Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
yukishiro1 wrote: Oh wow, the unit coherency rules now also require you to *remove models* to get back into unit coherency.
This is such a trap for the unwary. Pull one single casualty and your whole squad can disappear down to about 3ish models.
The Death Jester ability to choose which model flees first is going to cause whole squads to evaporate now when people aren't careful.
This rule is going to create so much mess and unintended consequences.
Also opens up a whole branch of new tactics, the temporary wall.
Cheap unit blocking in a line, gets shot at so intentionally remove the two middle models. Next turn by this rule the entire left or right side of the line is killed.
Now all you stuff this line was blocking beind you can move like tanks etc
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or just invest in movement trays to solve the issue.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).
This new rule did quite literally nothing except prevent coherency from ground level to 2nd floor of standard 3" floor ruins.
Conga line will not survive losses, and the new coherency check :
So take the losses from one side.
It make conga lines shorter, but doesn’t stop them from being made by units with enough models to make triangles.
You can still conga line, but usually that's done to stretch between two objectives. Now you only need to shoot a few models off the unit to force them off one objective, which nerfs 90% of what conga lining was about.
Latro_ wrote: not sure what cryptothralls are trying to be? meh CC troops and a support unit for a character you prob dont want in combat..
They're pretty damn good at melee. And that's probably the point - you have them so he isn't in combat.
what hitting on a 4 with 6 attacks
vs marines
3 hits
2 wounds
1 dead?
you'd need 6 of them to kill 3 marines.
only goes up to 4 dead marines if you have 6 of them and they are all within 3" of a tek
The point is for them to be next to the tek.
12 * .666 * .666 * .5 = 2.7 wounds to MEQ for ~40 points.
2 Primaris do 0.7 for the same cost.
It just isn't a unit you'll ever be flinging across the table since it will only ever be 2 models.
Yeah you don't take these guys by themselves, they guard the cryptek and ruin anyone that comes close. With a cryptek nearby i.e.the only time you'd take them, they're 6 attacks each and hitting on 3s. Also don't forget those pistol eyes, that's an extra two shots at str 5 -2 1d per turn, which they can fire in melee if still there at that point. Seriosuly, for the cost or a single intercessor, they're good.
It all comes down to how worth guarding a cryptek is gonna be.
I will say, however, the new coherency check makes daisy chaining a unit extremely fragile, to the point of a failure cascade wiping out half the unit if a single model dies. I like this change, which is a rare occurance.
kodos wrote: So Hordes are not auto-killed by Moral tests any more but removed from the table by unit coherency check
Only if you play them as congalines.
I feel like hordes aren't dead, but the carpet of bodies being congalined back to single models to get a buff is dead. Hordes look like they'll work better in power pairs with HQs but that's just an assumption.
IanVanCheese wrote: You can still conga line, but usually that's done to stretch between two objectives. Now you only need to shoot a few models off the unit to force them off one objective, which nerfs 90% of what conga lining was about.
With what GW has said recently about controlling objectives in 9th, daisy-chaining isn't feasible anyway...
BaconCatBug wrote: I will say, however, the new coherency check makes daisy chaining a unit extremely fragile, to the point of a failure cascade wiping out half the unit if a single model dies. I like this change, which is a rare occurance.
Spoiler:
Shorter lines of 2 ranks should do the trick. Still allows some stretch but won't lose coherency as easilly.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).
Incredibly sensible rule.
It's really not this simple once you start getting into tables with terrain and enemy models on them. It absolutely doesn't "just stop conga lining." Put some models on large bases on a table and start fiddling around, you'll see how much this can muck up movement of 6-model units on large bases. 60mm bases in particular are really screwed - even putting 6 models in a straight line base-to-base doesn't keep them in coherency because 60mm is bigger than 2". This severely limits your movement options with these units, for no real reason. Does anyone really think there is a good reason why 5 models on 60mm bases can be stretched out to cover 23" of board space, but a unit of 6 must be bunched up to cover far less space? Or that there is a good reason why a unit of 5 can move in a line to maneuver through a narrow corridor, but a unit of 6 cannot?
I agree it's less of a problem for true horde units on smaller bases, though it will still result in weird situations there too where you aren't able to make legitimate, non-conga-line moves you ought to be able to make.
Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.
Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.
This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).
Incredibly sensible rule.
It's really not this simple once you start getting into tables with terrain and enemy models on them. It absolutely doesn't "just stop conga lining." Put some models on large bases on a table and start fiddling around, you'll see how much this can muck up movement of 6-model units on large bases. 60mm bases in particular are really screwed - even putting 6 models in a straight line base-to-base doesn't keep them in coherency because 60mm is bigger than 2". This severely limits your movement options with these units, for no real reason.
I agree it's less of a problem for true horde units on smaller bases, though it will still result in weird situations there too where you aren't able to make legitimate, non-conga-line moves you ought to be able to make.
It's a (small) stealth nerf to Centurions. Given that the now have to clump AND engagement range appears to be just 1" it means it will be hard to have 6 of them fighting.
kodos wrote: So Hordes are not auto-killed by Moral tests any more but removed from the table by unit coherency check
Only if you play them as congalines.
I feel like hordes aren't dead, but the carpet of bodies being congalined back to single models to get a buff is dead. Hordes look like they'll work better in power pairs with HQs but that's just an assumption.
Not lines, but removing 10 models out of 30 + loses from moral (and yes, with those rules it is really important to not just roll X dice and remove as you wish) can be enough to have nothing left (nothing as <5 models)
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.
Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.
This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.
I know the community is known for being a bit not sensible, but this should really be a common sense implementation of these rules. If you're dudes are most clumped up and one dude is 2.1" from the second guy in his squad, only an absolute burk would try to enforce it.
Sadly, this rule is a needed kneejerk to people gaming the system. Hordes will just need to stay clumped up, that's the long and short of it. Hopefully we'll see more movement trays being used for them now.
The implication in the article is that it happens in the morale phase, after the morale checks and any models are removed by failing the morale check and attrition rolls.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).
Incredibly sensible rule.
It's really not this simple once you start getting into tables with terrain and enemy models on them. It absolutely doesn't "just stop conga lining." Put some models on large bases on a table and start fiddling around, you'll see how much this can muck up movement of 6-model units on large bases. 60mm bases in particular are really screwed - even putting 6 models in a straight line base-to-base doesn't keep them in coherency because 60mm is bigger than 2". This severely limits your movement options with these units, for no real reason.
I agree it's less of a problem for true horde units on smaller bases, though it will still result in weird situations there too where you aren't able to make legitimate, non-conga-line moves you ought to be able to make.
I wouldn't mind seeing the game move away from maximum efficiency spamming because the actual terrain/battlefield prohibits efficient on paper uses. Brings in more strategy. Gamble on your most effective unit size and unit spamming vs effectively being able maneuver it around the table.
Might end up seeing both small units, decreasing lethality. And we might see a little more variance in armies with people trying new things out or having the points to add new things
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.
Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.
This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.
Yeah, this is another unintended consequence. We got rid of blast markers because it took too long to move stuff in a way to minimize exposure, but now we have a similar mechanic with hordes. Yes, you can just put them in a huge blob of base-to-base models and not worry about it - but then you lose the benefits of spreading out. So what this rule encourages is just what the blast rule encouraged - taking a ton of time to move a unit to maximize its units footprint, but while still keeping each model within 2" of each other one.
Morale phase (just before end of turn). Its weird that it doesn't say it outright, but the bullet points in the GSC article do. Presumably the check has some sort of context in the rules for the morale phase, since the text starts as if its in some sort of sequence (Each player must now...)
Even weirder is that the rule specifies that each player is removing models but the bullet points just says 'your army,' which implies just whoever's turn it is.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).
Incredibly sensible rule.
Take snipers
Knock out 2-3 models in center...
No longer in coherency unit means half of remaining die
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).
Incredibly sensible rule.
Take snipers
Knock out 2-3 models in center...
No longer in coherency unit means half of remaining die
Not how snipers work. Except the Death Jester for morale losses.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.
Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.
This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.
I know the community is known for being a bit not sensible, but this should really be a common sense implementation of these rules. If you're dudes are most clumped up and one dude is 2.1" from the second guy in his squad, only an absolute burk would try to enforce it.
I don't agree with this at all. The game rules are doubling down on enforcing this, and explicitly killing off models that aren't in coherency. No one's being 'a burk' for playing the game by the rules when they're writing multiple paragraphs of rules text to eliminate models that aren't in formation. Its literally the RAI and RAW. You might as well say that a 4 to hit is good enough for the 30th ork, just because its being a burk to think that all of them need 5+ to hit.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).
Incredibly sensible rule.
It's really not this simple once you start getting into tables with terrain and enemy models on them. It absolutely doesn't "just stop conga lining." Put some models on large bases on a table and start fiddling around, you'll see how much this can muck up movement of 6-model units on large bases. 60mm bases in particular are really screwed - even putting 6 models in a straight line base-to-base doesn't keep them in coherency because 60mm is bigger than 2". This severely limits your movement options with these units, for no real reason.
I agree it's less of a problem for true horde units on smaller bases, though it will still result in weird situations there too where you aren't able to make legitimate, non-conga-line moves you ought to be able to make.
I wouldn't mind seeing the game move away from maximum efficiency spamming because the actual terrain/battlefield prohibits efficient on paper uses. Brings in more strategy. Gamble on your most effective unit size and unit spamming vs effectively being able maneuver it around the table.
Might end up seeing both small units, decreasing lethality. And we might see a little more variance in armies with people trying new things out or having the points to add new things
I don't necessarily disagree, but this is a stupid way to accomplish that, by deploying an arbitrary rule to screw people for taking certain unit sizes in a way that doesn't make any sense. It shouldn't cripple your unit's ability to maneuver to go from 5 models to 6. That doesn't make any sense.
If they really wanted to address conga lines there were a lot of other ways they could have done it that wouldn't result in these sorts of strange, illogical consequences. Not to mention that you actually still can conga-line with the really big units - a unit of 30 can still double-conga a vast distance, for example, which still feels like a stupid abuse of the game rules. Why are a line of two guys holding hands 2" from the next pair of hand-holders acceptable, but a single line of 6 60mm models base-to-base to thread through a gap is not? And why should a unit of 5 be much better at conga-lining than a unit of 6? That is the definition of illogical.
Aash wrote: Am I missing something but do the “performing actions” rule and the “”raise the Banners High” mission objective contradict each other?
Raise the banners high - “one or more infantry units can perform this action at the end of your movement phase.”
Performing actions - “The same action cannot be started by more than one unit from your army in the same battle round.”
It does. Pretty clearly what they are trying to say is that you can only hoist one banner per objective, but RAW the general rule on actions does prohibit it, even though the specific one allows it.
Aash wrote: Am I missing something but do the “performing actions” rule and the “”raise the Banners High” mission objective contradict each other?
Raise the banners high - “one or more infantry units can perform this action at the end of your movement phase.”
Performing actions - “The same action cannot be started by more than one unit from your army in the same battle round.”
It is odd, but I'm going to assume its one of those specific vs general cases; generally only one unit can do it, but in this specific case multiple units can.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.
Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).
Incredibly sensible rule.
It's really not this simple once you start getting into tables with terrain and enemy models on them. It absolutely doesn't "just stop conga lining." Put some models on large bases on a table and start fiddling around, you'll see how much this can muck up movement of 6-model units on large bases. 60mm bases in particular are really screwed - even putting 6 models in a straight line base-to-base doesn't keep them in coherency because 60mm is bigger than 2". This severely limits your movement options with these units, for no real reason.
I agree it's less of a problem for true horde units on smaller bases, though it will still result in weird situations there too where you aren't able to make legitimate, non-conga-line moves you ought to be able to make.
I wouldn't mind seeing the game move away from maximum efficiency spamming because the actual terrain/battlefield prohibits efficient on paper uses. Brings in more strategy. Gamble on your most effective unit size and unit spamming vs effectively being able maneuver it around the table.
Might end up seeing both small units, decreasing lethality. And we might see a little more variance in armies with people trying new things out or having the points to add new things
I don't necessarily disagree, but this is a stupid way to accomplish that, by deploying an arbitrary rule to screw people for taking certain unit sizes in a way that doesn't make any sense. It shouldn't cripple your unit's ability to maneuver to go from 5 models to 6. That doesn't make any sense.
If they really wanted to address conga lines there were a lot of other ways they could have done it that wouldn't result in these sorts of strange, illogical consequences. Not to mention that you actually still can conga-line with the really big units - a unit of 30 can still double-conga a vast distance, for example, which still feels like a stupid abuse of the game rules. Why are a line of two guys holding hands 2" from the next pair of hand-holders acceptable, but a single line of 6 60mm models base-to-base to thread through a gap is not? And why should a unit of 5 be much better at conga-lining than a unit of 6? That is the definition of illogical.
Meh, nothing an eratta making it not apply above a certain base size won't fix.
Aash wrote: Am I missing something but do the “performing actions” rule and the “”raise the Banners High” mission objective contradict each other?
Raise the banners high - “one or more infantry units can perform this action at the end of your movement phase.”
Performing actions - “The same action cannot be started by more than one unit from your army in the same battle round.”
I think they were going for the same action on the same thing. You could, for example, raise banners on the three different objectives with three different units, but you couldn't have three units 'raise banners' on the same objective.
If that's what they were going for it needs to be more clear, however, because as it stands you can't search Objective Sites B and F at the same time with different units.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.
Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.
This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.
I know the community is known for being a bit not sensible, but this should really be a common sense implementation of these rules. If you're dudes are most clumped up and one dude is 2.1" from the second guy in his squad, only an absolute burk would try to enforce it.
I don't agree with this at all. The game rules are doubling down on enforcing this, and explicitly killing off models that aren't in coherency. No one's being 'a burk' for playing the game by the rules when they're writing multiple paragraphs of rules text to eliminate models that aren't in formation. Its literally the RAI and RAW. You might as well say that a 4 to hit is good enough for the 30th ork, just because its being a burk to think that all of them need 5+ to hit.
I would disagree, I think the point they were more trying to make was that if a unit's 2.1" out of coherency, there was obviously a good faith attempt to keep it in coherency and generally only a total wad would "gotcha" the guy who made the goof. It would be like watching an opposing player explicitly positioning a model just so so that they're not visible to target, but then targeting them anyway because a couple molecules of their elbow is visible from a certain angle and you didn't say anything.
Technically RAW? Yes.
Being an absolute turd about what's supposed to be a fun game? Yup.
This new rule did quite literally nothing except prevent coherency from ground level to 2nd floor of standard 3" floor ruins.
Not true. It certainly makes AdMech players think hard about brining 6 Ballistari instead of 5
Yeah it's a massive mess of a rule that prevents 6 man units of stuff with large bases from moving in very natural ways, crippling those units compared to the same unit with 5 models instead.
I encourage everyone to put down some 40 or 60mm bases on a table and try moving them around with terrain and enemy models to limit your movement options, to realize just how much of a mess this rule is. There are all sorts of times you will want to make a completely normal move - nothing like a conga line - and simply not be able to do so because of the arbitrary nerf to coherency you take from a 6th model.
But in 9th, you weren't taking a 6th model anyway because that bumps up all of your opponent's blast weapons. I think it's obvious what they want unit size to be. I've already pared down my lists to include 5 of what I used to include 6 of.
Noticed that you can't be in Engagement Range to *start* an action, but being put *into* Engagement Range doesn't cause the action to fail. So a unit attempting to complete an action that is consolidated into won't have their action interrupted unless they're destroyed.
So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.
Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.
But if they're magically in combat, gravis armor 'stands up like paper.' Except... looking at the math... not really. 6 attacks, 4 hit, S5 vs T5 so 2 wound, save is reduced to 4+, so 1 wound. Gosh, that 9 wound unit is _really_ threatened. Add the pistols in and they might kill a dude. In a weird universe where getting a 5" move model into melee combat is a reasonable thing.
As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.
Question fro the 2.1" crowd:
If someone is moving 30 orks around, without movement trays to assist with that, would you ask/suggest they check the units coherency before they finish the move for the sake of keeping the game state clean and not being 'that guy'?
BroodSpawn wrote: Question fro the 2.1" crowd:
If someone is moving 30 orks around, without movement trays to assist with that, would you ask/suggest they check the units coherency before they finish the move for the sake of keeping the game state clean and not being 'that guy'?
I think the alternative is measuring them yourself, which is absolutely being "that guy".
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh, nothing an eratta making it not apply above a certain base size won't fix.
1. Rules shouldn't need Day 1 Erratas. That's the sign of a badly written rule.
2. The solution to a badly-written rule isn't to just exempt some stuff from it completely. This is another sign of a badly-written rule.
If they wanted to prevent units from spreading out too far across the board, there were much easier ways to do it than this. The most obvious would be simply to put a maximum limit on how far one model in a unit can be from any other model in the unit. For example, every model in a unit must fit within a 15" circle (this is roughly the size a unit of 5 can conga line to on 32mm bases - but you could set this at whatever you want, it could be 12" if you want to force units to cluster more, it could be 18" if you're ok with them spreading out more). This is super easy to check, because all you have to do is create a circle template of the appropriate size and slap it down on the table, and it tells you whether your unit is moving in an acceptable way or not. Boom, conga-lining across space is eliminated, but in a way that doesn't screw legitimate movement for smaller units. No need for this finicky "2" within at least two other models" thing, you just use the normal 2" coherency rules. No traps for the unwary. Just a simple, easy-to-verify check on whether a unit has spread out too much.
