Falling back

[Atrus]

I think the 'combat overwatch' idea feels more balanced. With my Cults hat on, it feels a little unfair that my enemy can shoot me in his turn, and then shoot me again in my turn as I charge. We both get to fight in my turn, and then he falls back and the pattern repeats. So my opponent gets a round of full-strength shooting, a round of overwatch shooting, and potentially return hits in combat, versus my one round of combat attacks (and maybe pistol fire, but they're rubbish and often I don't want to make the charge longer anyway).

 

Given all this, why shouldn't there be a second version of overwatch that kicks in when someone leaves combat - maybe the non-fleeing unit makes another round of attacks, but only hits on 6s. After all, firepower overwatch isn't limited to one shot per model, so why should combat overwatch be?

 

And then, like overwatch, allow factions to have rules that modify all this. Off the top of my head, Tau have the 'lots of squads can overwatch' rule, and someone has a 'overwatch on 5s' rule; on the other hand, the Cult have a no overwatch relic and a no overwatch psychic power. Perhaps there could be a 'photon grenades' stratagem, allowing a squad to temporarily blind their opponents and fall back without risking combat overwatch. And a rule in which squads with a lashwhip in them get to combat overwatch on 5s.

Seconded. This I feel is the simplest and most on point method and works as a nice counter balance to the shooting overwatch.

 

Maybe even add in some kind of dice roll for the unit wanting to fall back that they have to pass in order to fall back.

I mean if a charging unit has to suffer shooting overwatch and possibly still fail their charge, why can't a unit wanting to fall back suffer similar?

Maybe something like d6+movement and then negative the amount of hits (or wounds or models lost) they suffer. If the result of the roll doesn't meet a certain requirement then the fall back fails?

 

Alternatively; to make Ld matter. Have the roll be d6+Ld then negative as previously mentioned and then compare to movement. If the result exceeds the movement then the fall back succeeds, if not it fails.

.....aaaaand I just realised that last one falls apart for units with big movement.

[Panzer]

Those are way too many steps, guys. Anything that's more than a single check is too much for something like that.

[Wulf Vengis]

Too many steps.

 

That's why i said this.

 

A fall back action could be handled during the movement phase.

 

Strategic Withdrawl: Sometimes standing and fighting is a lost cause or a unit may be better suited elsewhere on the battlefield.

At the beginning of the movement phase a unit locked in close combat can declare it is attempting a strategic withdrawl. The unit takes an unmodified leadership test using the highest leadership in that unit. If the test succeeds the unit breaks off from combat and follows the normal rules for Falling Back.

 

Cut Down Attack: However, withdrawing from close combat is dangerous and enemy combatants may take advantage of this impromptu retreat.

When making a Strategic Withdrawl, before moving any models, the enemy unit/s that were previously locked in combat with the withdrawing unit may attempt a Cut Down attack, roll a d6 and add their movement score. If the total equals or exceeds the withdrawing units movement score the members of the enemy unit attempt to cut down their opponents. Each model within 1 inch of the withdrawing unit gets one close combat attack against the withdrawing unit.

If the withdrawing unit suffers any wounds this way they must take a leadership test to perform any further actions this turn. This leadership test follows the standard rules for penalties based on morale.

 

I'm not sure about the last part, what does everyone else think?

 

Edit:

Strategic Withdrawl: A unit that fails to pass the leadership test for Strategic Withdrawl remainslocked in combat.

 

Edit:

Cut Down Attack: These attacks are made using their models unmodified WS rolls.

[Rogue]

How about this?

 

The unit wishing to fall back rolls 2d6, and moves that far (a reverse charge move, if you like).

 

The unit fallen back from (assuming it's free to move and not otherwise still pinned in combat) also rolls 2d6 and moves that far. If that is sufficient to reengage the unit trying to fall back, then the fall back fails and the units remain in combat (only now, you've pulled the enemy assault units further into your lines, oops). Alternatively, the unit move use that move distance in another way - moving into cover, out of line of sight, or (depending on how punitive you want to be) consolidating into another enemy unit.

