PDA

View Full Version : "Fall Back in Good Order" [please explain]



Gabacho Mk.II
05-12-2009, 07:24
Has anyone come across that bit??

I assume that it comes from Warhammer Historical Battles?


Lastly, could this (FBiGO) be a term (or rule?) that might be applied in 8th ed?



Anyone?


[Am sorry, but I dont own any WHB armybooks or rules]

snurl
05-12-2009, 07:31
I think it means "to retreat without running and screaming"

enyoss
05-12-2009, 08:03
It's in Warhammer Historical Battles (WHB).

I can't remember the rule exactly and am nowhere near my rulebook, but I think it's when you flee and immediately rally after moving. Some of the elite units have it as a rule.

I seriously doubt it will be appearing in 8th edition, although I think there's plenty of rules in WHB which would fit very nicely into Warhammer Fantasy (this one being one of them).

xragg
05-12-2009, 08:05
In a nutshell, FBiGO allows a unit to fall back instead of actually breaking. After failing a break test, both units still roll to see how far they run/chase. If the chaser rolls higher, instead of automatically wiping the unit out, they are put into combat that far away counting as charging. If the runner rolls higher, they get away. If I remember correctly, most "horde" units in ancients had this rule if they outnumbered the unit they are fighting 2:1. I also think well trained Romans had a similar rule as long as their opponents base move wasnt faster (or something like that). It is supposed to represent the difficulty to wipe out or disband a unit so much larger then your own AND the hardened experience of some troops to retreat orderly rather then like school girls. Dont quote me on the specifics as its been a loooong time since I played ancients, but the general concept is right.

Commissar Vaughn
05-12-2009, 09:37
Ive been suggesting it be added to WHFB for ages.

Probably wont be, we'll just end up with everyone being stubbon or unbreakable instead...

snurl
05-12-2009, 09:53
There used to be a push back rule a few editions back (3rd?)

enyoss
05-12-2009, 10:00
Yeah, that was in 3rd edition. But all units were stubborn then if I recall correctly, as leadership modifiers had yet to be introduced.

Condottiere
05-12-2009, 11:00
Push back would be interesting, especially when behind them is impassable terrain. Would the whole unit be wiped out or just those ranks unlucky enough to get pushed that far?

Gabacho Mk.II
05-12-2009, 23:31
xragg,
Thanks! :)



I really wanted to know what this rule was about.

Ok. :skull:

ZeroTwentythree
06-12-2009, 20:29
In a nutshell, FBiGO allows a unit to fall back instead of actually breaking. After failing a break test, both units still roll to see how far they run/chase. If the chaser rolls higher, instead of automatically wiping the unit out, they are put into combat that far away counting as charging. If the runner rolls higher, they get away. If I remember correctly, most "horde" units in ancients had this rule if they outnumbered the unit they are fighting 2:1. I also think well trained Romans had a similar rule as long as their opponents base move wasnt faster (or something like that). It is supposed to represent the difficulty to wipe out or disband a unit so much larger then your own AND the hardened experience of some troops to retreat orderly rather then like school girls. Dont quote me on the specifics as its been a loooong time since I played ancients, but the general concept is right.



That's more or less it. Units that are beaten in combat, but outnumber their opponent, as well as some other troops (due to special rules) may elect to still move back their "flee" distance, but because they are FBIGO-ing instead of fleeing, if they are caught by the enemy they continue combat the next round and the pursuing unit counts as charging again.

Gabacho Mk.II
06-12-2009, 21:15
That's more or less it. Units that are beaten in combat, but outnumber their opponent, as well as some other troops (due to special rules) may elect to still move back their "flee" distance, but because they are FBIGO-ing instead of fleeing, if they are caught by the enemy they continue combat the next round and the pursuing unit counts as charging again.


Well what happens if the unit that elects to FBiGO is NOT caught by its pursuers?

Does the unit automatically rally or does it count as still 'fleeing?" or what?
Am curious as to how this rule works? (in WHB)

ZeroTwentythree
06-12-2009, 22:00
They rally, but are not allowed to charge on their next turn.


Just remembered they've got the full wording of the rules, along with some other interesting stuff in the "errata" (half of which is more like an "addendum" as FBIGO was not in the original rules, but added in for what they call WAB 1.5)

http://www.warhammer-historical.com/PDF/WABerr.pdf

Rogue
06-12-2009, 22:05
It has beena while since I read the rules, and I cant find where "Fall Back In Good Order" is, but there is another rule that is similar which is "Disengaging from Hand-to-Hand Combat." In that rule you may disengage in your movement phase if you pass your leadership test and basically do a rear turn and move away from combat as if a march move. It does not say that you cannot wheel in this movement, but I would assume that you can. You are not fleeing (unless you fail the leadership test) so you are not required to rally that unit.

Condottiere
07-12-2009, 01:39
Sounds like an invitation to attack your rear.

Ronin_eX
07-12-2009, 04:30
Sounds like an invitation to attack your rear.