BroodSpawn wrote: Question fro the 2.1" crowd:
If someone is moving 30 orks around, without movement trays to assist with that, would you ask/suggest they check the units coherency before they finish the move for the sake of keeping the game state clean and not being 'that guy'?
I always double check my unit coherence. I see no reason why I wouldn't expect my opponent to do the same.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: Noticed that you can't be in Engagement Range to *start* an action, but being put *into* Engagement Range doesn't cause the action to fail. So a unit attempting to complete an action that is consolidated into won't have their action interrupted unless they're destroyed.
Right, and if they want to complete their action, they'll have to fight. No Falling Back either. I like the Performing Actions aspect of the game. I think it will add an interesting new wrinkle.
So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.
Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.
As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.
From the article, the blurb in question you're cherry picking:
"We played out a clash between these two units as a sample of what you can expect on Saturday. The Eradicators, well, eradicated the Cryptothralls. Easily. At range they didn’t stand a chance. Total Obliteration is nasty. So we brought them back, gave them a Plasmancer for good measure, and got them into combat… where those improved characteristics and scythed limbs saw the Cryptothralls tear through Gravis armour and flesh alike. Top tip: get your Cryptothralls in close and keep a Cryptek nearby. Space Marines players: shoot them. Shoot them quickly."
Gee it's almost like the Murderbuckets slice up the Marines should they have gotten into melee somehow. Funny that, especially since the Marines have 0 close combat weapons that matter here.
I think the alternative is measuring them yourself, which is absolutely being "that guy".
At that point you're intentionally slowing down the game. Which means you are being 'that guy' yes.
What I'm suggesting is being friendly enough to remind your opponent with the large block about something. It will help them and keep the game flowing cleaner overall.
So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.
Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.
But if they're magically in combat, gravis armor 'stands up like paper.' Except... looking at the math... not really. 6 attacks, 4 hit, S5 vs T5 so 2 wound, save is reduced to 4+, so 1 wound. Gosh, that 9 wound unit is _really_ threatened. Add the pistols in and they might kill a dude. In a weird universe where getting a 5" move model into melee combat is a reasonable thing.
As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
BroodSpawn wrote: Question fro the 2.1" crowd:
If someone is moving 30 orks around, without movement trays to assist with that, would you ask/suggest they check the units coherency before they finish the move for the sake of keeping the game state clean and not being 'that guy'?
A few times, sure. Especially at the start of a new edition. And doubly so for new players.
But by the time players are bragging on about how 'expert' they are and have played hundreds of games in 9th, and by turn 3 they're still doing it? No.
Now, to be fair, the Thralls are less than half the price of the Eradicators. While one could argue the overall lethality of the game is too high and you shouldn't be one-shotting units like that, in this case, it's not a huge deal.
Also to be fair, Eradicators are bonkers. It's just that this matchup doesn't really show it. Especially since it'd take 2-3 turns for the Thralls to wipe them in close combat, even with a Cryptek nearby.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh, nothing an eratta making it not apply above a certain base size won't fix.
1. Rules shouldn't need Day 1 Erratas. That's the sign of a badly written rule.
2. The solution to a badly-written rule isn't to just exempt some stuff from it completely. This is another sign of a badly-written rule.
If they wanted to prevent units from spreading out too far across the board, there were much easier ways to do it than this. The most obvious would be simply to put a maximum limit on how far one model in a unit can be from any other model in the unit. For example, every model in a unit must fit within a 15" circle (this is roughly the size a unit of 5 can conga line to on 32mm bases - but you could set this at whatever you want, it could be 12" if you want to force units to cluster more, it could be 18" if you're ok with them spreading out more). This is super easy to check, because all you have to do is create a circle template of the appropriate size and slap it down on the table, and it tells you whether your unit is moving in an acceptable way or not. Boom, conga-lining across space is eliminated, but in a way that doesn't screw legitimate movement for smaller units. No need for this finicky "2" within at least two other models" thing, you just use the normal 2" coherency rules. No traps for the unwary. Just a simple, easy-to-verify check on whether a unit has spread out too much.
Agreed on all points. I think we simply disagree on where the bar of expectation should be set with GW.
So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.
Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.
As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.
From the article, the blurb in question you're cherry picking:
"We played out a clash between these two units as a sample of what you can expect on Saturday. The Eradicators, well, eradicated the Cryptothralls. Easily. At range they didn’t stand a chance. Total Obliteration is nasty. So we brought them back, gave them a Plasmancer for good measure, and got them into combat… where those improved characteristics and scythed limbs saw the Cryptothralls tear through Gravis armour and flesh alike. Top tip: get your Cryptothralls in close and keep a Cryptek nearby. Space Marines players: shoot them. Shoot them quickly."
Gee it's almost like the Murderbuckets slice up the Marines should they have gotten into melee somehow. Funny that, especially since the Marines have 0 close combat weapons that matter here.
Except, mathematically, they don't do that. In optimal circumstances, the 'murderbuckets' do 1 wound (edit: woops, missed the attacks doubling- 2 wounds) to the eradicators in melee. Their pistols do a little more- they _might_ help the unit kill one whole eradicator and a put a wound on another. That isn't particularly dangerous.
And playing out the ranged obliteration is just a waste of time, because obviously they do that. So if that's the kind of thing they're going to show on saturday- vastly overstating the dangers of a unit and presenting obvious win scenarios, that isn't worth watching.
As a cheap bodyguard to keep a cryptek alive, the thralls might have value. As assault models, seriously whatever.
So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.
Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.
But if they're magically in combat, gravis armor 'stands up like paper.' Except... looking at the math... not really. 6 attacks, 4 hit, S5 vs T5 so 2 wound, save is reduced to 4+, so 1 wound. Gosh, that 9 wound unit is _really_ threatened. Add the pistols in and they might kill a dude. In a weird universe where getting a 5" move model into melee combat is a reasonable thing.
As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.
With their buffs up and pistols they kill one pretty reliably. It just isn't a likely scenario to ever happen.
Assuming Living Metal is unchanged, that means that the Thralls can survive combat indefinitely, especially since the Marines lose three attacks on later rounds of combat.
So, top of T1, 2 wounds dealt. Bottom 2 more wounds. Top of T2, you get an extra 8/9 from the pistols, for 4 and 8/9 total. Then 2 more from combat. Bottom of T2, 2 more wounds, for about 9.
Whereas the Eradicators one-shot these guys from 24" away, even if they had to advance.
6 shots 3 hits 2 wounds 2 failed saves-admittedly, they have about a 30% chance of one surviving because of a 1 on damage, but still.
I just noticed that the Thralls are 'Canoptek' but also have reanimation protocols.
I wonder if another Canoptek units will get that rule or if these guys are a special case.
This new rule did quite literally nothing except prevent coherency from ground level to 2nd floor of standard 3" floor ruins.
Except in your example, if I kill one guy, the rest die in the morale phase until you're left with 5 men. Unless there is a chance to move them into coherency:
You have a daisy-chained conga line of 30 boyz. I shoot at them and kill 1. You remove it from the back cluster of 3, breaking coherency at the back of the chain. Now you hit morale phase (which is where you do a coherency check). Not all of your unit is within 2" of 3 models, so you must remove models until your unit is in coherency. So, if you have a unit of 30 boyz lined up like this, I kill one, then you lose 24 in the coherency check. Although in your example, you'd only lose 3 additional models.
Morale phase (just before end of turn). Its weird that it doesn't say it outright, but the bullet points in the GSC article do. Presumably the check has some sort of context in the rules for the morale phase, since the text starts as if its in some sort of sequence (Each player must now...)
Even weirder is that the rule specifies that each player is removing models but the bullet points just says 'your army,' which implies just whoever's turn it is.
as there is close combat, each player might have units that need to be checked
The other thing I notice about the new GSC preview is....I have basically no info on how GSC will operate in 8th edition.
They told me that...I won't have to worry about my aberrants getting destroyed by my opponents destroying their transport? What? None of that makes any sense on any level, why would I put aberrants in a transport, why would it end up surrounded, what is actually happening?
The only actual preview is that Brood Brothers units, all of them, might be able to be taken in GSC detachments? Maybe? As long as units you take from Codex Astra Militarum still gain the Brood Brothers keyword, which the new rule thingy doesn't actually say?
Currently, you can take certain BB units in GSC detachments (the ones printed in Codex: GSC, which is Sentinels, Armored sentinels, Leman Russes, Infantry Squads and HWTs) and others you must take in a separate BB Astra MIlitarum detachment.
I cannot tell from the preview if that is still allowed.
Morale phase (just before end of turn). Its weird that it doesn't say it outright, but the bullet points in the GSC article do. Presumably the check has some sort of context in the rules for the morale phase, since the text starts as if its in some sort of sequence (Each player must now...)
Even weirder is that the rule specifies that each player is removing models but the bullet points just says 'your army,' which implies just whoever's turn it is.
as there is close combat, each player might have units that need to be checked
Yep. I was commenting on the disconnect between the bullet points and the actual rules text.
Its a problem that's come up before with these bullet points. If you rely just on them, you're going to run into errors.
With double shooting S8 ap-4 at 24 inch range with no overheat... those Eradicators are arguably better at being supercharged plasma than Hellblasters are.
Either way they seem kinda too good at secondary target shooting once their main job is over.
So a quick question here, I read the Genestealer Cult focus and it mentioned the Genestealer Cult armies can take AM units in the same army without them sharing a keyword. Is that how it currently is now?
I read the GS cult book for 7th and it was only a very select number of AM units you could take, but now it sounds like you can take any, just not in the same detachment.
So you get three inches of extra movement, but you lose twice as many models for doing so.
Certainly, the notion that you'd put already overpriced Aberrants in a truck because you could use this stratagem where more of them die before getting to hit something seems very, very weird.
Sabotage! wrote: So a quick question here, I read the Genestealer Cult focus and it mentioned the Genestealer Cult armies can take AM units in the same army without them sharing a keyword. Is that how it currently is now?
I read the GS cult book for 7th and it was only a very select number of AM units you could take, but now it sounds like you can take any, just not in the same detachment.
Currently you can take AM detachments, and if you do, they gain the Brood Brothers keyword in place of <Regiment>. I do not believe anything has actually changed with GSC with respect to brood bros.
The current codex already has that exact rule when it comes to units with the BB keyword. It's one of the reasons why GSC has cartoonishly few units that can actually gain subfaction keywords.
Space Marines were like "Man, none of our vehicles get subfaction keywords this sucks!" and GSC went
"Hold my beer! No vehicles, no brood brothers, no genestealer units in codex genestealer cults can get cult keywords!
Wooohoo total of 5 non-character units can ever get cult keywords!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, has Lying in Wait been 3CP for a while? did it get nerfed in CA or something? It was 2Cp in the codex.
So you get three inches of extra movement, but you lose twice as many models for doing so.
Certainly, the notion that you'd put already overpriced Aberrants in a truck because you could use this stratagem where more of them die before getting to hit something seems very, very weird.
Am I misreading this or something?
Keeps them from dying from being surrounded. If you can't place them w/i 3", because of enemy models (and huge bases) this gets you to a safer place.
Sabotage! wrote: So a quick question here, I read the Genestealer Cult focus and it mentioned the Genestealer Cult armies can take AM units in the same army without them sharing a keyword. Is that how it currently is now?
Yes
There's another two paragraphs of rules text about keywords and detachment abiltiies, but its a straight copy of the first two paragraphs from the current book.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
actually my mate raised an interesting point.... what about ledges on terrain. You line models up quite a bit... its not just silly 30man conga lines
now you cant really go on them. Untis pretty much have to be in a ball.
the more i'm thinking about this rule the more im strating to dread it. You are going to have to really (anally so) move your special models in units so they dont suffer coherency suicide...
So you get three inches of extra movement, but you lose twice as many models for doing so.
Certainly, the notion that you'd put already overpriced Aberrants in a truck because you could use this stratagem where more of them die before getting to hit something seems very, very weird.
Am I misreading this or something?
Keeps them from dying from being surrounded. If you can't place them w/i 3", because of enemy models (and huge bases) this gets you to a safer place.
Ironically another side nerf to wraping a vehical in melee to kill the occupants.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
For even more Laughs just compare them with the Wraithguard, exchanging a 12" S10 weapon for a 24" S8 with double tap, almost same profile (5T vs 6T ) add Marine auras and enjoy the wreckfest.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
TIL 10 S4 AP- melee attacks is "absolutely zero", that's funny. What do other shooty factions' units have in melee then? What's the melee capability of a unit of Scourges?
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
Going by PL cost they are what 18 pts each and they have 2+ attacks and are T5 plus usual marines boosts for about 18 pts....zero mele capability compared to melee units but not compared to say 3 cultists.....
yukishiro1 wrote: Thanks to GW's genius rule designed to prevent conga lines, this is legal unit coherency:
Spoiler:
But this is an illegal conga line:
Spoiler:
GW: Nailed it!
Completely slowed if you ask me, the additional model to check cohesion is stupid as feth and shouldn't have been made considering that we ALREADY HAVE a cohesion check at the end of the Morale phase
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
Going by PL cost they are what 18 pts each and they have 2+ attacks and are T5 plus usual marines boosts for about 18 pts....zero mele capability compared to melee units but not compared to say 3 cultists.....
They're not cheaper than Intercessors. 5 PL is 100 points, approximately, and they come in squads of 3.
yukishiro1 wrote: Thanks to GW's genius rule designed to prevent conga lines, this is legal unit coherency:
Spoiler:
But this is an illegal conga line:
Spoiler:
GW: Nailed it!
Completely slowed if you ask me, the additional model to check cohesion is stupid as feth and shouldn't have been made considering that we ALREADY HAVE a cohesion check at the end of the Morale phase
Again, I think you're trying to frame a rules issue as one of realism and logic when its more about trying to force the game down a certain path. They WANT you to be running 5> man units. This is the MSU edition.
Then why not just not let you take units of more than 5? It makes no sense to let you take an initial model that completely neuters the effectiveness of your unit.
Any rule which makes situation #1 legal but situation #2 an illegally spread out unit is just a stupid rule. If what they are trying to do is make nobody ever take a unit of 6 models, there are a lot simpler and more elegant ways to do that than this nonsense.
yukishiro1 wrote: Then why not just not let you take units of more than 5? It makes no sense to let you take an initial model that completely neuters the effectiveness of your unit.
Any rule which makes situation #1 legal but situation #2 an illegally spread out unit is just a stupid rule. If what they are trying to do is make nobody ever take a unit of 6 models, there are a lot simpler and more elegant ways to do that than this nonsense.
Nah it's just rank and file for 40k, on 10th well change to square bases for sure!
yukishiro1 wrote: Then why not just not let you take units of more than 5? It makes no sense to let you take an initial model that completely neuters the effectiveness of your unit.
Any rule which makes situation #1 legal but situation #2 an illegally spread out unit is just a stupid rule. If what they are trying to do is make nobody ever take a unit of 6 models, there are a lot simpler and more elegant ways to do that than this nonsense.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
Ok. Maybe. Verbal diarrhea incoming.
Intercessors went up 18%. Makes base cost of Aggressor 25 points (also 5 PL). Aggressors have the no penalty advance and situational double tap, so, straight double tap is technically "fair" here. They pay 16 for their weapons. So the nu-Aggressor is 41+ points, which means their weapon cost will need to come down slightly to keep PL5 (if they do).
These guys will be 25 + gun, which to be in PL5 would be ballpark 12 points making a squad 111 (same as most costly Aggressors). That means mini-meltas at 14 could come way down.
Let's strip double shooting out. Would you pay 111 points for 3 melta shots with 6" extra range? Hell no. You wouldn't. But you will if it is 6 shots (19 points per shot).
If a CSM is still 11 or 12 and a melta is ~6 points (17 or 18 points per shot) I can see things making a little more sense.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.
Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.
This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.
You know, Gw started selling 40k movement trays.
Now there is a new ruling about coherency that juuuuust to happens to benefit those said movement trays.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
Going by PL cost they are what 18 pts each and they have 2+ attacks and are T5 plus usual marines boosts for about 18 pts....zero mele capability compared to melee units but not compared to say 3 cultists.....
1 PL=20 points. Were did you get those utter nonsense numbers?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.
Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.
This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.
You know, Gw started selling 40k movement trays.
Now there is a new ruling about coherency that juuuuust to happens to benefit those said movement trays.
I like the rule, but I see the grift.
Here I am just moving models in a blob with my hands for 25 years. Soooo haaarrd.
You know if they were keen on that they could have even cross prompted them at the time, buuuut they didn't.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.
Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.
This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.
You know, Gw started selling 40k movement trays.
Now there is a new ruling about coherency that juuuuust to happens to benefit those said movement trays.
I like the rule, but I see the grift.
Here I am just moving models in a blob with my hands for 25 years. Soooo haaarrd.