 

It's relatively simple - just 2d6 for each player, followed by a move. It does shift the balance of power, as the falling back unit would need to roll higher to avoid being re-engaged, although as ever, modifiers could be applied (falling back unit rolls 3d6 because of photon grenades, or is limited to d6 because of opponents lash whips, and so on). And it gives a lot of flexibility to the unit fallen back from, but perhaps that could represent the general panic caused by assault units hitting your lines, and the morale effect of watching that line crumble away, allowing said assault units to rampage. 

[Slasher956]

Different idea ....make fall back a stratagem!

 

Edit - this gives it a cost v reward (spending of cp)

[Claws and Effect]

Different idea ....make fall back a stratagem!

 

Edit - this gives it a cost v reward (spending of cp)

That would unfairly punish armies that are strong at shooting but weak in melee.

 

Not only do they have to give up their shooting for the turn, but they'd also have to spend precious command points to do it?

 

Think of the scenario of a unit of hammernators that charged into a unit of Tau.

 

The Terminators pummel the Tau, who probably aren't going to do anything in return. Then the Tau have to spend a command point AND sacrifice their shooting phase to give other units a chance to shoot at the Terminators. Terminators with storm shields are a tough nut to crack, leaving the very likely scenario of wasting a command point just to watch the unit get beat to death next turn.

[Panzer]

Basic stuff shouldn't be handled via Stratagems.

 

Imo the LD check variant is still the way to go but at this point it's just personal preference about wishlisting so I won't bother arguing about it lol

[Vermintide]

I'm not so sure this even really addresses a problem that needs solving.

 

If you're doing melee "properly", your aim is to wipe out one unit and consolidate into the next one. It's rare to be in a situation where this penalty to falling back would actually make a difference to your opponent's strategy- It's still better than staying tied up, so it would still be a no brainer. I think something like making fall back and consolidate (maybe even an old school sweeping advance if one rolls less than the other) rely on a D6 might help more. This gives units falling back a similar risk value to assaulting units, and it gives consolidating units the potential of more freedom to manoeuvre after their initial charge. I'd also remove the requirement for consolidation to be "towards the nearest enemy".

 

There would be a risk/reward to pulling out of melee, because you'd potentially put your units in an even worse position, represented by them being unable to fall back in good order, and giving your opponent a chance to capitalise on it. You might then decide it's more worthwhile staying put, forcing the assaulter to use another round of attacks before they can move on to a fresh target. Conversely assaulting units would have an opportunity to reposition instead of standing out in the open to get shot after a successful assault.

 

Disclaimer: I haven't thought about this very hard, but the current system really doesn't feel right to me.

 

How about this?

 

The unit wishing to fall back rolls 2d6, and moves that far (a reverse charge move, if you like).

 

The unit fallen back from (assuming it's free to move and not otherwise still pinned in combat) also rolls 2d6 and moves that far. If that is sufficient to reengage the unit trying to fall back, then the fall back fails and the units remain in combat (only now, you've pulled the enemy assault units further into your lines, oops). Alternatively, the unit move use that move distance in another way - moving into cover, out of line of sight, or (depending on how punitive you want to be) consolidating into another enemy unit.

 

It's relatively simple - just 2d6 for each player, followed by a move. It does shift the balance of power, as the falling back unit would need to roll higher to avoid being re-engaged, although as ever, modifiers could be applied (falling back unit rolls 3d6 because of photon grenades, or is limited to d6 because of opponents lash whips, and so on). And it gives a lot of flexibility to the unit fallen back from, but perhaps that could represent the general panic caused by assault units hitting your lines, and the morale effect of watching that line crumble away, allowing said assault units to rampage.

Basically, this, yes. I like it.

[Panzer]

I'm not so sure this even really addresses a problem that needs solving.