Would be great if you had a second regiment ready to assault the flank then you could pull back the weakened unit under cover of the second. Very helpful if you have a missile unit that gets engaged and need to get them out. Dwarfs would love this as it would be better for our slow missile troops instead of doing a disorderly flee reaction that has a good chance of getting us run down.

Let them engage after a stand-and-shoot reaction, disengage on our turn and use a small flanking unit to cover our retreat. It gives an option that didn't exist before and choice is always nice in a tabletop game.

That said I think Fall Back in Good Order would be a great rule for Dwarfs in general as an army-wide. It would be a nice fluffy rule that was in character without making us yet another army to ignore morale. It would be more fun than an alternative like Stubborn for an army wide when our army book gets redone and it would actually make us pretty good a catching a charge and funnelling it into us.

It would also be nice to add in for other units as well. It would certainly make elite units without some kind of stubborn or ubreakable rule more worth it some lists.

Push would also be cool. Again, from a Dwarf standpoint, it would be a nice way of giving the Ironbreakers something to be good at again instead of just being second fiddle to the stubborn Hammerers. This would make them scary on the defense against cavalry charges that risk getting pushed back and shot apart instead of breaking through.

As overall expansions or re-additions to the rules these things could really add a lot to the game. Hopefully 8th will see some interesting additions to the rules. Giving more options for morale that don't equate to a different flavour of "doesn't run away" would add a lot to the game, especially for armies that are disciplined but still fall back from time to time.

TheGreatWhiteRat
07-12-2009, 05:09
I've never heard of this rule but I love it. Being slowly pushed back by a hoard of zombies is much more cinematic than just breaking and running. It could be represented when a unit fails a break test but still rolls under its unmodified leadership it is pushed back instead.

Anvilbrow
07-12-2009, 06:48
Sounds like an invitation to attack your rear.

Easy tiger...

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I like the idea of this rule in principle.

Azethel
07-12-2009, 07:54
...when a unit fails a break test but still rolls under its unmodified leadership it is pushed back instead.

That sounds really good. Would mean a spectacular fail is still a break. I would add that the rule would not count if you lost combat by equal or greater than your Ld value.

Rogue
07-12-2009, 15:45
Sounds like an invitation to attack your rear.

It would depend on the unit and the situation more than anything else. As said before if you have a supporting unit near by that is able to attack and occupy that unit, then you will not be charged in the rear. Likewise if you are confident that you can escape their charge range then you are in the clear. There are several more armies and units in WAB that are Movement 5 as opposed to Movement 4, and they still have the heavy armour modifiers to movement as they had in the 4th edition for WFB. Being attacked in the rear may be more of an issue in WFB but I can see this tool be very useful as well.

Rogue
07-12-2009, 15:55
Would be great if you had a second regiment ready to assault the flank then you could pull back the weakened unit under cover of the second. Very helpful if you have a missile unit that gets engaged and need to get them out. Dwarfs would love this as it would be better for our slow missile troops instead of doing a disorderly flee reaction that has a good chance of getting us run down.

Let them engage after a stand-and-shoot reaction, disengage on our turn and use a small flanking unit to cover our retreat. It gives an option that didn't exist before and choice is always nice in a tabletop game.

That said I think Fall Back in Good Order would be a great rule for Dwarfs in general as an army-wide. It would be a nice fluffy rule that was in character without making us yet another army to ignore morale. It would be more fun than an alternative like Stubborn for an army wide when our army book gets redone and it would actually make us pretty good a catching a charge and funnelling it into us.

It would also be nice to add in for other units as well. It would certainly make elite units without some kind of stubborn or ubreakable rule more worth it some lists.



While I do like the Fall Back In Good Order Rule, I think that the Free Turn or Expand/Collaps Ranks rule make Infantry, especially Dwarves, imensly more mobile and therefore more potent. This rule allows for charges as long as the turned unit can see the opposing unit. In the WAB Books this is only for Drilled units so I can see Dwarves, and most Elves have this rule. State Troops already have Detachments and Pesants I dont see having this rule, nor do I see Orc and Goblin. Lizzardmen and perhaps Warriors of Chaos may have it, but I am not sure.

ZeroTwentythree
07-12-2009, 19:39
I think of lizardmen fighting with brute strength and aggressive instinct. Not parade ground training & drilling. Same thing with WoC, really.

Dwarfs already have something similar: The Anvil. ;)

sulla
07-12-2009, 20:29
I miss push back. The current system of break=probably removed is not condusive to infantry except deathstars IMO.

FBiGO could be good too, as long as it wasn't doled out willy nilly. Knights and better trained infantry should have it; possibly a distinction between, say, stormvermin and the rest of the rats, or black orcs and the rest of the O&G for example. Unbreakables (and daemons and undead) should never be able to do it. Units that FBiGO shouldn't lose their standard(s) either IMO.

Gabacho Mk.II
08-12-2009, 16:54
*shameful bump*


If anyone comes across any information relating to 8th edition and FBiGO, please post it. :)