The same effects one achieves with rear movements are easily achieved on cameras that do not physically have rear movements, as long as the cameras have front movements. It comes down to understanding that the only thing that matters is how the film plane lies in relation to the lens plane, both in relation to the subject. The effect on the image is the same no matter what parts of the camera you move to arrive at a certain relationship of the three. There are different sets of movements one can make that arrive at equivalent net effects on the image.
For instance, squaring everything up, tilting the camera bed/rail upward with the tripod head, and then leveling the front and rear standards gives the same effect as simply keeping the bed/rail level to begin with, and just using a front rise movement. I would actually argue that the latter method is superior in most circumstances. It involves one movement instead of three, and keeping the bed/rail level to the ground helps me to keep track of exactly where everything on the camera is and what it is doing for the pic. I have rear movements on my Technika...but I never use them for landscape pix. I have only used them in the studio for a handful of moderately close-up still life pix, when the front movements alone were not enough to get the plane of focus where I wanted it. In a typical landscape situation, I can do everything I need to do using the front alone, and do it much more quickly and easily than by employing rear movements. The front end of a Super Speed is nearly as capable as my Tech, if not identically so.
Even with a monorail camera used in situations that require the effects that are associated with rear movements, I will rarely move the rear itself. I keep the rail level and do all the "convergence control" using front and rear shifts.