You know if they were keen on that they could have even cross prompted them at the time, buuuut they didn't.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
Going by PL cost they are what 18 pts each and they have 2+ attacks and are T5 plus usual marines boosts for about 18 pts....zero mele capability compared to melee units but not compared to say 3 cultists.....
1 PL=20 points. Were did you get those utter nonsense numbers?
being generous and saying they are 40 points base take away the cost of a multiMelta 22 points for marines, change it from heavy to assualt for free, that leaves the baze Gravis body at 18 points. If they are closer to 30, we know an intercessor in 9th is 18 points even at the top end of 40 points each that means the weapon, the +1T +2W and Doubel shooting is worth 22 points the same as a Multi melta in 8th pre 10%increase.
Gee it's almost like the Murderbuckets slice up the Marines should they have gotten into melee somehow. Funny that, especially since the Marines have 0 close combat weapons that matter here.
.
Except they aren't slicing them up. Grind part of 1 dead. Boooo! Scary! Marines btw are putting up fairly decent fight back with same # of attacks and better WS.
So the necrons charge, do pittiful damage and that's it...
Gee it's almost like the Murderbuckets slice up the Marines should they have gotten into melee somehow. Funny that, especially since the Marines have 0 close combat weapons that matter here.
.
Except they aren't slicing them up. Grind part of 1 dead. Boooo! Scary! Marines btw are putting up fairly decent fight back with same # of attacks and better WS.
So the necrons charge, do pittiful damage and that's it...
Welcome to the wonderful world of "playing not marines vs marines!" Hope you brought 8 wyches to kill 1 primaris! Haha you have to buy and paint a whole plastic kit for every single damn space marine now! Nice faction choice, loser!
yukishiro1 wrote: Then why not just not let you take units of more than 5? It makes no sense to let you take an initial model that completely neuters the effectiveness of your unit.
Any rule which makes situation #1 legal but situation #2 an illegally spread out unit is just a stupid rule. If what they are trying to do is make nobody ever take a unit of 6 models, there are a lot simpler and more elegant ways to do that than this nonsense.
Utter, utter nonsense and you know it.
"You're wrong but I can't explain why" isn't typically a very convincing argument.
Any rule which makes the spread out unit of 5 skyweavers legal but the base-to-base unit of 6 an illegally spread out unit is just a bad rule.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
TIL 10 S4 AP- melee attacks is "absolutely zero", that's funny. What do other shooty factions' units have in melee then? What's the melee capability of a unit of Scourges?
For 100+ points are you really going to say with a straight face that 10 S4 attacks is melee capability? The answer to that question is absolutely not. I can't even believe you tried that as an argument not gonna lie.
Like all Primaris, they are surprisingly good in melee despite not being melee-focused. It obviously isn't a lot, but more melee capability than you will see on most 100 point anti-tank infantry squads.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "playing not marines vs marines!" Hope you brought 8 wyches to kill 1 primaris! Haha you have to buy and paint a whole plastic kit for every single damn space marine now! Nice faction choice, loser!
I'd laugh, but I have just finished painting up a second 30 man unit of Ork boyz. (3x kits...) Likely to be blasted off the table by a whirlwind.
Sabotage! wrote: So a quick question here, I read the Genestealer Cult focus and it mentioned the Genestealer Cult armies can take AM units in the same army without them sharing a keyword. Is that how it currently is now?
I read the GS cult book for 7th and it was only a very select number of AM units you could take, but now it sounds like you can take any, just not in the same detachment.
Currently you can take AM detachments, and if you do, they gain the Brood Brothers keyword in place of <Regiment>. I do not believe anything has actually changed with GSC with respect to brood bros.
The current codex already has that exact rule when it comes to units with the BB keyword. It's one of the reasons why GSC has cartoonishly few units that can actually gain subfaction keywords.
Space Marines were like "Man, none of our vehicles get subfaction keywords this sucks!" and GSC went
"Hold my beer! No vehicles, no brood brothers, no genestealer units in codex genestealer cults can get cult keywords!
Wooohoo total of 5 non-character units can ever get cult keywords!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, has Lying in Wait been 3CP for a while? did it get nerfed in CA or something? It was 2Cp in the codex.
Voss wrote:
Sabotage! wrote: So a quick question here, I read the Genestealer Cult focus and it mentioned the Genestealer Cult armies can take AM units in the same army without them sharing a keyword. Is that how it currently is now?
Yes
There's another two paragraphs of rules text about keywords and detachment abiltiies, but its a straight copy of the first two paragraphs from the current book.
That’s awesome and gives me some pretty cool conversion ideas.
Gee it's almost like the Murderbuckets slice up the Marines should they have gotten into melee somehow. Funny that, especially since the Marines have 0 close combat weapons that matter here.
.
Except they aren't slicing them up. Grind part of 1 dead. Boooo! Scary! Marines btw are putting up fairly decent fight back with same # of attacks and better WS.
So the necrons charge, do pittiful damage and that's it...
It's funny that people keep ignoring their buffs or that you're pitting a unit against the marines that's 1/3 the points.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
TIL 10 S4 AP- melee attacks is "absolutely zero", that's funny. What do other shooty factions' units have in melee then? What's the melee capability of a unit of Scourges?
For 100+ points are you really going to say with a straight face that 10 S4 attacks is melee capability? The answer to that question is absolutely not. I can't even believe you tried that as an argument not gonna lie.
Its certainly not zero though is it? Zero would be ....Zero....
Zero melee, even figuratively, is what, say, a unit of 5 scourges (which costs 128 points for 4 blasters, which are one-shot 18 inch meltas, lol) has: 6 S3 AP- attacks.
3 models with 10 S4 (AP-1 later in the game) attacks is not "zero melee." It's pretty modest, but it's not zero.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "playing not marines vs marines!" Hope you brought 8 wyches to kill 1 primaris! Haha you have to buy and paint a whole plastic kit for every single damn space marine now! Nice faction choice, loser!
I'd laugh, but I have just finished painting up a second 30 man unit of Ork boyz. (3x kits...) Likely to be blasted off the table by a whirlwind.
I feel your pain. Here 25th out of 30 termagants painted. They feel so laughably bad now.
Orks, Tyranids, Astra Militarum : NPC armies.
I really don't get why this coherency bs is only for 6+ model units... why doesnt it work that way for ALL units... you know like a general RULE...
units with more than 2 models must be in 2" of two other models
then lets see if people still think it wouldn't be a big deal :/
...so much hassle and fukkup potenial... for what? to screw big units even more??? as if 5 marines never congolined to hold objectives and maintain buffs... SO FREAKIN STUPID
EDIT:
and not only that... its now near impossible to trap or wrap around units... also why nerf multicharges in the first place???? would've been punishing enough with the coherency rules!
btw... does the new emergency disembarkment strat imply that units being forced out of transports suffer from the explosion?
RedNoak wrote: I really don't get why this coherency bs is only for 6+ model units... why doesnt it work that way for ALL units... you know like a general RULE...
units with more than 2 models must be in 2" of two other models
then lets see if people still think it wouldn't be a big deal :/
...so much hassle and fukkup potenial... for what? to screw big units evan more??? as if 5 marines never congolined to hold objectives and maintain buffs... SO FREAKIN STUPID
And the irony is that it makes 5-man units better at conga-lining than 6 man units, especially if they have big bases. See my prior post showing the ridiculousness of 5 skyweavers at max coherency, covering a far larger board area, being legal, but 6 skyweavers base-to-base in a line, covering a much smaller board area, being deemed an illegal conga line.
I agree, if they were committed to this approach rather than the much simpler "entire unit has to be within X" of every other model in the unit", they should make it applicable to all unit sizes, not just 6". Why can 5 models conga line out to their hearts' content, but if they get a 6th dude he makes them bunch up and take up less space than they did with 5?
RedNoak wrote: I really don't get why this coherency bs is only for 6+ model units... why doesnt it work that way for ALL units... you know like a general RULE...
units with more than 2 models must be in 2" of two other models
then lets see if people still think it wouldn't be a big deal :/
...so much hassle and fukkup potenial... for what? to screw big units even more??? as if 5 marines never congolined to hold objectives and maintain buffs... SO FREAKIN STUPID
EDIT:
and not only that... its now near impossible to trap or wrap around units... also why nerf multicharges in the first place???? would've been punishing enough with the coherency rules!
btw... does the new emergency disembarkment strat imply that units being forced out of transports suffer from the explosion?
1) You have to draw the line at some point
2) 5 marines barely cover ground compared to what other units can
3) 10 marines currently cover (8 * 2) + 12 = 28 inches; 5 will cover (3 * 2) + 4 = 10 inches - that's a pretty significant difference
4) People keep pretending this has no effect on screening and that it only hurts melee blobs - you need to stop playing the victim and start thinking a little more
You don't have to draw lines at some point. And even if you did, that's not an argument for drawing lines at any particular point. That's a classic logical fallacy.
If they were committed to this rule, why not make it apply to all unit sizes (of more than 2, obviously)? Why should a unit of 5 be able to conga-line further than a unit of 6? How does that make any sort of sense?
Your math is also way off. 5-man units aren't impacted by the new change, it's only 6+. A 5 man marine squad on 32 mm bases can conga line out 14.25 inches, not 10. A 6-man marine unit can conga-line out 11 inches under the new rules. An extra model means you LOSE 3.25 inches of space. It's downright silly.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why can 5 models conga line out to their hearts' content, but if they get a 6th dude he makes them bunch up and take up less space than they did with 5?
I mean you can keep wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter if you really want.
kodos wrote: is it just me or someone else also have the feeling that the game will be much slower in 9th if people use units with more than 5 models
Well yes and no as units over 10 models will be smacked of the table due to blast weapons. 5 man unit's have some harsh interactions with moral now, unless your a marine.
Frankly the only thih so far making this edition faster islooking like everyone will play primaris or GTFO looser so the sats will be fairly simple and they dont have to spend the opponenets charge phase rerolling 1000 dice?
Because that's how rules work? Because did you bother to consider 3 model units? That things exist in this game beyond just 5 model and 6 model marine units?
1) You have to draw the line at some point
2) 5 marines barely cover ground compared to what other units can
3) 10 marines currently cover (8 * 2) + 12 = 28 inches; 5 will cover (3 * 2) + 4 = 10 inches - that's a pretty significant difference
4) People keep pretending this has no effect on screening and that it only hurts melee blobs - you need to stop playing the victim and start thinking a little more
yukishiro1 wrote: Why can 5 models conga line out to their hearts' content, but if they get a 6th dude he makes them bunch up and take up less space than they did with 5?
I mean you can keep wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter if you really want.
If that's your inelegant way of apologizing and admitting that I'm right, I accept the apology.
It does matter, for any unit that can take six models. Taking a sixth model transforms your unit into a bunch of clingy morons who can't function in basic ways. This makes no sense.
There are also quite a few units that top out at 6 models. Skyweavers, centurions, etc. Although you are entitled to your opinion, it's not very convincing to argue that these units being totally screwed if you make the noob mistake of taking a 6th model is "wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter."
Because that's how rules work? Because did you bother to consider 3 model units? That things exist in this game beyond just 5 model and 6 model marine units?
yukishiro1 wrote: Why can 5 models conga line out to their hearts' content, but if they get a 6th dude he makes them bunch up and take up less space than they did with 5?
I mean you can keep wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter if you really want.
If that's your inelegant way of apologizing and admitting that I'm right, I accept the apology.
It does matter, for any unit that can take six models. Taking a sixth model transforms your unit into a bunch of clingy morons who can't function in basic ways. This makes no sense.
There are also quite a few units that top out at 6 models. Skyweavers, centurions, etc. Although you are entitled to your opinion, it's not very convincing to argue that these units being totally screwed if you make the noob mistake of taking a 6th model is "wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter."
Except they were never going to take that 6th model anyway as the math for attrition is still 3 models killed for the -1 rule and at 5 models your immune to blast weapons.
You're not immune, you just take a shot less on average in the very worst circumstances, with effectively no change at all against any blast weapon with a 2dx instead.
I was still taking 6 skyweavers in my test list, though I obviously won't be now since it makes the unit literally garbage because somehow adding a jetbike makes the other 5 suddenly becomes super insecure and clingy.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
TIL 10 S4 AP- melee attacks is "absolutely zero", that's funny. What do other shooty factions' units have in melee then? What's the melee capability of a unit of Scourges?
For 100+ points are you really going to say with a straight face that 10 S4 attacks is melee capability? The answer to that question is absolutely not. I can't even believe you tried that as an argument not gonna lie.
Its certainly not zero though is it? Zero would be ....Zero....
It's a minimum squad of Tactical Marines, except for 100+ points. Lemme know when that's even worth talking about.
RedNoak wrote: I really don't get why this coherency bs is only for 6+ model units... why doesnt it work that way for ALL units... you know like a general RULE...
units with more than 2 models must be in 2" of two other models
then lets see if people still think it wouldn't be a big deal :/
...so much hassle and fukkup potenial... for what? to screw big units even more??? as if 5 marines never congolined to hold objectives and maintain buffs... SO FREAKIN STUPID
Eh if you have been watching previews you should have noticed theme by now. Kick in loins for big units. It's all about MSU spam and solo models.
How many core stratagems total have we been previewed ? Here is a tally tentative :
Cut them down.
overwatch.
Desperate breakout.
Emergency Disembarkation.
What we already had, and have been confirmed to stay :
Insane bravery
Close combat interrupt
Are the reroll, and prepared positions going to make up in the list ?
What else ?
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
TIL 10 S4 AP- melee attacks is "absolutely zero", that's funny. What do other shooty factions' units have in melee then? What's the melee capability of a unit of Scourges?
For 100+ points are you really going to say with a straight face that 10 S4 attacks is melee capability? The answer to that question is absolutely not. I can't even believe you tried that as an argument not gonna lie.
Its certainly not zero though is it? Zero would be ....Zero....
It's a minimum squad of Tactical Marines, except for 100+ points. Lemme know when that's even worth talking about.
Who are also superior to many units - cos you know ZERO does not mean multiple attacks at S4 on the charge does it..... ZERO is ZERO - right!?
yukishiro1 wrote: Why can 5 models conga line out to their hearts' content, but if they get a 6th dude he makes them bunch up and take up less space than they did with 5?
I mean you can keep wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter if you really want.
If that's your inelegant way of apologizing and admitting that I'm right, I accept the apology.
It does matter, for any unit that can take six models. Taking a sixth model transforms your unit into a bunch of clingy morons who can't function in basic ways. This makes no sense.
There are also quite a few units that top out at 6 models. Skyweavers, centurions, etc. Although you are entitled to your opinion, it's not very convincing to argue that these units being totally screwed if you make the noob mistake of taking a 6th model is "wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter."
You have interpreted the rule correctly. You have over-estimated it's net effect on the game based on the scenarios you choose to employ.
Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.
Not that broken?
They are in 9th edition costs, compairing them to units in 8th edition points they are way more damage output, heck 3 crisis suits with double fusion are 156 points in 8th add 10% for 8th edition points increases and they are 170 points compaired to this less than 100 points unit for the same number of shots with worse stats. Even better laugh thise Crisis suits are 12PL for 3
Going all in for 9 fusion to ofset the BS you now have 198 8th edition points for comparison.
These guys aren't just a bit better than Bad units they aren't playing the same game, or GW was 100% wrong about units seeing increases as it looks like most units need to cost less than they did in 8th to compete with marines.
They're probably 35 points if looking at current Aggressor costs. For absolutely zero melee capability the cost is fine.
TIL 10 S4 AP- melee attacks is "absolutely zero", that's funny. What do other shooty factions' units have in melee then? What's the melee capability of a unit of Scourges?
For 100+ points are you really going to say with a straight face that 10 S4 attacks is melee capability? The answer to that question is absolutely not. I can't even believe you tried that as an argument not gonna lie.
Its certainly not zero though is it? Zero would be ....Zero....
It's a minimum squad of Tactical Marines, except for 100+ points. Lemme know when that's even worth talking about.
Who are also superior to many units - cos you know ZERO does not mean multiple attacks at S4 on the charge does it..... ZERO is ZERO - right!?
Superior to many units for the cost of 60 points? Lol okay. Yeah it is zero melee capability. Just because you have attacks and WS3+ means nothing if you're not looking at price. For the cost of 100+ points, it is zero melee capability. Get over it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or do you wanna argue that Inceptors have melee capability too LOL
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
yukishiro1 wrote: Why can 5 models conga line out to their hearts' content, but if they get a 6th dude he makes them bunch up and take up less space than they did with 5?
I mean you can keep wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter if you really want.
If that's your inelegant way of apologizing and admitting that I'm right, I accept the apology.
It does matter, for any unit that can take six models. Taking a sixth model transforms your unit into a bunch of clingy morons who can't function in basic ways. This makes no sense.
There are also quite a few units that top out at 6 models. Skyweavers, centurions, etc. Although you are entitled to your opinion, it's not very convincing to argue that these units being totally screwed if you make the noob mistake of taking a 6th model is "wasting time making convoluted scenarios that don't matter."
You have interpreted the rule correctly. You have over-estimated it's net effect on the game based on the scenarios you choose to employ.