 

If you're doing melee "properly", your aim is to wipe out one unit and consolidate into the next one. It's rare to be in a situation where this penalty to falling back would actually make a difference to your opponent's strategy- It's still better than staying tied up, so it would still be a no brainer.

 

I'm not talking about a penalty for falling back. I'm talking about a check to be allowed to fall back in the first place. That's a big difference.

 

[Vermintide]

 

I'm not so sure this even really addresses a problem that needs solving.

 

If you're doing melee "properly", your aim is to wipe out one unit and consolidate into the next one. It's rare to be in a situation where this penalty to falling back would actually make a difference to your opponent's strategy- It's still better than staying tied up, so it would still be a no brainer.

 

I'm not talking about a penalty for falling back. I'm talking about a check to be allowed to fall back in the first place. That's a big difference.

 

 

 

And I'm not talking about whatever you said either, I'm talking about the original idea of melee/fall back overwatch.

[Panzer]

 

 

I'm not so sure this even really addresses a problem that needs solving.

 

If you're doing melee "properly", your aim is to wipe out one unit and consolidate into the next one. It's rare to be in a situation where this penalty to falling back would actually make a difference to your opponent's strategy- It's still better than staying tied up, so it would still be a no brainer.

 

I'm not talking about a penalty for falling back. I'm talking about a check to be allowed to fall back in the first place. That's a big difference.

 

 

 

And I'm not talking about whatever you said either, I'm talking about the original idea of melee/fall back overwatch.

 

 

I see. On page 3 and not quoting anything I simply assumed you were responding to the last post made.

[Trevak Dal]

Yes! There needs to be close combat overwatch on a unit that falls back out of close combat.

That sounds interesting, and could give more value to pistols in units that have options to not take them. But maybe -1 bs instead of hitting on 6s?

[McElMcNinja]

My suggestion for this would be to add a Fall Back phase right before the charge phase. If a unit is within 1" of an enemy unit at the beginning of the phase they may fall back their movement plus d6", they may not move through enemy models and may not move closer to enemy units.

[MARK0SIAN]

My suggestion for this would be to add a Fall Back phase right before the charge phase. If a unit is within 1" of an enemy unit at the beginning of the phase they may fall back their movement plus d6", they may not move through enemy models and may not move closer to enemy units.

I think it’s an interesting idea, changing when units would fall back. However I don’t think any unit should go further when falling back than they can in their normal move. If anything it should be less.

[Slasher956]

I think make the fall back phase happen after the psychic phase but before the shooting phase 

add a clause that no movement powers can be cast on engaged units

 

fall back phase:

pick a unit in combat

take a leadership check - modified by -1 per unit engaged with (some units can increase this.)

if LD check failed then unit stays in combat

if passed then the unit may fall back the number of inches of the leadership check up to their normal move with a min of 3".

 

so a unit of guardians (ld 8) want to fall back

they are in combat with 1 unit of marines so check on Ld 7

they pass with a 6 so can fall back 6"

 

or a uint of sisters (ld 8) with uriah in range (so ld 9)

in combat with 1 unit so check on a 8

pass on a 7 but fall back 6" - their max move

[Panzer]

There's no need for an additional phase imo. If you want to move it out of the movement phase just put it into the charge phase.

 

Having it before the shooting phase but after the psychic phase would just be unnecessary bloat compared to having it in the movement phase as it is currently but moving it to after the shooting phase would remove the 'issue' of having a unit fall back and the rest of the army shoot at the melee unit ... whether that's a good idea or not is up to debate though.

[Slasher956]

issue with putting it in the charge phase is the (shock) special rules of some factions that allow them to shoot or otherwise interact out side of the core rules.

 

So the nicest / least work approach* is to make a new phase.

