Falling back

[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.

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

 

Not if you state that 'you can't use any modifiers on a unit that has failed morale.

[The Unseen]

I don't like overwatch copies, mostly because it further makes horde units better than elite units, just from weight of attacks.

 

But, having to pass a morale check of some kind to fall back, that I want to see.

Morale dropping go 1d6 makes it awkward though, since you can't fail without a penalty of some kind for most units.

 

I would say I'd never want units to fail to run away, just because the game is heavily based around it.

But, if you try to fall back, and fail the morale check, you should start dying.

 

Maybe bring back combat resolution?

Currently the rules allow silly things like units simultaneously failing morale and both squads run for example.

I wouldn't mind units in combat to not have to take morale if they did more damage to the enemy than they received.

 

And it would also let combat morale checks matter to single model units.

 

Basically, compare # of wounds inflicted by both sides, ignore wounds inflicted in any phase other than the assault phase. You aren't worried about what shot you before, your in melee now! (This is mostly to keep it simple, and don't have to keep track or casualties from earlier as well as wounds now, but if you wanted an absolutely punishing melee morale phase you could use both)

The loser takes morale as normal, with a penalty of the # of wounds they lost combat by, rather than straight casualties.

 

In the next movement phase, if someone wishes to fall back, they take morale again, penalty the same as the preceding morale phase.

Units that can normally freely walk out of combat, like knights vs infantry, ignore this. But not just for having the FLY keyword.

 

Fixes several problems at once, morale never mattering for 1 model units, and being able to freely fall back.

 

Also makes sense intuitively, a unit who was almost overrun (meaning lost combat by a lot) is less likely to be able to cleanly break away from the fight without suffering further losses.

Whereas a unit that counter attacked so hard they basically went even has a much easier time performing a tactical retreat.

 

And also, would mean that a vehicle that shouldn't be in combat has to watch out, as trying to fall back after having some wounds taken previously can lead to some further damage, as the troops you let assault you clamber over your vehicle and continue being a pest as you try to bug out.

Helps make up for the loss of grenades in combat.

Edited September 29, 2019 by The Unseen

[Panzer]

I don't like overwatch copies, mostly because it further makes horde units better than elite units, just from weight of attacks.

 

But, having to pass a morale check of some kind to fall back, that I want to see.

Morale dropping go 1d6 makes it awkward though, since you can't fail without a penalty of some kind for most units.

 

 

The 1d6 only goes for actual morale checks. There are plenty of effects that tell you to roll against LD with 2d6 or even 3d6 or a simple roll-off of 1d6+LD (though that wouldn't make much sense in this case imo).

[The Unseen]

Yeah, except most units also lost a point or 2 of leadership compared to previous editions, so going back to straight 2d6 doesn't really work anymore, unless you go back and adjust EVERY unit.

And 2d6 morale with mortal wounds equal to your failures is way too spiky to be fun.

A marine unit could lose 1 guy, roll boxcars, and his 4 buddies just dissapear.

Guard it's even worse.

Base leadership of what, 6 now?

So 1 guy dies, roll boxcars, and suddenly you have a sergeant and 1 guy left.

What?

[Panzer]

Yeah, except most units also lost a point or 2 of leadership compared to previous editions, so going back to straight 2d6 doesn't really work anymore, unless you go back and adjust EVERY unit.

And 2d6 morale with mortal wounds equal to your failures is way too spiky to be fun.

A marine unit could lose 1 guy, roll boxcars, and his 4 buddies just dissapear.

Guard it's even worse.

Base leadership of what, 6 now?

So 1 guy dies, roll boxcars, and suddenly you have a sergeant and 1 guy left.

What?

 

Most units still have an Ld value between 6 and 8 so it would work well enough imo. And as I said before I wouldn't make them lose models for falling back at all.

[Helias_Tancred]

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

[Slasher956]

hows this for an answer:

 

To fallback a unit must take a Ld check using the units lowest leadership.  If successful the unit may make a free movement up to their movement state.  If this check is failed then every engaged enemy may make one attack per point the check is failed by up to their Attack stat.  All survivors may then make a fall back move as though the leadership check was passed.  Models with the FLY keyword have the amount of attacks received halved to a minimum of 1 per attacking model.