I never made any statement about its overall impact on the game. Please don't attribute straw men to other people. Obviously 6-man units are a minority, and the overall impact on the game is therefore not huge. But the rule as applied to them is undeniably stupid and nonsensical.
Ravajaxe wrote: How many core stratagems total have we been previewed ? Here is a tally tentative :
Cut them down.
overwatch.
Desperate breakout.
Emergency Disembarkation.
What we already had, and have been confirmed to stay :
Insane bravery
Close combat interrupt
Are the reroll, and prepared positions going to make up in the list ?
What else ?
I seem to remember them saying that the 3 8th edition vote strategems are staying and that 9th edition has 7 core strategems (unless I’m misremembering), so I think that’s all of them. And prepared positions seems to have been removed.
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
Because they want to keep the maximum footprint of a unit closer to one of five models ? Rather than 3 or 8 or.... what ever.
They obviously want to let people conga line if they want to (but at a cost) and want to limit to a point how much space a unit should cover (to a point).
The unit of 6 being restricted when the unit of 5 isn't is because of this willing to still let people spread.
And it isn't so problematic for hordes, just bunch your guys in two rows and you're done. What's the issue ?
I dunno where you get those suppositions about what they "obviously wanted" from. Couldn't it just be that they wanted to get rid of conga-lining but their rule to do so doesn't actually do it very well?
It seems weird to think that GW carefully planned this rule in a way to create precisely the silly interactions it does. Do you really think they wanted to let people bow-tie a conga-line, at the cost of losing most of the unit if it takes casualties? That is as "gimmicky" an interaction as it gets - way, way more gimmicky than tri-pointing ever was, for example.
It looks to me like they just came up with a rule full of loopholes and unintended interactions, rather than that all these loophole and unintended interactions are actually part of the master plan.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno where you get those suppositions about what they "obviously wanted" from. Couldn't it just be that they wanted to get rid of conga-lining but their rule to do so doesn't actually do it very well?
It seems weird to think that GW carefully planned this rule in a way to create precisely the silly interactions it does. Do you really think they wanted to let people bow-tie a conga-line, at the cost of losing most of the unit if it takes casualties? That is as "gimmicky" an interaction as it gets - way, way more gimmicky than tri-pointing ever was, for example.
It looks to me like they just came up with a rule full of loopholes and unintended interactions, rather than that all these loophole and unintended interactions are actually part of the master plan.
I was under the impression that the new coherency rules were very much in line with the system from AOS (I don’t play AOS, so don’t know for sure), if that’s the case I expect that the designers are aware of the kinds of interactions this can lead to, and I think it’s fair to assume that those interactions are either intended, or considered by the designers to be insignificant enough to be disregarded.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno where you get those suppositions about what they "obviously wanted" from. Couldn't it just be that they wanted to get rid of conga-lining but their rule to do so doesn't actually do it very well?
It seems weird to think that GW carefully planned this rule in a way to create precisely the silly interactions it does. Do you really think they wanted to let people bow-tie a conga-line, at the cost of losing most of the unit if it takes casualties? That is as "gimmicky" an interaction as it gets - way, way more gimmicky than tri-pointing ever was, for example.
It looks to me like they just came up with a rule full of loopholes and unintended interactions, rather than that all these loophole and unintended interactions are actually part of the master plan.
I was under the impression that the new coherency rules were very much in line with the system from AOS (I don’t play AOS, so don’t know for sure), if that’s the case I expect that the designers are aware of the kinds of interactions this can lead to, and I think it’s fair to assume that those interactions are either intended, or considered by the designers to be insignificant enough to be disregarded.
It's not. The removing models part of the rule comes from AOS, but AOS just has a 1" coherency rule, without any of this complicated stuff about being within coherency of two other models if your unit is over a certain size. And it's the "within coherency of two other models" that creates all the weirdness here.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno where you get those suppositions about what they "obviously wanted" from. Couldn't it just be that they wanted to get rid of conga-lining but their rule to do so doesn't actually do it very well?
It seems weird to think that GW carefully planned this rule in a way to create precisely the silly interactions it does. Do you really think they wanted to let people bow-tie a conga-line, at the cost of losing most of the unit if it takes casualties? That is as "gimmicky" an interaction as it gets - way, way more gimmicky than tri-pointing ever was, for example.
It looks to me like they just came up with a rule full of loopholes and unintended interactions, rather than that all these loophole and unintended interactions are actually part of the master plan.
I was under the impression that the new coherency rules were very much in line with the system from AOS (I don’t play AOS, so don’t know for sure), if that’s the case I expect that the designers are aware of the kinds of interactions this can lead to, and I think it’s fair to assume that those interactions are either intended, or considered by the designers to be insignificant enough to be disregarded.
It's not. The removing models part of the rule comes from AOS, but AOS just has a 1" coherency rule, without any of this complicated stuff about being within coherency of two other models if your unit is over a certain size. And it's the "within coherency of two other models" that creates all the weirdness here.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
Doesn't take genius to figure he's going to be spamming these.
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?
Well, it certainly COULD. Before, I might be able to string my termagants around a building to be sure that I hug cover while staying in Synapse and trying to get a few shots off (not abusing a conga line, just trying to sneak through terrain.)
Now, potentially, if I'm not careful, I could lose any of them that are not within 2" of two models. So, I'm forced to blob them up instead of hug the terrain. Now, I should move into the terrain and not around it (so much for LOS-blocking L-shaped buildings). It will change the way I move, the way I hide and the way I deploy.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.
Unless you are really trying to space out and get as close to 2" as possible between models I doubt it would be an issue. If you are trying to do that, well you know what you are getting into.
But then I come from AoS where its 1" coherency and 40k's 2" is like 'wheeee! I can dance everywhere!"
RedNoak wrote: I really don't get why this coherency bs is only for 6+ model units... why doesnt it work that way for ALL units... you know like a general RULE...
units with more than 2 models must be in 2" of two other models
then lets see if people still think it wouldn't be a big deal :/
...so much hassle and fukkup potenial... for what? to screw big units even more??? as if 5 marines never congolined to hold objectives and maintain buffs... SO FREAKIN STUPID
Eh if you have been watching previews you should have noticed theme by now. Kick in loins for big units. It's all about MSU spam and solo models.
It's more likely because of melee combat and how that impacts small units trying to pile in while maintaining coherency.
MSU has some obvious buffs, but a fair number of armies are going to play bigger units so they don't have to spend CP on extra detachments, and also makes them better at using strats and gaining buffs from characters (as well as protecting characters). Larger units have an easier time keeping opposing units off objectives when they do stuff like "raise the banner".
All I'm getting at is that things aren't as cut and dry as is being presented.
people can keep dropping everything to 5 man models if they want, but on the flipside you seriously have to consider the watering down effect of strategem use.
Sure, 6 man skyweavers now have to be weary of blast and coherency, but that is one fewer models to make use of prismatic blur or murderous entrance, etc. Same with many other units (Dark Angels and Weapons of the Dark Ages for example).
Yes, MSU looks to be the way, but MSU does not gain max benefits or reliance on strategem use.....and this is a great balancing factor IMHO.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?
Yes and no. If you want to get the maximum space advantage out of your horde - which is the reason you play a horde in the first place - you are going to have to be really careful with your movement. If you are content to just push a bunch of base-to-base models up the field, obviously you are not going to care.
It's very similar to what blast templates did to the game. If you were content to let more than the minimum necessary number of models be hit by them, it wasn't a big deal, you just pushed your models up the table and took your lumps. But if you wanted to play carefully, you spent a long time carefully moving everything so the least possible models were covered by any possible blast marker.
So basically, if you play casually and just shove models up the field without thinking much, this has little impact. But if you play optimally, it is going to slow down playing a horde quite significantly.
Now blast templates were explicitly removed because the time it took to guard against them was considered unacceptably long. So make of that what you will with regard to this new mechanic that is basically like the mirror image of the old blast rule.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.
Unless you are really trying to space out and get as close to 2" as possible between models it won't be an issue. If you are trying to do that, well you know what you are getting into.
But then I come from AoS where its 1" coherency and 40k's 2" is like 'wheeee! I can dance everywhere!"
Well another part of my gripe comes from competitive gaming. Many times, there is a lot of "can you check that range?" or "You sure you have LOS?" Now I can see a lot of "hey, check coherency on those guys."
Before it wasn't a big deal, but now I could potentially lose models without not only carefully placing them, but also placing them in such a way that if I am shot at I can remove models and not lose any more in the casualty removal sequence. Long story short, it adds time and more bookkeeping. It just makes me want to play Nidzilla instead, which I think is what GW is going for: a game of Tanks, MSUs and monsters.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?
Yes and no. If you want to get the maximum space advantage out of your horde - which is the reason you play a horde in the first place - you are going to have to be really careful with your movement. If you are content to just push a bunch of base-to-base models up the field, obviously you are not going to care.
It's very similar to what blast templates did to the same. If you were content to let more than the minimum necessary number of models be hit by them, it wasn't a big deal, you just pushed your models up the table and took your lumps. But if you wanted to play carefully, you spent a long time carefully moving everything so the least possible models were covered by any possible blast marker.
So basically, if you play casually and just shove models up the field without thinking much, this has little impact. But if you play optimally, it is going to slow down playing a horde quite significantly.
I feel you are inaccurately distilling a lot of grey area down to two very uncommon extremes.
Yes and no. If you want to get the maximum space advantage out of your horde - which is the reason you play a horde in the first place - you are going to have to be really careful with your movement. If you are content to just push a bunch of base-to-base models up the field, obviously you are not going to care.
It's very similar to what blast templates did to the game. If you were content to let more than the minimum necessary number of models be hit by them, it wasn't a big deal, you just pushed your models up the table and took your lumps. But if you wanted to play carefully, you spent a long time carefully moving everything so the least possible models were covered by any possible blast marker.
So basically, if you play casually and just shove models up the field without thinking much, this has little impact. But if you play optimally, it is going to slow down playing a horde quite significantly.
Now blast templates were explicitly removed because the time it took to guard against them was considered unacceptably long. So make of that what you will with regard to this new mechanic that is basically like the mirror image of the old blast rule.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.
Unless you are really trying to space out and get as close to 2" as possible between models it won't be an issue. If you are trying to do that, well you know what you are getting into.
But then I come from AoS where its 1" coherency and 40k's 2" is like 'wheeee! I can dance everywhere!"
Well another part of my gripe comes from competitive gaming. Many times, there is a lot of "can you check that range?" or "You sure you have LOS?" Now I can see a lot of "hey, check coherency on those guys."
Before it wasn't a big deal, but now I could potentially lose models without not only carefully placing them, but also placing them in such a way that if I am shot at I can remove models and not lose any more in the casualty removal sequence. Long story short, it adds time and more bookkeeping. It just makes me want to play Nidzilla instead, which I think is what GW is going for: a game of Tanks, MSUs and monsters.
Yeah, the toxic atmosphere of competitive gaming really sucks.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?
Yes and no. If you want to get the maximum space advantage out of your horde - which is the reason you play a horde in the first place - you are going to have to be really careful with your movement. If you are content to just push a bunch of base-to-base models up the field, obviously you are not going to care.
It's very similar to what blast templates did to the same. If you were content to let more than the minimum necessary number of models be hit by them, it wasn't a big deal, you just pushed your models up the table and took your lumps. But if you wanted to play carefully, you spent a long time carefully moving everything so the least possible models were covered by any possible blast marker.
So basically, if you play casually and just shove models up the field without thinking much, this has little impact. But if you play optimally, it is going to slow down playing a horde quite significantly.
I feel you are inaccurately distilling a lot of grey area down to two very uncommon extremes.
Of course I am distilling it down to two extremes. That's the point of a generalization. I outlined the two ends of the spectrum. Most play will fall somewhere in the middle, meaning the coherency changes will slow things down a bit, but not dramatically. For optimal, competitive play, however, this is going to make moving units of more than 6 models take a lot longer than it did before, because you're going to have to think extremely carefully about how you want to do it to get the least penalty from the rule.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
I kinda agree with Slayer here, yes it's a good volume of melta shots at a fair price point, but you've got to get them there and their defensive stats aren't that amazing. Likewise in the era of having infinite height los blocking and -1 to hit terrain dotted about, there's good odds people will get the drop on these guys first.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno where you get those suppositions about what they "obviously wanted" from. Couldn't it just be that they wanted to get rid of conga-lining but their rule to do so doesn't actually do it very well?
It seems weird to think that GW carefully planned this rule in a way to create precisely the silly interactions it does. Do you really think they wanted to let people bow-tie a conga-line, at the cost of losing most of the unit if it takes casualties? That is as "gimmicky" an interaction as it gets - way, way more gimmicky than tri-pointing ever was, for example.
It looks to me like they just came up with a rule full of loopholes and unintended interactions, rather than that all these loophole and unintended interactions are actually part of the master plan.
Yeah it makes sense that a rule allowing something is a side effect they didn't want. Even when they split the rule in two parts, just to allow that effect.
Could it be that you're just looking for things to bitch about in every single news about 9th ?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
PL is an average of all available options, so more than likely there are wargear options we haven't seen and won't release until we see the full kit.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
PL is an average of all available options, so more than likely there are wargear options we haven't seen and won't release until we see the full kit.
Unless they are flamers, why would thet be flamestorm agressors exsist they are too cheap, Grav and Melta the two likely options are still in the same points range and the double shoot is built into the models not the weapons.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno where you get those suppositions about what they "obviously wanted" from. Couldn't it just be that they wanted to get rid of conga-lining but their rule to do so doesn't actually do it very well?
It seems weird to think that GW carefully planned this rule in a way to create precisely the silly interactions it does. Do you really think they wanted to let people bow-tie a conga-line, at the cost of losing most of the unit if it takes casualties? That is as "gimmicky" an interaction as it gets - way, way more gimmicky than tri-pointing ever was, for example.
It looks to me like they just came up with a rule full of loopholes and unintended interactions, rather than that all these loophole and unintended interactions are actually part of the master plan.
Yeah it makes sense that a rule allowing something is a side effect they didn't want. Even when they split the rule in two parts, just to allow that effect.
Could it be that you're just looking for things to bitch about in every single news about 9th ?
There's no need to make things personal. If you can't engage in discussion without attacking the person you're talking with because you don't like their arguments, you probably shouldn't be engaging in that discussion to begin with.
GW has a long history of creating rules with unintended consequences. The flyer rules from 8th come to mind. They spent literally years slowly changing those rules to try to eliminate some of what was clearly not intended interactions like move-blocking with flyers. They worked at it for literally the whole edition and still didn't fix it. Under your logic, they wanted people to move block with flyers because it was possible to do so...even though they removed that from 9th specifically because, in their own words, it was "stupid." And even though they spent all of 8th edition slowly nerfing how effective it was.
I find it very hard to believe that GW created this rule with the intent that people would conga-line with bowties in certain circumstances. Do you really, honestly think GW thinks that adding bowties to conga-lines for 9th edition is a smart change that will make the game better?
The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
This. You can even vary the distance based on squad size so that you don't screw hordes too much. Though GW wants to kick hordes in the loins.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
An aggressor with boltstorm, frag launchers & powerfists are 37 points now, so it's not that crazy.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
That, or, even easier, just have a rule that the entire unit has to be within a bubble of X inches - 14" if you want to approximate the same conga-line a unit of 5 32mm models can make, or round it up to 16" for some extra play if you want. This is super easy to measure, because you just get a piece of paper with the right dimensions and lay it over the unit and make sure no bases are poking out. Then just keep the normal 2" of any other model coherency rule. No need for bizarre consideration of bowtie unit formations or anything like that.
The point being there are multiple other ways to get rid of conga-lining without these strange loopholes and break-points that arbitrarily penalize certain unit sizes for no reason.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
Soo.... this is why Warmachine is the No. 1 miniatures wargame in the world?
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?
It isn't. People just like being dramatic.
Except your a bit wrong on this. Sure, hordes generally wont care, it hurts their board control a bit and stops them conga lining areound the place but keeping in coherency with them wont be that much of a problem. It's units like bikes, Wraithguard/blades, Grotesques, Crisis Suits etc that you're going to have to think a lot more about and be a lot more careful with, especially combat units where you've got to charge, pile in and consolidate.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
Soo.... this is why Warmachine is the No. 1 miniatures wargame in the world?
God no, warmachine has lots of ugly rules too, but in this they got it entirely correct.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
This. You can even vary the distance based on squad size so that you don't screw hordes too much. Though GW wants to kick hordes in the loins.
Yeah, or a general +2” per 10 full models in the unit or whatever. Can tweak the details to suit, but the concept is simple and straightforward to both write and understand.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.
Unless you are really trying to space out and get as close to 2" as possible between models it won't be an issue. If you are trying to do that, well you know what you are getting into.
But then I come from AoS where its 1" coherency and 40k's 2" is like 'wheeee! I can dance everywhere!"
Well another part of my gripe comes from competitive gaming. Many times, there is a lot of "can you check that range?" or "You sure you have LOS?" Now I can see a lot of "hey, check coherency on those guys."
Before it wasn't a big deal, but now I could potentially lose models without not only carefully placing them, but also placing them in such a way that if I am shot at I can remove models and not lose any more in the casualty removal sequence. Long story short, it adds time and more bookkeeping. It just makes me want to play Nidzilla instead, which I think is what GW is going for: a game of Tanks, MSUs and monsters.