 

*ok the LEAST least work is just to add the LD check to falling back in the movement phase and adding the limitation on giving targeting them with friendly movement psychic powers :p

[Panzer]

issue with putting it in the charge phase is the (shock) special rules of some factions that allow them to shoot or otherwise interact out side of the core rules.

 

So the nicest / least work approach* is to make a new phase.

 

*ok the LEAST least work is just to add the LD check to falling back in the movement phase and adding the limitation on giving targeting them with friendly movement psychic powers

 

I don't see how that's a problem. Do you have any concrete examples?

[Slasher956]

example ultramarines can fallback and shoot.

 

If you put fall back in to the charge phase that special rule* then the UMs are locked in combat in the shooting phase and so cant make use of that rule as they already can use their pistols in the core rules.

 

So the extra work required is do you - a) put up with UMs moaning 

re-write the rule

c) give the UMs a rule that allows them to fall back at a different time

 

 

* rule in question is 'codex discipline ' 

[Panzer]

Well it would require a re-wording but that's to be expected since it's a change in the core turn structure. I don't see why it should be impossible for them shoot in the charge phase after falling back like you shoot as part of overwatch during the charge phase. You could even go so far and let them only shoot at the unit they were in melee with.

[Slasher956]

yes it is possible ( I never said it wasnt)... but thats one example and my point is how much extra work would be required espically as I dont know 3/4s of the factions in the game so have no idea how many of these 'little changes' would be needed.... and woe betide if you miss one!

 

The idea (I thought) was to make a tweek to the rules on falling back, that is make a minor change with as little alterations as possible.... what you are talking about is a minor change with a number of extra alterations required to keep flavour and other rules from being worthless.

 

not saying one way is right or wrong

[Morticon]

Just came here to say that falling back (in any direction) with limited penalty/drawback to doing so is my biggest gripe with the game.  But....again, i will acknowledge that this is largely influenced by the fact I play BA.  

[Gederas]

Just came here to say that falling back (in any direction) with limited penalty/drawback to doing so is my biggest gripe with the game.  But....again, i will acknowledge that this is largely influenced by the fact I play BA.  

I mean, I'm in agreement. Then again, my only non-melee oriented army are my Dark Angels, so.... :lol:

[Panzer]

I agree too and I play T'au (as well as BA) so there's that. I think having working melee makes warhammer just so much more enjoyable for everyone involved.

[Schurge]

The whole close combat element in 40k is unrealistic. It's a setting where capital ships can bomb planets from orbit.

 

It's only there because it's cool, but I wouldn't get caught up on what is or isn't realistic, especially in the game rules themselves.

 

But you will still bring it up after dismissing what everyone thus far has said without fully understanding what they are asking for. But since you mentioned it... yeah, in current year melee combat on a battlefield makes little sense. If engaged in melee our soldiers are trained to get enough space to bring the gun back into play.

 

In 40k if you are just looking at space marines vs. space marines it still doesn't make sense, yeah their armor allows them to bring a sword to a gunfight but you would still always be better off with a gun. However, if you start to look at the universe as a whole it starts to make a lot more sense. You've got giant bugs that number in the billions and they will drown your gunline in bodies. You've got space vampires who feed off of close proximity to suffering and who dodge bullets like Neo. You've got daemons that can instantly materialize in front of your face and whom all favor slapping you in the face with a meat cleaver. You've got death cults who have the incentive to try to chop you up and have the means to do so. You take all this into consideration and melee is something that is realistic and something you should be prepared for.

 

All of that said, the current rules don't actually reflect the fictional reality aside from possibly in regards to the Tyrannids. If the Alien or Neo is in your face you aren't just "falling back." Even against the death cults you aren't without first momentarily disabling them so you can bring the gun back into play.

 

Oh, and your point about orbital bombardment is akin to saying infantry are unrealistic today since we have IBMs.

 

But, like you said, melee is in the rules and meant to be a viable means of solving problems because reasons. Right now it really isn't whether or not a turn one charge is possible. A lot of things in this game are possible.