 

So a sister unit (Ld 7 as only the sup. in ld 8) checks, if they pass they walk away like now, if they roll a 10 then every model engaged with them makes up to 3 attacks depending on how many they have, then the survivors walk away

Edited October 3, 2019 by Slasher956

[Ishagu]

Falling back is fine as it is. Limiting it or punishing it more hurts the game in terms of mobility, strategic positioning, etc

[Slasher956]

the issue with fallingback is that its so easy compared with the difficulty of getting a CC unit in to combat!

 

look in the sisters forum about the issues with the penitent engines...IF they get there they then have 1 turn to kill stuff otherwise the opponent walks out of combat and shoots you to bits.

 

How can stopping someone from running away from combat hurt mobility or stragic positioning 

[Grimdark_Garage]

Why not take a leaf out of the Walking Dead Minature Game.

 

At the start of each combat, the different combats are segregated into groups (melees).

You identify which units are involved in what melees. This will segregate units form the rest of the battle for the purpose of melee.

It will also mean that if you want to tag another unit in combat, you will need to first win a melee. 

 

Attacks occur the same as they do now. Activate>Pile in>Attack

 

Once all melees have been resolved, you can then tally up how many wounds were removed from each side per melee.

The winnner/s are the units who lost fewer wounds.

Any unit that was involved in a melee where all enemies models were destroyed are automatically the winners.

 

We then swicth to the morale phase!

 

Any unit that lost a melee must take morale on 2D6.

if that unit fails they may choose to either :

- Lose that many models as per the usual rules for morale and remains in combat

- Choose to retreat. They make a 6" move in the opposite direction to the unit/s they are in combat with.

   In doing so, they forfeit the ability to move or shoot in their proceeding turn (unless FLY).

   if the unit is unable to retreat, they are detsroyed.

ATSKNF - Marines still take morale on 1D6 and can re-roll.

 

Any unit that won a melee that is now no longer engaged in combat may make a free 6" move and may move within 1" of an enemy unit.

Similarly, a unit that won melee does not need make a morale test.

 

 

It does require some book keeping to keep track of / calculate wounds lost etc and is more conveluted to the current method.

But it does create a risk, buffs combat units and makes tagging units more difficult. Though there is an issue with this method where a unit gets tagged and cant fight back. hmmmmm

[Wulf Vengis]

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.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Wulf Vengis

[Ishagu]

Nah I think I prefer the current system. You can position the assaulting models in such a way as to prevent the retreat if you're careful, and the damage done in CC in one turn is typically enough to cripple a unit anyway.

[Wulf Vengis]

This isn't about units performing an assault however it's about units already locked in combat making an optional fall back move to break away. After the assault, after the pile in, after the consolidation, if the unit is still locked in a one sided combat and it's owner chooses to fall back, it shouldn't be easy nor should it be lacking in risk.

[Ishagu]

I disagree. There are armies that can assault multiple units on turn 1 before you ever fire a shot.

 

Your army might not be one of those, but they do exist.

[Wulf Vengis]

You disagree with what exactly?

 

We have over watch to deal with incoming assaults, this includes a multi-charge scenario, on ANY turn.

 

This is about making Fall Back less of a "get out of jail free" type of action. Adding a little risk to units that choose on their owners turn to withdraw from a close combat.

[Ishagu]

Falling back keeps the game more tactical, dynamic and mobile. I'm not in support of things that make the game more static for either opponent.

[Wulf Vengis]

What are you taking about?

 

Are you referring to a unit failing to fall back because of my suggestion of a leadership roll?

[Slasher956]

Falling back keeps the game more tactical, dynamic and mobile. I'm not in support of things that make the game more static for either opponent.

 

nobody has said remove fallback move... just making it more or a risk / reward

 

there are factions who can walk out of combat then shoot with no penalties,

what about walking out then claiming an objective (and winning the game!)

 

the majority idea is one of :

                Ld to do it

                attack of some sort on the falling back unit

                OR my idea Ld check to do without issue or fallback with attacks against you

[Ishagu]

A Ld test is fine, I wouldn't put any other penalties on it, certainly not free attacks.

[Wulf Vengis]

@Slasher: I like your idea of the leadership negating the enemy attacking the withdrawing unit. However i feel the only thing that would keep the ENEMY from getting those attacks is their own unpreparedness for the Withdrawl. That was why i relegated those attacks to a movement roll. Though i suppose it could be an opposed roll simulating opposing initiatives.