"My intention is for these models to all be in coherency. If they're slightly off are you ok with me moving them into coherency?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
And then people would complain about not being able to operate away from the leader. What if the leader gets assassinated? What if I'm 6.1" from the leader?
A lot of the complaints I'm seeing about the coherency rule seems to stem from people not wanting to have to move and place their models strategically in a (checks notes) strategy game.
Again, if you don't like the "leader" mechanic, just have a max bubble you have to stay within. All models within X inches of all other models - set it at 14" if you want the same conga-line potential as a 5 man 32mm unit, or higher if you want more. Gets rid of conga-lines far better than their 9th edition rule, with none of the loopholes or strange interactions like a 6 man squad becoming terrible at taking up space compared to a 5 man squad, and is a breeze to apply because you just have a template of the right size to lay over to make sure no bases are sticking out.
If what they intended to do was get rid of conga-lines, they've done an exceptionally bad, convoluted job of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EnTyme wrote: A lot of the complaints I'm seeing about the coherency rule seems to stem from people not wanting to have to move and place their models strategically in a (checks notes) strategy game.
Quite the opposite. The main problems with the rules are that it encourages gimmicky model placement that has nothing to do with any real strategy, just compliance with a rule that doesn't accomplish what it's actually trying to accomplish. Conga-lines with bowties are not any more "strategic" than congalines, nor is a system that allows you to bowtie a conga-line but at the cost of losing your unit down to 5 models if it takes a casualty. And there is certainly no comprehensible "strategy" in a rule that makes a unit of 6 have to clump up more than a unit of 5.
Rules that don't make sense don't promote strategy. I mean you could have a rule that said "if you have 11 models within 11 inches of one another the unit takes 4 mortal wounds, but if you have 10 or 12 within 11 inches of one another that's fine." That rule wouldn't promote strategy either - not any strategy worth promoting, that is.
A rule that results in 6 skyweavers base-to-base being an unacceptable conga line, but 5 skyweavers spread out at the 2" max being totally fine, is not a good rule.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
And I will straight up tell you that Devastators aren't that great for lugging around Heavy Weapons outside Grav Cannons, so what you're seeing is just merely a decent Melta unit, which is 100% a rarity. Decent, not good.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
An aggressor with boltstorm, frag launchers & powerfists are 37 points now, so it's not that crazy.
Bingo, and Aggressors aren't some overpowered unit either. They're GOOD but they're not the be-all-end-all.
Is there basis that 1PL is still roughly equivalent to 20 points?
They're changing points across the board so I could see either way whether it changes or not, but have we seen anything to prove it one way or another?
Because if not, it very well could be about 30pts per PL?
They're changing points across the board so I could see either way whether it changes or not, but have we seen anything to prove it one way or another?
Because if not, it very well could be about 30pts per PL?
The Combat Patrol is up to 500 points/25 PL so that's where the 20 pts per PL is coming from.
They're changing points across the board so I could see either way whether it changes or not, but have we seen anything to prove it one way or another?
Because if not, it very well could be about 30pts per PL?
The Combat Patrol is up to 500 points/25 PL so that's where the 20 pts per PL is coming from.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
RedNoak wrote: I really don't get why this coherency bs is only for 6+ model units... why doesnt it work that way for ALL units... you know like a general RULE...
units with more than 2 models must be in 2" of two other models
then lets see if people still think it wouldn't be a big deal :/
...so much hassle and fukkup potenial... for what? to screw big units even more??? as if 5 marines never congolined to hold objectives and maintain buffs... SO FREAKIN STUPID
EDIT:
and not only that... its now near impossible to trap or wrap around units... also why nerf multicharges in the first place???? would've been punishing enough with the coherency rules!
btw... does the new emergency disembarkment strat imply that units being forced out of transports suffer from the explosion?
1) You have to draw the line at some point
2) 5 marines barely cover ground compared to what other units can
3) 10 marines currently cover (8 * 2) + 12 = 28 inches; 5 will cover (3 * 2) + 4 = 10 inches - that's a pretty significant difference
4) People keep pretending this has no effect on screening and that it only hurts melee blobs - you need to stop playing the victim and start thinking a little more
Not only can you just take two 5 man squads, you can take a 10 man squad and combat squad it.
Marine units effected by this change are not basic marine infantry. It's the mega murder squads.
This might be an attempt to stealth nerf mega squads. I play custodes. In 6 or more man squads for any of my units it dramtically slashes my melee capabilities. And, as a melee army, that's all sorts of fethed for me. I'll probably be limiting my squads to 5 or less, but this ALSO hard nerfs my defenses, since I can no longer protect one big squad, I have to protect 2 or 3 smaller squads with my CP, meaning the enemy can easily cycle targets. This does worry me for melee armies. all the other talks of melee nerfs have been a shrug to me. But this one, this one hurts a lot.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
And I will straight up tell you that Devastators aren't that great for lugging around Heavy Weapons outside Grav Cannons, so what you're seeing is just merely a decent Melta unit, which is 100% a rarity. Decent, not good.
How about great? At the 100 points they're rumored to be they do more damage to a T7 chassis at 24" than Hellblasters(165pts) do at 15, after overcharge. Even on T8+ they only do 1 wound less for close to 60pts cheaper despite being 9" longer range(for full damage).
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, if you don't like the "leader" mechanic, just have a max bubble you have to stay within. All models within X inches of all other models - set it at 14" if you want the same conga-line potential as a 5 man 32mm unit, or higher if you want more.
So I could have 3 Centurions who are in coherency positioned as a triangle and each of them are 14" from each other. Cool.
I guess more practically 3 Centurions who have 6" between each model in a line. Covering chaff has never been easy!
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, if you don't like the "leader" mechanic, just have a max bubble you have to stay within. All models within X inches of all other models - set it at 14" if you want the same conga-line potential as a 5 man 32mm unit, or higher if you want more.
So I could have 3 Centurions who are in coherency positioned as a triangle and each of them are 14" from each other. Cool.
I guess more practically 3 Centurions who have 6" between each model in a line. Covering chaff has never been easy!
I would assume the 2” model to model requirement would stay.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
And I will straight up tell you that Devastators aren't that great for lugging around Heavy Weapons outside Grav Cannons, so what you're seeing is just merely a decent Melta unit, which is 100% a rarity. Decent, not good.
How about great? At the 100 points they're rumored to be they do more damage to a T7 chassis at 24" than Hellblasters(165pts) do at 15, after overcharge. Even on T8+ they only do 1 wound less for close to 60pts cheaper despite being 9" longer range(for full damage).
Wow, the Melta unit is finally doing more to a tank than Hellblasters? Also Hellblasters are awful outside stupid specific configurations so not sure what your point is there.
Jidmah wrote: I'm fairly sure that skyweavers in base-to-base are within 2" of the model behind their neighbor
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, you can deploy them in two lines of (or one of 4 and one of 2). The point is that it's deeply silly that:
6 skyweavers base to base in a line = unacceptable conga line under 9th edition rules. This line is 14 inches long.
5 skyweavers in a line 2" from one another = acceptable conga line under 9th edition rules. This line is 20 inches long.
14 inch line of base to base models = bad, 20 inch line of models spaced 2 inches apart from each other = fine.
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, if you don't like the "leader" mechanic, just have a max bubble you have to stay within. All models within X inches of all other models - set it at 14" if you want the same conga-line potential as a 5 man 32mm unit, or higher if you want more.
So I could have 3 Centurions who are in coherency positioned as a triangle and each of them are 14" from each other. Cool.
I guess more practically 3 Centurions who have 6" between each model in a line. Covering chaff has never been easy!
No, you would keep the 8th edition 2" coherency rule, as I stated when I explained it in more detail a couple posts before that one, then referenced it by saying "Again."
"My intention is for these models to all be in coherency. If they're slightly off are you ok with me moving them into coherency?"
"My intention was for these models to be in range of that devastating psychic ability. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving them into range?"
"My intention was for these models to be in range of my rapid-fire Helblasters. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving them into range?"
"My intention was for these models to be within range of this chaplain so I could reroll all my hits. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving him into range?"
"My intention was for these models to be able to see your models on the other side of that ruin. If they're slightly out of LOS, are you ok with me moving them into LOS?"
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
There's no need to make things personal. If you can't engage in discussion without attacking the person you're talking with because you don't like their arguments, you probably shouldn't be engaging in that discussion to begin with.
I'm not really trying to make it personal but it's the feeling that I got from you every single day (or it looks like it). Did you find a news you thought was good ?
yukishiro1 wrote: I find it very hard to believe that GW created this rule with the intent that people would conga-line with bowties in certain circumstances. Do you really, honestly think GW thinks that adding bowties to conga-lines for 9th edition is a smart change that will make the game better?
Listen, there is one rule allowing you to spread your minis nearly as much as before and another one, penalising you for it but not during the same phase.
You can howl "incompetence", I will say "intent". That's it. And the intent isn't "bow tie", to be clear. It's to allow you to spread and penalising you if you do. Sure the bow tie shape in itself is a side effect, one they probably feel comfortable with.
That's fine. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you shouldn't be attacked personally for it.
The second rule doesn't penalize you for spreading your minis per se, it penalizes you for pulling casualties in particular ways. It was imported from AOS, which doesn't have the first rule, and it was necessary whether or not they created the bowtie loophole in the first rule. Citing the one as proof the other is intended is not very convincing when you consider those two facts.
It looks to me very much like they didn't anticipate the bow-tie, just like they didn't anticipate wrap and trap or flyers being used to screen in 8th edition. We know for a fact that the argument that "something is allowed by the rules, therefore it is intended" is not true historically, so I don't see any reason why it has to be true here.
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: That's fine. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you shouldn't be attacked personally for it.
The second rule doesn't penalize you for spreading your minis per se, it penalizes you for pulling casualties in particular ways. It was imported from AOS, which doesn't have the first rule, and it was necessary whether or not they created the bowtie loophole in the first rule. Citing the one as proof the other is intended is not very convincing when you consider those two facts.
It looks to me very much like they didn't anticipate the bow-tie, just like they didn't anticipate wrap and trap or flyers being used to screen in 8th edition. We know for a fact that the argument that "something is allowed by the rules, therefore it is intended" is not true historically, so I don't see any reason why it has to be true here.
It has to be true because they reworked the rule specifically for it to work like it does. But there is no point arguing this, you "think" something and I "think" something else. None of us has facts.
I was genuinely curious if you found a rule you didn't had any negative against tho.
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?
Because you can easily start a chain reaction in 9th that leaves your unit with 5 models left if you are trying to maximize the space your unit takes up on the table and get it slightly wrong.
Yes, if you are just shoving some models up the table with one hand it isn't going to impact you. But if you were trying to maximize your unit's footprint, it's going to take far longer to do so safely in 9th than it did in 8th. This is just an objective fact based on how the rule is written, the same way that blast templates made people take a lot longer to move hordes before they were removed.
Now you can think that the extra time is worth taking - that's a subjective opinion. But you can't credibly argue that it won't take a lot more time in 9th to move a horde unit while maximizing its unit footprint.
I was genuinely curious if you found a rule you didn't had any negative against tho.
Definitely - to cite a very recent example, I am all for the changes to inquisitors and assassins to make it easier to take them in armies. This isn't about me, though. Either my arguments are convincing or they aren't. What I've argued elsewhere should have no impact on whether my argument on a particular point is correct.
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?
Because you can easily start a chain reaction in 9th that leaves your unit with 5 models left if you are trying to maximize the space your unit takes up on the table and get it slightly wrong.
Yes, if you are just shoving some models up the table with one hand it isn't going to impact you. But if you were trying to maximize your unit's footprint, it's going to take far longer to do so safely in 9th than it did in 8th. This is just an objective fact based on how the rule is written, the same way that blast templates made people take a lot longer to move hordes before they were removed.
Now you can think that the extra time is worth taking - that's a subjective opinion. But you can't credibly argue that it won't take a lot more time in 9th to move a horde unit while maximizing its unit footprint.
Hordes weren't maximising their footprint before and hadn't to stay in coherency before ?
So we should care now more because it's punishing ? But we already had to check tho. No ?
Are you going to be that guy and check if every single unit's models on the table isn't more than 2" appart (checking if it has 2 buddies is quite fast) or you're going to do like before and just treat the one that might be out of range ?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
An aggressor with boltstorm, frag launchers & powerfists are 37 points now, so it's not that crazy.
Bingo, and Aggressors aren't some overpowered unit either. They're GOOD but they're not the be-all-end-all.
If your yardstick for balance is aggressors a unit then you may aswell stop pretending your trying to achieve balance against anything other than other marines.
Enjoy Marine Vrs Marines Codex 3.0, the rest of us will be over here playing the non powerarmour version of 9th edition.
Yes. Cause you had to check before, so if it wasn't an issue, it shouldn't be now.
It's just that the outcome has raised and you feel like you or your opponent must take advantage of it. Or rather, to take advantage of your opponents little mistakes while measuring, which seems quite fun. Really.
Of course hordes were maximizing their footprint before, but to do so, you only had to check coherency between one model and one other model, not two. Now you have to check coherency to two models for every model. This is an exponential increase in the total number of measurements that need to be done, to the point where calculating the optimal shape for a horde to take is almost impossibly complex. You can "fake it" and get 95% of the benefit without TOO much added hastle, but to actually optimize your horde's placement becomes incredibly complex as matter of geometry. This is so objectively true that I feel like you may be missing something fundamental here about the change. You are appreciating that coherency before was only ever measured between one model and one other model, and that it's now being measured between one model and two other models, right?
If your argument is that the rule doesn't matter because people will just ignore it for normal play, about the best I can say about it is that it's *an* argument.
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
Frequent. I pre-measure for abilities - I would never be asking to gain advantage. I ask to declare my intention for an action that is entirely possible with the move range I have available.
"Can you see these models from there?"
Models get bumped. Table gets moved. Things happen that might minutely affect a model. Making intent clear helps keep this from being a problem in 99% of games. If I ever run into someone who says "no" (hasn't happened) then whatever - they'll get a free win on being a TFG and will get as good as they give.
yukishiro1 wrote: Definitely - to cite a very recent example, I am all for the changes to inquisitors and assassins to make it easier to take them in armies. This isn't about me, though. Either my arguments are convincing or they aren't. What I've argued elsewhere should have no impact on whether my argument on a particular point is correct.
So not a 9ed change then.
As far as your arguments are concerned, I think I addressed them and we agreed to disagree as far as i'm concerned.
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?
Because you can easily start a chain reaction in 9th that leaves your unit with 5 models left if you are trying to maximize the space your unit takes up on the table and get it slightly wrong.
Yes, if you are just shoving some models up the table with one hand it isn't going to impact you. But if you were trying to maximize your unit's footprint, it's going to take far longer to do so safely in 9th than it did in 8th. This is just an objective fact based on how the rule is written, the same way that blast templates made people take a lot longer to move hordes before they were removed.
Now you can think that the extra time is worth taking - that's a subjective opinion. But you can't credibly argue that it won't take a lot more time in 9th to move a horde unit while maximizing its unit footprint.
But is it really? Knowing the consequences of messing up, won't you just accept that trying to Conga Line is a bad idea under these rules and run an offset double line to maximize your space while avoiding the whole issue?
That's what GW has basically done. They have maximized your ability to place your unit the way you want to while encouraging you to keep the unit in a more compact form. It's not like W40K units are dinky little WM units that can be giving a short range around the commander to say in and call it a day. 15 Models (25mm base) at maximum 2" distance from each other is 43" long. Now place the second rank of 15 offset behind that line and you still have a 30 model unit blocking off the entire short edge of the recommended 44x60 battlefield.
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
Frequent. I pre-measure for abilities - I would never be asking to gain advantage. I ask to declare my intention for an action that is entirely possible with the move range I have available.
"Can you see these models from there?"
Models get bumped. Table gets moved. Things happen that might minutely affect a model. Making intent clear helps keep this from being a problem in 99% of games. If I ever run into someone who says "no" (hasn't happened) then whatever - they'll get a free win on being a TFG and will get as good as they give.
Definitely, but "my intent was to take up maximum space on the table with this horde until while still being able to take away casualties with the greatest flexibility without starting a coherency chain reaction" stretches playing by intent well past anywhere it can realistically go.
95% of players are just going to fudge it and not worry about the lost couple inches of screening. But to actually play optimally under the new unit coherency rules requires almost impossible complex geometric calculations that change dynamically for each model you lose.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course hordes were maximizing their footprint before, but to do so, you only had to check coherency between one model and one other model, not two. Now you have to check coherency to two models for every model. This is an exponential increase in the total number of measurements that need to be done, to the point where calculating the optimal shape for a horde to take is almost impossibly complex. You can "fake it" and get 95% of the benefit without TOO much added hastle, but to actually optimize your horde's placement becomes incredibly complex as matter of geometry. This is so objectively true that I feel like you may be missing something fundamental here about the change. You are appreciating that coherency before was only ever measured between one model and one other model, and that it's now being measured between one model and two other models, right?
