter, which is made worse by all the mortal wounds in the game. I'd rather have negative modifiers for models losing morale, like they can only hit on 6's as they are trying to run for cover or they can't advance or charge, or something like that. Because its so bad for units like cultists or guard etc. They are already glass and morale just makes them so much more fragile.

That's not really true, though, is it? Both of those examples have an easy to manage way to ignore the morale mechanic entirely.