 

Both units roll a d6 and add their movement scores. If the Withdrawing unit wins this roll they will perform a strategic withdrawl (as described above). If the enemy unit wins this roll they may make Cut Down Attacks (as described above).

[Wulf Vengis]

@Ishagu: Thank you. That is much more helpful, and you are rightfully entitled to that stance on the topic.

 

I think the reason the extra attacks are being discussed is because there's just no way the enemy is going to let that unit just be like "uhm, we don't wanna fight you no more, so we're just go over there now. Byeee." Without at least trying to murder them from behind.

[Ishagu]

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.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Ishagu

[Wulf Vengis]

The whole reason this game exists is because it's based off of skirmish role paying game. Most of the rules in every edition have at least tried to hold some level of suspension of disbelief and escapism for the players. The rules try to keep some degree of fluffyness to them for that reason. Yes it's just plastic toy soldiers on a tabletop, but plastic toy soldiers have a "soul", a "heart", a "life".

We create these army lists with characters and backgrounds from this universe we love. The rules are trying to reflect that with their "fluffyness". It's why i always take that into account when i start theorizing these kinds of homebrew changes.

 

If we take all the fluff out of the rules we're just playing chess and this great game would die.

[Rogue]

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.

[Squike]

Something similar was talked about in another thread so I will post it here also, but only comment on the fall back items.

 

Slasher956, on 01 Oct 2019 - 3:51 PM, said:http://bolterandchainsword.com//public/style_images/carbon_red/snapback.png

 

ways to fix melee....

 

i) allow units to disembark after a vehicle has moved & charge

ii) allow units to charge after advancing

iii) give units that advance a -1 to being hit by ranged attacks

 

iv) leadership check to fallback, 

v)units to fall back D6", if they dont get 4+" away then the other unit can consolidate in to them again 

vi) -1 or -2 to hit units that where in combat at the start of the turn  (ie its easier to shoot the unit with pistols when your in combat with them than to fall back and allow another unit to shoot them)

vii) if a unit falls back then the opposition unit(s) gets an immediate round of combat against them (or at least 1 attack each)

 

iv) I like this one, although not sure if it should be an inverse leadership test or not, like you have to fail a leadership test to fall back not pass it. I can see a guard squad failing moral and running out from combat but not a battle hardened marine leaving combat where they are "fluff wise anyway" meant to be middle of the field shoot them up and then get stuck in units.

 

v) I like this as well it symbolizes the scramble to escape and the difficulty of disengaging when an Ork is trying to pound you to mush.

 

vii) I'm not sure about this one, as it could then be suicide to fall back from something like berzerkers, maybe use the leadership test part to fall back and use the same failed leadership rules to remove casualty that died trying to disengage.

 

 

 

Having read some of the above I feel slightly different about points raised and have come up with something below that i believe is fluffy and fair.

 

I think combing a fall back option roll and some sort of leadership test to fall back is good, and having consequences for passing and failing them as well.

 

I don't necessarily think a unit should be allowed to fall back and not be stuck in combat, I think some kind of movement roll off should be done first, based on each units movement characteristic and a D6, with the falling back unit having to achieve a total greater than the opponent.

For example if the falling back (FB) unit has a movement of 10" and the "chasing" unit has a movement of 6" they each roll a D6, the FB unit rolls a 4 and the chase unit rolls a 3. The FB unit is then allowed to disengage the distance of the difference, if the rolls were 1 and 5 respectively then the unit would be stuck in combat for the turn.

 

Now we know if the unit can fall back or not and how far the unit can move.

 

Next we see if the make a tactical withdrawal or run for their lives. The falling back unit takes a moral test on either 2D6 or maybe 3D3, if the unit fails its moral test then it runs from the combat and the chasing unit can fight as if it were the fight phase. ( I feel like this could be too OP for some units but then again fluff wise fleeing madly from a squad of berzerkers is just as likely to get you slaughtered as you are defenseless when running away.)

If you pass your moral test then you make a tactical withdrawal and the chase unit attacks in a similar style to overwatch, the same rules apply as for the fight phase as to which models can make attacks but a 6 is needed to make a hit. (allowing similar modifiers as in the overwatch stage for charging) 

 

once all damage has been resolved the remaining models of the falling back squad make there movement and must finish 1" away from any enemy models.

Edited October 5, 2019 by Squike