If your argument is that the rule doesn't matter because people will just ignore it for normal play, about the best I can say about it is that it's *an* argument.
You're telling me you were checking that every model had one buddy perfectly at 2" ?
And yeah, I get how it works but is it that hard to form 2 rows of models separated by 2" ?
What these rules do : they let you conga line (more or less) during the move phase, let you do weird moves during charges and consolidations BUT if you're still not in coherency at the end of your turn, you're gonna be (potentially heavily) penalised for it. So you probably can't wrap around a unit in CC, you can't hold multiple objectives with one single unit, etc. Unless you're willing to lose that unit.
I haven't thought this all the way through 100% but this also seems like a situation where fast rolling saves would give the defender an advantage as they then have a known number of models to remove instead of 1 by 1.
It's minor but just another think that means enforcing this rule is going to get tedious I suspect.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
Most Necron units don't have a leader, so... ?
5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader for the entire game
alextroy wrote: But is it really? Knowing the consequences of messing up, won't you just accept that trying to Conga Line is a bad idea under these rules and run an offset double line to maximize your space while avoiding the whole issue?
Isn't this just the "people will settle for good enough" argument - which, although true for most players, is not a very good argument in favor of a rule in a competitive format? Your rule shouldn't be so complex that people will respond by not even trying to play directly with it and just settling for a less optimal but safer way to make sure they aren't going to run afoul of the most gimmicky interactions it can produce.
alextroy wrote: That's what GW has basically done. They have maximized your ability to place your unit the way you want to while encouraging you to keep the unit in a more compact form. It's not like W40K units are dinky little WM units that can be giving a short range around the commander to say in and call it a day. 15 Models (25mm base) at maximum 2" distance from each other is 43" long. Now place the second rank of 15 offset behind that line and you still have a 30 model unit blocking off the entire short edge of the recommended 44x60 battlefield.
But this shows that their rule doesn't even really accomplish what it's supposed to accomplish. You can still conga-line a whole board edge off with a 30 man unit, you just need to have your dudes holding hands with a buddy.
That doesn't make the rule better, it's another reason the rule is not a very good solution to the problem. It's needlessly complex, while not even really stopping conga-lining for someone who really wants to do it.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
Most Necron units don't have a leader, so... ?
5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader for the entire game
But if all the models have to stay X inches from the leader, we now can't do some moves this rule still allows, it isn't the same.
And you would still have to measure and your opponent would still be able to take advantage of your mistake or a little bump in the tabletop.
The takeaway here is that we have so far seen multiple instances of GW writing like a page of bad bandaid rules to badly patch one bad 8th edition rule instead of just making better base rules and 40k is well on its way back to being a chimeric abomination of layers of bandaids like it was before the reboot.
Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course hordes were maximizing their footprint before, but to do so, you only had to check coherency between one model and one other model, not two. Now you have to check coherency to two models for every model. This is an exponential increase in the total number of measurements that need to be done, to the point where calculating the optimal shape for a horde to take is almost impossibly complex. You can "fake it" and get 95% of the benefit without TOO much added hastle, but to actually optimize your horde's placement becomes incredibly complex as matter of geometry. This is so objectively true that I feel like you may be missing something fundamental here about the change. You are appreciating that coherency before was only ever measured between one model and one other model, and that it's now being measured between one model and two other models, right?
If your argument is that the rule doesn't matter because people will just ignore it for normal play, about the best I can say about it is that it's *an* argument.
You're telling me you were checking that every model had one buddy perfectly at 2" ?
And yeah, I get how it works but is it that hard to form 2 rows of models separated by 2" ?
But that isn't the optimal way to take up space on the board. Far from it. If you're looking to screen out a bubble, you're not going to deploy in 2 rows to do it. You're going to deploy in a more complex geometric structure that is going to depend on the precise number of models you have. And if there's anything that would prevent you from adopting the ideal geometric shape - enemy models, terrain with walls you can't deploy on top of, etc - you have to reevaluate.
Now obviously most people will take the "good enough for government work" approach and just do something that's obviously safe like a bunch of lines, even though it isn't optimal. But that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't add a huge amount of complexity to measuring - it just means it is so complex that most people will give up at even trying to do it right and just settle for something simpler.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
An aggressor with boltstorm, frag launchers & powerfists are 37 points now, so it's not that crazy.
Bingo, and Aggressors aren't some overpowered unit either. They're GOOD but they're not the be-all-end-all.
If your yardstick for balance is aggressors a unit then you may aswell stop pretending your trying to achieve balance against anything other than other marines.
Enjoy Marine Vrs Marines Codex 3.0, the rest of us will be over here playing the non powerarmour version of 9th edition.
Yeah because Aggressors are just dominating EVERYTHING huh?
Man give me a break. The only thing wrong with Aggressors is them double shooting on Overwatch.
alextroy wrote: Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
Give me the ideal geometric shape of a unit of 23 ork boyz to take up maximum space on the table while still being in 2" coherency of 2 other models and while preserving the ability to pull casualties from as many directions as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
If it's simple, this should be a simple answer, right?
The rule is incredibly complex to apply if you are trying to maximize the space your units can safely take up. Almost impossibly so. While still somehow managing to achieve silly results like the bow-tie conga line on the last turn to get two objectives, or the unit of 6 skyweavers that can't be base-to-base in a line.
But that isn't the optimal way to take up space on the board. Far from it. If you're looking to screen out a bubble, you're not going to deploy in 2 rows to do it. You're going to deploy in a more complex geometric structure that is going to depend on the precise number of models you have. And if there's anything that would prevent you from adopting the ideal geometric shape - enemy models, terrain with walls you can't deploy on top of, etc - you have to reevaluate.
Now obviously most people will take the "good enough for government work" approach and just do something that's obviously safe like a bunch of lines, even though it isn't optimal. But that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't add a huge amount of complexity to measuring - it just means it is so complex that most people will give up at even trying to do it right and just settle for something simpler.
Do you have an example of the most optimal "geometrical structure" ? Like, right now ?
And, if there is a way to take advantage of the rule by being clever (but not TFG), isn't that... actually good ?
"My intention is for these models to all be in coherency. If they're slightly off are you ok with me moving them into coherency?"
"My intention was for these models to be in range of that devastating psychic ability. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving them into range?"
"My intention was for these models to be in range of my rapid-fire Helblasters. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving them into range?"
"My intention was for these models to be within range of this chaplain so I could reroll all my hits. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving him into range?"
"My intention was for these models to be able to see your models on the other side of that ruin. If they're slightly out of LOS, are you ok with me moving them into LOS?"
I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.
Call over a judge on this guy for this and literally every move he makes, cause feth this guy
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course hordes were maximizing their footprint before, but to do so, you only had to check coherency between one model and one other model, not two. Now you have to check coherency to two models for every model. This is an exponential increase in the total number of measurements that need to be done, to the point where calculating the optimal shape for a horde to take is almost impossibly complex. You can "fake it" and get 95% of the benefit without TOO much added hastle, but to actually optimize your horde's placement becomes incredibly complex as matter of geometry. This is so objectively true that I feel like you may be missing something fundamental here about the change. You are appreciating that coherency before was only ever measured between one model and one other model, and that it's now being measured between one model and two other models, right?
If your argument is that the rule doesn't matter because people will just ignore it for normal play, about the best I can say about it is that it's *an* argument.
You're telling me you were checking that every model had one buddy perfectly at 2" ?
And yeah, I get how it works but is it that hard to form 2 rows of models separated by 2" ?
What these rules do : they let you conga line (more or less) during the move phase, let you do weird moves during charges and consolidations BUT if you're still not in coherency at the end of your turn, you're gonna be (potentially heavily) penalised for it. So you probably can't wrap around a unit in CC, you can't hold multiple objectives with one single unit, etc.
The fact that the coherency check happens during your turn I’m generally not bothered about. It’s that it also happens during your opponents turn means casualty removal can now be a long decision making moment due to all the permutations of possible occurrences when you potentially next take casualties. Which it really shouldn’t be.
The fact that the coherency check happens during your turn I’m generally not bothered about. It’s that it also happens during your opponents turn means casualty removal can now be a long decision making moment due to all the permutations of possible occurrences when you potentially next take casualties. Which it really shouldn’t be.
It's another layer you have to take into account when you remove your dudes, yes. Unless you're trying to be inventive with "optimal geometric structures", it shouldn't add that much complexity though.
From the top of my head, If you wanted to keep your footprint mostly unchanged for example, you could make 2 rows + a little buffer in a third and remove casualties from there. Your unit's footprint is mostly unchanged and you didn't even had to think which model to remove
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
Most Necron units don't have a leader, so... ?
5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader for the entire game
So which of the nearly identical Necron Warriors is the Leader again? That one? I'm sure that it was that model over there...
But that isn't the optimal way to take up space on the board. Far from it. If you're looking to screen out a bubble, you're not going to deploy in 2 rows to do it. You're going to deploy in a more complex geometric structure that is going to depend on the precise number of models you have. And if there's anything that would prevent you from adopting the ideal geometric shape - enemy models, terrain with walls you can't deploy on top of, etc - you have to reevaluate.
Now obviously most people will take the "good enough for government work" approach and just do something that's obviously safe like a bunch of lines, even though it isn't optimal. But that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't add a huge amount of complexity to measuring - it just means it is so complex that most people will give up at even trying to do it right and just settle for something simpler.
Do you have an example of the most optimal "geometrical structure" ? Like, right now ?
And, if there is a way to take advantage of the rule by being clever (but not TFG), isn't that... actually good ?
Uh...that's my point. Figuring out the optimal geometric structure is extremely difficult and context dependent. In other words...it takes a long time to do so, even to do so approximately - doing so precisely is likely impossible without a computer to simulate and then calculate the best deployment. The fact that I can't tell you what it is off the top of my head is precisely why the rule will add so much time to moving a large unit while maximizing the space it takes up.
And no, I don't think that's actually good.
To summarize:
1. This rule makes moving and pulling casualties from horde units much more complex than it was before if you want to maximize board space.
2. It doesn't actually get rid of conga-lines.
Doesn't seem like a great rule if the intent was to get rid of conga lines.
Meanwhile, there are much simpler options for getting rid of conga-lines, if that's what they wanted to do. The X" bubble one being one but certainly not the only solution.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.
A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th
Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.
Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.
And I will straight up tell you that Devastators aren't that great for lugging around Heavy Weapons outside Grav Cannons, so what you're seeing is just merely a decent Melta unit, which is 100% a rarity. Decent, not good.
How about great? At the 100 points they're rumored to be they do more damage to a T7 chassis at 24" than Hellblasters(165pts) do at 15, after overcharge. Even on T8+ they only do 1 wound less for close to 60pts cheaper despite being 9" longer range(for full damage).
You mean the anti-tank unit is better at killing tanks than the anti-PEQ (Primaris Equiv)?
No, you would keep the 8th edition 2" coherency rule, as I stated when I explained it in more detail a couple posts before that one, then referenced it by saying "Again."
This seems like the kind of thing they don't want.
Regarding annoyance of keeping things in coherency I do get the feeling that this will help GW move some movement tray units. I at least foresee using them more in 9th compared to 8th.
Definitely, but "my intent was to take up maximum space on the table with this horde until while still being able to take away casualties with the greatest flexibility without starting a coherency chain reaction" stretches playing by intent well past anywhere it can realistically go.
95% of players are just going to fudge it and not worry about the lost couple inches of screening. But to actually play optimally under the new unit coherency rules requires almost impossible complex geometric calculations that change dynamically for each model you lose.
I'm not sure I'm conveying the whole situation appropriately, but I always err on the side of caution.
The point being - your opponent is human and communication is a valid way of heading off issues.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course hordes were maximizing their footprint before, but to do so, you only had to check coherency between one model and one other model, not two. Now you have to check coherency to two models for every model. This is an exponential increase in the total number of measurements that need to be done, to the point where calculating the optimal shape for a horde to take is almost impossibly complex. You can "fake it" and get 95% of the benefit without TOO much added hastle, but to actually optimize your horde's placement becomes incredibly complex as matter of geometry. This is so objectively true that I feel like you may be missing something fundamental here about the change. You are appreciating that coherency before was only ever measured between one model and one other model, and that it's now being measured between one model and two other models, right?
If your argument is that the rule doesn't matter because people will just ignore it for normal play, about the best I can say about it is that it's *an* argument.
You're telling me you were checking that every model had one buddy perfectly at 2" ?
And yeah, I get how it works but is it that hard to form 2 rows of models separated by 2" ?
What these rules do : they let you conga line (more or less) during the move phase, let you do weird moves during charges and consolidations BUT if you're still not in coherency at the end of your turn, you're gonna be (potentially heavily) penalised for it. So you probably can't wrap around a unit in CC, you can't hold multiple objectives with one single unit, etc.
The fact that the coherency check happens during your turn I’m generally not bothered about. It’s that it also happens during your opponents turn means casualty removal can now be a long decision making moment due to all the permutations of possible occurrences when you potentially next take casualties. Which it really shouldn’t be.
exactly. i guess not many here remember blast weapons of previous editions... IT WAS TEDIOUS... not only do you have to check which model to remove, you can also loose special weapons, leaders etc because they were put in fringe cases and in order to keep the unit in coherency you have to pull them... this is 7th edition bs all over again. were through some kind of positioning you are now able to snipe models.
and again i get it... congo lining is dumb. BUT WHY ON EARTH DOES THE 6+ MODEL UNIT RESITRICTION EXIST?! just make it a rule for everyone.
Uh...that's my point. Figuring out the optimal geometric structure is extremely difficult and context dependent. In other words...it takes a long time to do so, even to do so approximately - doing so precisely is likely impossible without a computer to simulate and then calculate the best deployment. The fact that I can't tell you what it is off the top of my head is precisely why the rule will add so much time to moving a large unit while maximizing the space it takes up.
So rules that forces you to think are bad. Ok.
You should just be ok with the fact that if you can't find it, the one that you found instead must be good enough and move on. It's a "you" problem, not a rule problem. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any choice and the models would move themselves.
alextroy wrote: Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
Give me the ideal geometric shape of a unit of 23 ork boyz to take up maximum space on the table while still being in 2" coherency of 2 other models and while preserving the ability to pull casualties from as many directions as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
If it's simple, this should be a simple answer, right?
The rule is incredibly complex to apply if you are trying to maximize the space your units can safely take up. Almost impossibly so. While still somehow managing to achieve silly results like the bow-tie conga line on the last turn to get two objectives, or the unit of 6 skyweavers that can't be base-to-base in a line.
That isn't a necessary question to ask. The goal is to get boyz into combat. They don't need to be spread out at all.
If you're aiming to safely maximize space then you go two ranks 1" diagonally.
Orks, of course, being known for their strict formations...
alextroy wrote: Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
You literally cannot have 10 guardsmen stand in a line anymore. Worse, if they do start in a line, you instantly lose 5 of them.
The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
Most Necron units don't have a leader, so... ?
5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader for the entire game
So which of the nearly identical Necron Warriors is the Leader again? That one? I'm sure that it was that model over there...
5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader* for the entire game
*If you’re called Ghaz, mark the model with a token
No, you would keep the 8th edition 2" coherency rule, as I stated when I explained it in more detail a couple posts before that one, then referenced it by saying "Again."
This seems like the kind of thing they don't want.
Spoiler:
But you can still do that, just move the bow-tie of each to the end. You'd be vulnerable to pulling casualties, but you can still do it.
Also, 5 men deployed at max 2" reach the same distance you've measured out. So if that's ok, what's wrong with tacking a few more on the sides? Why is what you showed illustrates an unacceptable conga line, but 5 guys taking up the same 14" distance is ok?
In other words, why is this an acceptable conga line:
Spoiler:
But this is an unacceptable conga line:
Spoiler:
Surely by anyone's definition, the X is less of a conga line than the straight line, isn't it? Yet the rules permit the straight line, and prohibit the X.
Uh...that's my point. Figuring out the optimal geometric structure is extremely difficult and context dependent. In other words...it takes a long time to do so, even to do so approximately - doing so precisely is likely impossible without a computer to simulate and then calculate the best deployment. The fact that I can't tell you what it is off the top of my head is precisely why the rule will add so much time to moving a large unit while maximizing the space it takes up.
So rules that forces you to think are bad. Ok.
I didn't say that. I said that the rule is hugely complex to find the optimal play for, and that this will slow down moving hordes. You disagreed, saying that it was no slower than the current system. I illustrated why you were wrong, and it is hugely more complex if you want to try to do optimize your movement to screen out the largest area.
I'm just glad we now all agree that moving your horde unit optimally under the new unit coherency rules is in fact so complex that it is virtually impossible to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forget the unit of Kroot stretched across the table.
This rule doesn't even let 10 Guardsmen stand in a line.
To be fair, you can still stand 10 guardsmen in a line, they just have to be close to one another to do so. 25mm bases are slightly less than 1". Therefore, the guy on the end will still be in coherency of two other guys as long as he's close than roughly 1/2" from the second to last guy (and if you want to be safe when pulling casualties, everyone else has to be within about 1/2" of eachother too). You can even put 32mm space marines in a straight line, though they have to be almost touching one another to do it. 60mm bases cannot be put in coherency in a straight line if they're 6 models or more no matter what, because the base itself is greater than 2" in diameter.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course hordes were maximizing their footprint before, but to do so, you only had to check coherency between one model and one other model, not two. Now you have to check coherency to two models for every model. This is an exponential increase in the total number of measurements that need to be done, to the point where calculating the optimal shape for a horde to take is almost impossibly complex. You can "fake it" and get 95% of the benefit without TOO much added hastle, but to actually optimize your horde's placement becomes incredibly complex as matter of geometry. This is so objectively true that I feel like you may be missing something fundamental here about the change. You are appreciating that coherency before was only ever measured between one model and one other model, and that it's now being measured between one model and two other models, right?
If your argument is that the rule doesn't matter because people will just ignore it for normal play, about the best I can say about it is that it's *an* argument.
You're telling me you were checking that every model had one buddy perfectly at 2" ?
And yeah, I get how it works but is it that hard to form 2 rows of models separated by 2" ?
What these rules do : they let you conga line (more or less) during the move phase, let you do weird moves during charges and consolidations BUT if you're still not in coherency at the end of your turn, you're gonna be (potentially heavily) penalised for it. So you probably can't wrap around a unit in CC, you can't hold multiple objectives with one single unit, etc.
The fact that the coherency check happens during your turn I’m generally not bothered about. It’s that it also happens during your opponents turn means casualty removal can now be a long decision making moment due to all the permutations of possible occurrences when you potentially next take casualties. Which it really shouldn’t be.
exactly. i guess not many here remember blast weapons of previous editions... IT WAS TEDIOUS... not only do you have to check which model to remove, you can also loose special weapons, leaders etc because they were put in fringe cases and in order to keep the unit in coherency you have to pull them... this is 7th edition bs all over again. were through some kind of positioning you are now able to snipe models.
and again i get it... congo lining is dumb. BUT WHY ON EARTH DOES THE 6+ MODEL UNIT RESITRICTION EXIST?! just make it a rule for everyone.
I mentioned it may be because of small units in melee, but that was just a guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Orks, of course, being known for their strict formations...
You mean Ork yoofs who go through a rebellious period of marching in step, polishing their boots and otherwise acting in an organized and disciplined manner?
They could'a just make it 11+ and this wouldn't be an issue as it'd only impact the units that were really "daisy chaining" (ie. big horde units). I mean yes, that's yet another 9th Ed "feth you!" to hordes, but at least it would not affect the default size of most units in the entire damned game.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm just glad we now all agree that moving your horde unit optimally under the new unit coherency rules is in fact so complex that it is virtually impossible to do so optimally.
No we don't. You're just arguing that since you can't decide what is the best way to setup your unit, there must be another one that is better.
It's ridiculous.
Are you sure you're moving your units around the board the most optimal way ? Or chosing your targets ?
Are you sure the list you're using is the most optimal you could build ?
Do you really think moving your army around the board in the best way possible is easier than putting a model 2" from 2 other models in the most optimal way ?
You probably are, otherwise your argument would end there, so let say I think it isn't. Should we change the whole game because I think there is a better way for me to move my army on a particular board (because yeah, they change between games, it hurts my brain) but can't find it ? Or should I just suck it up ?
Also, you can perfectly set up your unit as a 'X' as long as there are 2 inches between the bases at each ends of the "branches". Its width is probably close to the line shown before, so there must be some kind of underlying intent at work there. Dunno.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm just glad we now all agree that moving your horde unit optimally under the new unit coherency rules is in fact so complex that it is virtually impossible to do so optimally.
No we don't. You're just arguing that since you can't decide what is the best way to setup your unit, there must be another one that is better.
It's ridiculous.
This whole discussion started because you asked why it was more complicated and time-consuming to move a horde in 9th while maximizing board space than it was in 8th, and then made a statement that made it clear you didn't think it was.
I pointed out why this is not true as a matter of geometry - that it is in fact much more complex when you have to measure to 2 models than to 1 model - which prompted you to start coming up with straw men about complexity being bad. But that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was whether it's more complex or not.
I'm just glad we now both agree that I was right and that it is much more complicated to move your horde unit while maximizing the space it takes up under the 9th edition 2" to 2 models rule than under the 8th edition 2" to 1 model rule.
NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”
The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.
Step 1 : Dakka complains about melee not being good and screens getting in the way.
Step 2 : Screens have a harder time screening
Step 3 : This rule is stupid.
Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.
I pointed out why this is not true as a matter of geometry - that it is in fact much more complex when you have to measure to 2 models than to 1 model - which prompted you to start coming up with straw men about complexity being bad. But that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was whether it's more complex or not.
I'm just glad we now both agree that I was right and that it is much more complicated to move your horde unit while maximizing the space it takes up under the 9th edition 2" to 2 models rule than under the 8th edition 2" to 1 model rule.
The issue is you've proven nothing, just told that hypothetically, since you couldn't find one, there should be a far optimal way to do stuff. And that since it's too hard to find, it's bad.
This isn't an argument. But I'm sure you can tell.
If the only way to do it you can come up with is easy, maybe, you know, it's easy.
But sure, I'll humor you : yes, it's more complex than moving your units before.
Still way easier than moving your army around the board, but hey, seems like all the brain power went there !
MaxT wrote: NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”
Newplayer2: "Why? They're both lines."
Store Manager: "GW doesn't like conga lines. Except when they're 5 models. Then they're ok."
Newplayer2: "Uh...Ok, I'll set up my 10 guys in X formation instead. That's cool and stuff. And it's basically a big square in terms of the footprint, so surely that's not a problem?"
Store Manager: "Nope, that X formation is an impermissible conga line too, so you're going to lose 4 of them. Sorry, shoulda just played marines so you could deploy them in a straight 14" conga line, because that isn't an impermissible conga line the way your X formation is."
This doesn't seem that complex to work out. Two offset lines with 2" coherency each and you're good (1.7" back if depth matters and you're working on maxing out their ability to block a side off, extend to two objectives, etc.). As the curve in your line increases, you will eventually approach a blob, but by then you aren't maximizing spread and are back to just pushing things forward.
You're obviously going to be taking casualties from the edges to avoid zippering, but that seems to be intentional as a way of preventing you from leaving large distances between models that are ostensibly in the same unit. If you want the freedom to remove from the center (to lengthen a charge, for example), you'll need to go with a third+ ranks or be deployed in a mobile square, but that's not really different (as a single rank 8th edition squad couldn't take from the middle and still have a presence there).
I would have preferred something more akin to "stay within X" of the leader" (which would require denoting squad leaders in some factions) or "can't be farther than X" from any other member of the unit", but it's not that bad.
The only really weird thing is the exception for three, four, and five man squads.
MaxT wrote:NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”
Maybe someone should explain the rules better to Player 2? He seems to have missed this page. You disliking a rule doesn't mean it stops existing.
Castozor wrote:Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.
Literally every edition change requires players to adapt their strategy. Why is lining your Terminators up like they're playing Red Rover your only option?
MaxT wrote: NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”
Newplayer2: "Why? They're both lines."
Store Manager: "GW doesn't like conga lines. Except when they're 5 models. Then they're ok."
Newplayer2: "Uh...Ok, I'll set up my 10 guys in X formation instead. That's cool and stuff. And it's basically a big square in terms of the footprint, so surely that's not a problem?"
Store Manager: "Nope, that X formation is an impermissible conga line too, so you're going to lose 4 of them. Sorry, shoulda just played marines so you could deploy them in a straight 14" conga line, because that isn't an impermissible conga line the way your X formation is."
It's funny because it's false. Is that the new meme ?
Marine bases being 32mm wide and each marine having to be, at worse, 50mm form 2 buddies, you can deploy them in a line. You just can't space them as much. Edit : I confused Marines & 'crons.
It has been shown graphically just a few message sooner by another user.
But sure, I'll humor you : yes, it's more complex than moving your units before.
Ok, great. I accept your apology and admission I was right. Glad we cleared that up.
No problemo, looks like it mattered a lot to you. Glad you'll be able to sleep knowing you were right on the internet ! Prepare the medicine for the headaches during these coming movement phases tho.
Anyway, have fun with this, I'm done.
Trimarius wrote: This doesn't seem that complex to work out. Two offset lines with 2" coherency each and you're good (1.7" back if depth matters and you're working on maxing out their ability to block a side off, extend to two objectives, etc.). As the curve in your line increases, you will eventually approach a blob, but by then you aren't maximizing spread and are back to just pushing things forward.
It's not very complex to try to take up the most space in a straight line you can, I agree.
If you are trying to take up area on the board though (e.g. to screen out deep strikers, or move-block units) it becomes extremely geometrically complex to determine the biggest blob your unit can safely stretch out to, especially if you want to be able to choose to take casualties from more than one direction. I.e. if you have a point in the middle you're trying to protect, and you want to screen out the maximum area from that point, and be able to pull casualties from all the edges of the blob rather than unidirectionally.
MaxT wrote: NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”
Newplayer2: "Why? They're both lines."
Store Manager: "GW doesn't like conga lines. Except when they're 5 models. Then they're ok."
Newplayer2: "Uh...Ok, I'll set up my 10 guys in X formation instead. That's cool and stuff. And it's basically a big square in terms of the footprint, so surely that's not a problem?"
Store Manager: "Nope, that X formation is an impermissible conga line too, so you're going to lose 4 of them. Sorry, shoulda just played marines so you could deploy them in a straight 14" conga line, because that isn't an impermissible conga line the way your X formation is."
It's funny because it's false. Is that the new meme ?
Marine bases being 32mm wide and each marine having to be, at worse, 50mm form 2 buddies, you can deploy them in a line. You just can't space them as much.
It has been shown graphically just a few message sooner by another user.
Uh obviously we are talking about deploying them at 1" or greater from each other. You can tell because I referenced how the space marine player can create a 14" line with his models. The person who first pointed out you can deploy in a line as long as it's a tight line was none other than me.
5 models in a 14" straight line: this is not a conga-line according to 9th edition rules.
9 models in an X formation, with a total length of well less than 14" for either of the lines that form the X: this is an impermissible conga-line according to 9th edition rules.
10 Guardsmen standing in a line, each one 2" apart.
Start of morale phase. Not every model is within 2" of another model. Remove the Guardsman at either end of the line. 8 models left.
Now are all models within 2" of two other models? No. Remove the Guardsmen at either end of the line. 6 models left.
Are all models within 2" of two other models? No. Remove one Guardsmen from the end of the line. 5 models left.
Now the unit has 5 models and are only required to be within 2" of one other model.
Your line of Guardsmen just took 50% casualties because they stood in a line. Now change "Guardsmen" to "Terminators" and you'll see how unbelievably slowed this rule is.
One step forward, two steps back for GW. Every damned time. They see a problem - daisy chaining - and they just HURL the fething pendulum as hard as they can without thinking about where it will end up.
If the problem is daisy chaining, then fix daisy chaining. Don't introduce rules that hinder the basic unit size of the majority of infantry units in the game. They even created a mechanic for blasts that affect 11+ units (y'know, the units more likely to daisy chain given that units that can have more than 10 models tend to go much higher than 10 models) and use that mechanic.
Forget the Fall Back rules. This is a dealbreaker...
Uh obviously we are talking about deploying them at 1" or greater from each other. You can tell because I referenced how the space marine player can create a 14" line with his models. The person who first pointed out you can deploy in a line as long as it's a tight line was none other than me.
Great so what you meant is that the guy with 10 dude can actually deploy in a line ?
Glad we could clear that up.
I don't give a feth about screens. The rule is stupid because it unnecessarily punishes units above 5 models for seemingly no gain.
Again, a unit of 10 Guardsmen cannot even stand in a line anymore without taking auto-casualties.
People love to get hung up on this, I guess?
Good - I'm glad they can't. They're one of the most common screens around. It doesn't make them unable to shoot, or hold objectives, or run, or do actions. Their footprint is now a bit smaller. That's it.
puma713 wrote: I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!
I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?
It isn't. People just like being dramatic.
Nobody is being dramatic. Your trying to paint them that way because your defending a losing position.
It makes a huge difference when you consider specialists. Oh hey I was moving my blob quickly and trying to grab an objective. Only to taker causalities per usual, except now if I am not careful and deliberate in how the unit is shaped if I chose to keep my las canon etc. and it breaks coherency, I now have to remove that expensive specialist anyway. Oh, but it doesn't apply to everyone, only units of 6 or greater for some odd reason.
Imagine how crapy this is for things on large bases btw, like Cataphrons for admech. Sure you can take what is it, up to 12? But your going to be in one massive lump.
Also as others have said, it makes multi assaulting even harder. So now we have higher failure rate for multiple targets, an escape artist strat, and now you have to charge as a lump lol. Making tagging other units harder to boot.
Oh but it just so happens everything primaris happens to be multiple marines merged into one base. 3 bikes but 12 wounds, 19 attacks and 12 shots eh? 3 eradicators with 10 attacks, and 6 shots from multimeltas on crack?
It also creates hilarious scenarios you already failed to "debunk" earlier ITT. Sure 5 models might take less overall volume on the table, but 5 models on 32mm bases will screen a longer stretch then 10 models on 25mm bases... Thats idiotic, it also doesn't stop screening, it simply rearranges the deck chairs because instead of taking 20 guys in one unit, I'll take 4 units of 5 and cheat the core rules in multiple areas.
MaxT wrote: The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.
What it should have been:
1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc
There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness
Most Necron units don't have a leader, so... ?
5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader for the entire game
So which of the nearly identical Necron Warriors is the Leader again? That one? I'm sure that it was that model over there...
5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader* for the entire game
*If you’re called Ghaz, mark the model with a token
All I have are dice no tokens and they get in the way of the game. The point is this is not a good idea and causes more problems than it would solve if implemented (which if it were it would cause Privateer Press to accuse GW of 'poaching' their rules).
Uh obviously we are talking about deploying them at 1" or greater from each other. You can tell because I referenced how the space marine player can create a 14" line with his models. The person who first pointed out you can deploy in a line as long as it's a tight line was none other than me.
Great so what you meant is that the guy with 10 dude can actually deploy in a line ?
Glad we could clear that up.
Fething lols
Sure, he can deploy in a line. But not a line like the space marine player did. His line has to be super tightly spaced. And he definitely can't do a symmetrical X, that's right out, even though each line of the X is a lot shorter than the long 14" line the space marine player could deploy it. Because we don't like long straight lines of spaced out models. Oh, bother.
Castozor wrote:Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.
Literally every edition change requires players to adapt their strategy. Why is lining your Terminators up like they're playing Red Rover your only option?
Nice way to miss the bigger point for one. Secondly, my issue is with the rule being nonsensical, as demonstrated in another threat if I take my termies in a squad of 5 they can actually cover a bigger area then when I take 6, how does this make any sense? Again this is GW fixing something that A) wasn't a big issue to begin with, B) hurts other cases/units that didn't need the nerf to begin with. That is my main issue, it's lazy and nonsensical. This is less adapting my strategy and more GW arbitrarily deciding something doesn't work anymore because something unrelated went against their idea of playing the game the "right way".
H.B.M.C. wrote: They could'a just make it 11+ and this wouldn't be an issue as it'd only impact the units that were really "daisy chaining" (ie. big horde units). I mean yes, that's yet another 9th Ed "feth you!" to hordes, but at least it would not affect the default size of most units in the entire damned game.
Morons. Every last fething one of them.
Yep. Then we'd be listening to people whine about hordes. And then we'd have contrived arguments about how 11 man units could suddenly spread out once they lost a model. Sounds awesome.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They could'a just make it 11+ and this wouldn't be an issue as it'd only impact the units that were really "daisy chaining" (ie. big horde units). I mean yes, that's yet another 9th Ed "feth you!" to hordes, but at least it would not affect the default size of most units in the entire damned game.
Morons. Every last fething one of them.
Yep. Then we'd be listening to people whine about hordes. And then we'd have contrived arguments about how 11 man units could suddenly spread out once they lost a model. Sounds awesome.
Yes...you have figured out that an arbitrary limit on when a unit gets insecure and has to start huddling up leads to absurd results.
Now let's apply that to the rule GW just announced...
H.B.M.C. wrote: 10 Guardsmen standing in a line, each one 2" apart.
Start of morale phase. Not every model is within 2" of another model. Remove the Guardsman at either end of the line. 8 models left.
Now are all models within 2" of two other models? No. Remove the Guardsmen at either end of the line. 6 models left.
Are all models within 2" of two other models? No. Remove one Guardsmen from the end of the line. 5 models left.
Now the unit has 5 models and are only required to be within 2" of one other model.
Your line of Guardsmen just took 50% casualties because they stood in a line. Now change "Guardsmen" to "Terminators" and you'll see how unbelievably slowed this rule is.
One step forward, two steps back for GW. Every damned time. They see a problem - daisy chaining - and they just HURL the fething pendulum as hard as they can without thinking about where it will end up.
If the problem is daisy chaining, then fix daisy chaining. Don't introduce rules that hinder the basic unit size of the majority of infantry units in the game. They even created a mechanic for blasts that affect 11+ units (y'know, the units more likely to daisy chain given that units that can have more than 10 models tend to go much higher than 10 models) and use that mechanic.
Forget the Fall Back rules. This is a dealbreaker...
Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?
ClockworkZion wrote: Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?
That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.
Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).
bullyboy wrote: people can keep dropping everything to 5 man models if they want, but on the flipside you seriously have to consider the watering down effect of strategem use.
Sure, 6 man skyweavers now have to be weary of blast and coherency, but that is one fewer models to make use of prismatic blur or murderous entrance, etc. Same with many other units (Dark Angels and Weapons of the Dark Ages for example).
Yes, MSU looks to be the way, but MSU does not gain max benefits or reliance on strategem use.....and this is a great balancing factor IMHO.
This is a totally fair stance to take, and I sort of agree except for the current trend of GW basically giving units abilities that would be strats in any other earlier codex. I mean, look at the two primaris units they leaked, those are a vanilla AT unit and a vanilla biker unit with a +2 attacks on the charge per biker or shoot twice on the same target that read exactly like a stratagem.
I can't wait to see what borked rule the shield guards have, a free double fight? lol
ClockworkZion wrote: Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?
That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.
Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).
I disagree. The rule works fine for shorter lines and kills some odd builds like the Gaunt Carpet.
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than leaving the mess we used to have unchecked. Something needed to be done to coherency as it was creating a lot of unfun scenarios.
And now having to check coherency every turn on everything bigger than 5 models to make sure they're within 2" of two other models is less "unfun".
Give me a break.
Rules that don't scale (morale casualties & coherency casualties) are inherently bad as they ignore the base rules (toughness/wounds/saves/etc.) and they could have matched it with the blast rule and made it 11+, fixing the problems with big units daisy chaining. Instead they created a rule that feths over the standard sized unit and forces everyone to waste time measuring coherency for... what? No gain at all. This is a time waster.
ClockworkZion wrote: Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?
That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.
Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).
I disagree. The rule works fine for shorter lines and kills some odd builds like the Gaunt Carpet.
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than leaving the mess we used to have unchecked. Something needed to be done to coherency as it was creating a lot of unfun scenarios.
What mess exactly? So far it seems GW is more intent on killing hordes than actual unfun issues like OP Auras, near infinite rerolls, marines being OP and alpha strikes. Compared to these how exactly did daisy chains feel more unfun/OP?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
I kinda agree with Slayer here, yes it's a good volume of melta shots at a fair price point, but you've got to get them there and their defensive stats aren't that amazing. Likewise in the era of having infinite height los blocking and -1 to hit terrain dotted about, there's good odds people will get the drop on these guys first.
Yea if only units could generically be guaranteed to alpha off a flanking position for only a single CP... Oh wait, now they can.
Slayer had a point, a poor one, but he couldn't resist being extreme as usual. He's part of the crowd that contributed to the idiotic redefining of the word literally through his hyperbole. So now he's moved onto other words like absolutely apparently
He has quoted himself several times in that chain, which contains the irrefutable evidence of his own failure. Yet his complete lack of humility drives him to dig deeper.
ClockworkZion wrote: Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?
That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.
Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).
I disagree. The rule works fine for shorter lines and kills some odd builds like the Gaunt Carpet.
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than leaving the mess we used to have unchecked. Something needed to be done to coherency as it was creating a lot of unfun scenarios.
I'm not sure it is better. But I do know that there was a much simpler, more effective way to address the problem: "every model must be within X" of every other model." Super easy to apply, and it actually ends conga-lines, instead of this rule, which still allows them as long as each guy has a dance partner. Obviously you keep the same 2" coherency rule within that bubble.
Make X= 14" and you have the same conga-line potential that a 5-man 32mm base unit has under the current 9th rule, with no need for complicated measuring, and you get the added bonus of horde units that actually blob up instead of being long lines, whether long lines of 1 or 2 models.
Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.
Yea, the "white knight" who isn't sure about Eradicators and put his pre-order on hold.
Or, maybe, so many people are pre-occupied with whining, moaning, or arm-chair rules writing while still missing the intent of the rule that we never get to discuss how we use the god damn rule in the first place.
Daisy chain is one consequence. Massive screens are a problem in a game with potential null zone deployments and also for reserves in general. You do want to be able to bring your melee reserves in close, don't you?
H.B.M.C. wrote: And now having to check coherency every turn on everything bigger than 5 models to make sure they're within 2" of two other models is less "unfun".
Give me a break.
Rules that don't scale (morale casualties & coherency casualties) are inherently bad as they ignore the base rules (toughness/wounds/saves/etc.) and they could have matched it with the blast rule and made it 11+, fixing the problems with big units daisy chaining. Instead they created a rule that feths over the standard sized unit and forces everyone to waste time measuring coherency for... what? No gain at all. This is a time waster.
Right, because we don't check coherency when moving thus being able to skip that check in most circumstances?
EnTyme wrote: Well for one, they're immersion breaking. Soldiers simply don't behave like that. Daisy chains are a ridiculously gamey strategy.
They don't behave like that, but they do behave the same way if they've got a partner to hold hands with as they daisy-chain?
Because the 9th edition rules still allow the daisy-chain, you just gotta be holding hands with a buddy to do it. And 30 grots can still daisy-chain off an entire board edge.
Daedalus81 wrote: Daisy chain is one consequence. Massive screens are a problem in a game with potential null zone deployments and also for reserves in general. You do want to be able to bring your melee reserves in close, don't you?
You keep posting that picture like it means something.
And even if it did this rule would'a fixed that if it had said 11+.
ClockworkZion wrote: Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?
That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.
Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).
I disagree. The rule works fine for shorter lines and kills some odd builds like the Gaunt Carpet.
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than leaving the mess we used to have unchecked. Something needed to be done to coherency as it was creating a lot of unfun scenarios.
What mess exactly? So far it seems GW is more intent on killing hordes than actual unfun issues like OP Auras, near infinite rerolls, marines being OP and alpha strikes. Compared to these how exactly did daisy chains feel more unfun/OP?
There were certain horde builds that could screen out the entire board by spreading out. Flyers would fall out of the sky because of it, deep strikers would have no where to go, ect.
Forcing people to leave more space on the table is not a bad thing despite people saying otherwise.
We already move in coherency and unless you pull a casualty from the middle of a line and break coherency I don't see this causing as many issues as claimed.
And if they do, one single attack can reduce that unit to 5 grots because lining up for recess while you're in the middle of a gunfight is now as bad an idea on the gameboard as it is in real life.
*edit* Just a reminder that we haven't seen how casualties work in this edition yet. If they go back to "closest model" like we had in 7th, daisy chains become suicide.
The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.
Step 1 : Dakka complains about melee not being good and screens getting in the way.
Step 2 : Screens have a harder time screening
Step 3 : This rule is stupid.
most major melee units in the game are hardcore nerfed by this in combination of engagement ranges. Good luck piling in orks. Oh you play custodes? Better not have more than 5 models or three will literally NEVER FIGHT. Same with centurions and agressors, and every bike unit in the game. Berzerkers? not longer able to maximize numbers. Et cetera, et cetera. Melee units not nerfed? Single model monsters. Further pushing the developing big model meta.
yukishiro1 wrote: And 30 grots can still daisy-chain off an entire board edge.
Sure, if they want to risk losing a ton of models.
No, I'm talking a safe chain. Double grots holding hands, each 2" from the next pair. That's ~14.5" worth of bases, plus 28" of space in-between, which equals 42.5"...on a 44" board edge. If you stagger your hand-holders you can even add an inch to that.
EnTyme wrote: And if they do, one single attack can reduce that unit to 5 grots because lining up for recess while you're in the middle of a gunfight is now as bad an idea on the gameboard as it is in real life.
*edit* Just a reminder that we haven't seen how casualties work in this edition yet. If they go back to "closest model" like we had in 7th, daisy chains become suicide.
alextroy wrote: Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
Give me the ideal geometric shape of a unit of 23 ork boyz to take up maximum space on the table while still being in 2" coherency of 2 other models and while preserving the ability to pull casualties from as many directions as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
If it's simple, this should be a simple answer, right?
The rule is incredibly complex to apply if you are trying to maximize the space your units can safely take up. Almost impossibly so. While still somehow managing to achieve silly results like the bow-tie conga line on the last turn to get two objectives, or the unit of 6 skyweavers that can't be base-to-base in a line.
The complexity of your request in no way impacts the complexity of the rule. The rule is simple. Your goal of "the ideal geometric shape of a unit of 23 ork boyz to take up maximum space on the table" is not.
You act like this is somehow unique in 40K that a simple rule can result in complex problems for the player. I assume the first time you looked at the rules for Piling In and Consolidating in 8th Edition it occurred to you that you could swing around a model to get 0.01" closer will moving 3" towards your opponent's board edge. Simple rule, complex usage.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Orks, of course, being known for their strict formations...
alextroy wrote: Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
You literally cannot have 10 guardsmen stand in a line anymore. Worse, if they do start in a line, you instantly lose 5 of them.
The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.
Between two guardsmen standing 2" apart is enough space for 2 more guardsmen. You can totally have 10 guardsmen standing in a line.
And if you want to get fully about it, there is a combination of distance and troopers where it becomes harder and harder to coordinate actions when spread out. Bigger units need to space out less to ensure proper coordination.
Or you can just accept it as rule to avoid gamey actions. I think we shall have to start calling 9th Edition the Anti-Gamey Edition of Warhammer 40,000.
The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.
Step 1 : Dakka complains about melee not being good and screens getting in the way.
Step 2 : Screens have a harder time screening
Step 3 : This rule is stupid.
most major melee units in the game are hardcore nerfed by this in combination of engagement ranges. Good luck piling in orks. Oh you play custodes? Better not have more than 5 models or three will literally NEVER FIGHT. Same with centurions and agressors, and every bike unit in the game. Berzerkers? not longer able to maximize numbers. Et cetera, et cetera. Melee units not nerfed? Single model monsters. Further pushing the developing big model meta.
So that rule where models within 1" of models within 1" of the enemy won't be able to fight that was in the rules for the last 5 editions of 40K is being removed?
Yea, the "white knight" who isn't sure about Eradicators and put his pre-order on hold.
Or, maybe, so many people are pre-occupied with whining, moaning, or arm-chair rules writing while still missing the intent of the rule that we never get to discuss how we use the god damn rule in the first place.
Daisy chain is one consequence. Massive screens are a problem in a game with potential null zone deployments and also for reserves in general. You do want to be able to bring your melee reserves in close, don't you?
I will drop the white knighting since I'm not interested in a personal fight, but having said that you implied this would somehow benefit melee as if screens were the only issue plaguing melee in 8th. Yes screens might be less effective but so so are melee units themselves, so let's draw that up as a zero gain overall, even though I'm personally convinced this change hurts melee more than it benefits them. Like I said daisy chaining is a boon to melee not a drawback, castles are hurt less by this than melee, null deployments/DS screening was an issue yes, but the fact DS is even necessary to make most melee units useful is a big problem in and off itself. Overall I feel this hurts melee more because inpiling/tri pointing will be even more difficult for what benefit to melee exactly?
If they are changing casualties to being the closest model, there would be no need to do this in the first place, because that itself would make it dangerous to chain.
But they aren't doing that. If they were, we'd know by now. BTW, Reece's (insert obligatory stompa reference) "big, huge change" that he had been talking about not having been revealed was this. So there's no huge change still lurking out there that we don't know about, at least not according to any of the playtesters who have spoken about it.
Or you can just accept it as rule to avoid gamey actions. I think we shall have to start calling 9th Edition the Anti-Gamey Edition of Warhammer 40,000.
Really? Its actually starting to look like the most Gamey. The intent of many of these rules is to stomp on specific past rules interactions by introducing more game-specific clauses, chasing its own tail to create and close corner cases, and the writing swoops and loops around odd, pointless digressions that double the word count. (Unit coherency doesn't need to summarize the basic turn structure chart to tell you which phases most movement happens in, nor does it need to preview reinforcement rules. Those rules just need a simple page reference to unit coherence)
Yeah, this change is absolutely not anti-gamey. No change that results in 6 skyweavers being unable to line up base-to-base but that allows 5 skyweavers to daisy chain out 20" of board space can be called anti-gamey.
Especially not if it still allows a 30-man grot unit to screen out a whole board edge.
Or if it allows you to bow-tie conga-line an even greater distance, but if you take a casualty suddenly the unit evaporates down to 5 models. That's even gamier than the prior conga-line, not less.
Soldiers spread out in a long line is unacceptably immersion-breaking, but soldiers spread out in a long line, with each soldier holding hands with his best buddy, is totally not!
Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.
Yea, the "white knight" who isn't sure about Eradicators and put his pre-order on hold.
Or, maybe, so many people are pre-occupied with whining, moaning, or arm-chair rules writing while still missing the intent of the rule that we never get to discuss how we use the god damn rule in the first place.
Daisy chain is one consequence. Massive screens are a problem in a game with potential null zone deployments and also for reserves in general. You do want to be able to bring your melee reserves in close, don't you?
This was someone finding a loophole in another player's bs cheese strategy. The white scars player? Was a muppet, and deserved to have someone pull something like this on him.
I dunno if you were actually playing the game at this time, but null deploying your army was awful and gamey. Way worse than going "well my gakky tau kroot (cause they were always REALLY gakky) are gonna show this jerk what's up)"
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, this change is absolutely not anti-gamey. No change that results in 6 skyweavers being unable to line up base-to-base but that allows 5 skyweavers to daisy chain out 20" of board space can be called anti-gamey.
Especially not if it still allows a 30-man grot unit to screen out a whole board edge.
Or if it allows you to bow-tie conga-line an even greater distance, but if you take a casualty suddenly the unit evaporates down to 5 models. That's even gamier than the prior conga-line, not less.
You keep harping on those skyweavers, but they're clearly more an exception than a rule. The way I see it this rule was made to prevent horde shenanigans the most, but they applied it to midsized units as well.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, this change is absolutely not anti-gamey. No change that results in 6 skyweavers being unable to line up base-to-base but that allows 5 skyweavers to daisy chain out 20" of board space can be called anti-gamey.
Especially not if it still allows a 30-man grot unit to screen out a whole board edge.
Or if it allows you to bow-tie conga-line an even greater distance, but if you take a casualty suddenly the unit evaporates down to 5 models. That's even gamier than the prior conga-line, not less.
You keep harping on those skyweavers, but they're clearly more an exception than a rule. The way I see it this rule was made to prevent horde shenanigans the most, but they applied it to midsized units as well.
So that makes it a good rule how? All elite small sized units are hurt by this for no reason other than GW can't think of an elegant solution to save their life.
Mate you said Gaunt Carpet a few posts ago, playing it straight, as if gaunts needed to be reigned in lol
He's using skyweavers to demonstrate his point. It also applies to a ton of other units. Heck, just look at admech.
2 troops, the 2 new cav, the new jump troops, the 2 strider chickens and the 50's bots. Thats a ton of crap that gets punished for taking that 6th guy or more. That's one book lol.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't agree that it's a punishment unleas your army hinged on very specific builds and uses of screens.
It's punishing because it exists. Because you remove one casualty and suddenly half your unit dies because you didn't obsessively measure out 2" on all your units last turn like some TFG back when we still used blast markers.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
I kinda agree with Slayer here, yes it's a good volume of melta shots at a fair price point, but you've got to get them there and their defensive stats aren't that amazing. Likewise in the era of having infinite height los blocking and -1 to hit terrain dotted about, there's good odds people will get the drop on these guys first.
Yea if only units could generically be guaranteed to alpha off a flanking position for only a single CP... Oh wait, now they can.
Slayer had a point, a poor one, but he couldn't resist being extreme as usual. He's part of the crowd that contributed to the idiotic redefining of the word literally through his hyperbole. So now he's moved onto other words like absolutely apparently
He has quoted himself several times in that chain, which contains the irrefutable evidence of his own failure. Yet his complete lack of humility drives him to dig deeper.
Then pray tell what was wrong about my statement. Please show the combat potential of the 100 point unit, please!
You mean the combat potential of a super shooty squad that shouldn't by rights have any melee to begin with? Primaris are ridiculous generalist that outshoot most other specialist shooty elites of other Codexes while still f'ing up most other non-melee units and quite a few melee specialist units of other races for no reason. Their statline should not exist to begin with.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, this change is absolutely not anti-gamey. No change that results in 6 skyweavers being unable to line up base-to-base but that allows 5 skyweavers to daisy chain out 20" of board space can be called anti-gamey.
Especially not if it still allows a 30-man grot unit to screen out a whole board edge.
Or if it allows you to bow-tie conga-line an even greater distance, but if you take a casualty suddenly the unit evaporates down to 5 models. That's even gamier than the prior conga-line, not less.
You keep harping on those skyweavers, but they're clearly more an exception than a rule. The way I see it this rule was made to prevent horde shenanigans the most, but they applied it to midsized units as well.
So that makes it a good rule how? All elite small sized units are hurt by this for no reason other than GW can't think of an elegant solution to save their life.
I saw the supposed "elegant solution" people claimed Warmachine has and I don't feel it was all that elegant. Frankly I think it fits 40k about as well as wearing a shoe on the wrong foot.
I'm not claiming this rule is perfect, I just don't think it's as bad as claimed.
