Beat me to it. Love this. Was always a horrible, immersion-breaking thing to do.

 Nazrak wrote:
Beat me to it. Love this. Was always a horrible, immersion-breaking thing to do.

Though you still can daisy chain....it will just be a lot fatter it seems.

Kinda glad to see this change, let’s small units still have some options but keep large units from just stretching out all over the board it keeping one guy in the back in a long chain to an objective while the rest of the horde assaults something.

Hugeeeee.

I think folks are overestimating how big of an impact this will have. You just need to support the ends, the interior links will still meet the requirements as by definition they'll still be in coherency with two separate models..

Wow, this does more damage to melee than any of the other rules we've seen so far.

ERJAK wrote:
Wow, this does more damage to melee than any of the other rules we've seen so far.

Can you explain? I took this as a benefit to melee, since screens won't be able to deploy in a single extended line.

Edit: Oh yeah, Sterling is right; could just bookend two models at either end of a chain.

You can still daisy chain like this, but the chain gets shorter :

8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8

The "o" is one model, and "8" is two models in base contact.

Full disclaimer - If this was covered on a stream, I didn't catch the stream. Apologies if this was already covered, but for the "horizontal" and "Vertical" requirements - do we think there will now be model facings to help define which is which, or do we think it will be ok as long as you have one side fitting the 2" requirement, and the other side fitting the 5"?

Feel free to throw rocks if I'm over-thinking this.

A 20 model unit of gaunts could still stretch out at least 30 inches. 14 gaunts 2” plus 3 gaunts on each end btb wit each end cap being 2” away still creates a pretty long chain.

Well you can... it just shortens the chain by a bit at each end. They tried though; and I can certainly see it being hard to make a rule that works to not allow daisy chaining.

 p5freak wrote:
You can still daisy chain like this, but the chain gets shorter :

o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o

The "o" is one model, and "8" is two models in base contact.

really all you need is:

8 o o o o o o 8

to meet the requirements (example a 10 man unit).

 p5freak wrote:
You can still daisy chain like this, but the chain gets shorter :

o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o

The "o" is one model, and "8" is two models in base contact.

The chain gets precisely two models shorter. The interior models are in coherency with the model to their left and their right, meaning they are legally observing this rule.

8 o o o o o o o o o 8

This doesn't change much, and everyone is going to forget about this rule.

If they really wanted to stop conga line each model needs to be within x" of unit leader(declare new one when previous one dies). Adjust x based on unit size.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This doesn't change much, and everyone is going to forget about this rule.

If their intent is to actually remove daisy chaining, though, I bet they'll adjust it.

Oh bloody hell, yeah. Should have made it 3 models, huh?

This doesn't change much, and everyone is going to forget about this rule.

It's potentially a lot of hassle for large hordes too. My guess is that, in a practical sense you will end up with two applications. One version where everyone will just bunch everything up as the most expedient way of following the rule, and one where the players will carefully measure out every last inch ...

I like the idea of trying to eliminate the conga lines though, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

If they really wanted to stop conga line each model needs to be within x" of unit leader(declare new one when previous one dies). Adjust x based on unit size.

I like the idea of that suggestion, and it works really well for small squads, but that starts to get pretty tough with any units that can can take 15+ models.

Should have made it 3 other models.

Tycho wrote:


It's potentially a lot of hassle for large hordes too. My guess is that, in a practical sense you will end up with two applications. One version where everyone will just bunch everything up as the most expedient way of following the rule, and one where the players will carefully measure out every last inch ...

I like the idea of trying to eliminate the conga lines though, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

The only extra hassle it gives to hordes is that they have to have one extra model at the ends of the chain, it might as well not have been changed the way it is written now. Hopefully they errata it to 3 models instead of 2, that would actually change things up.

Tycho wrote:

I like the idea of that suggestion, and it works really well for small squads, but that starts to get pretty tough with any units that can can take 15+ models.

That's why i said the distance is different based on squad size. You have bigger squad, you can spread around bit more. Otherwise yeah would suck for hordes

Tycho wrote:

If they really wanted to stop conga line each model needs to be within x" of unit leader(declare new one when previous one dies). Adjust x based on unit size.

I like the idea of that suggestion, and it works really well for small squads, but that starts to get pretty tough with any units that can can take 15+ models.

Or simply, every model must remain within X" of all other models in the unit, where X = number of models in the unit. So you can conga line a bit with big units, but will start to bunch up a bit more as they get smaller.

Sterling191 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You can still daisy chain like this, but the chain gets shorter :

o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o

The "o" is one model, and "8" is two models in base contact.

The chain gets precisely two models shorter. The interior models are in coherency with the model to their left and their right, meaning they are legally observing this rule.

8 o o o o o o o o o 8

Yes, true.

Just make it so that no unit can be bigger than 5 models. That's by far the cleanest solution if you want to avoid congalining.

If aura abilities only benefited "models" and not "units" that would go a long way towards getting rid of these stupid daisy chains.

This rule does nothing other than making you have anchors at the end of the chain. A unit footprint seems to be the only way to kill this stupid strategy. Something like: no model can be further from the commanding model (nominate at beginning of units movement) than 3" for 5 man, 6" for 10-15 man and 9" for 15+.

Large units can still spread 18" (which is a lot of space) but isn't criss-crossing lines of models 20-30" long. Combined with auras/spells only impacting models within x inches (instead of units) abilities like synapse only working if all models in a unit are within x inches (would probably have to extend ranges a couple of inches). That along with the new character protection rules seems like a solid solution, I'm not sure what this rule is supposed to be doing.

AoS has a rule where if you end the turn out of coherency, you remove the models.

We could discover that the same rule is being added here, which would make this change much more impactful when you take casualtes on a conga lined unit.

If you daisy chain with the
8 o o o o o o o o o 8
method described by some then the loss of 2 models breaks cohesion. So you will have to reform it.
If you stagger with the
o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o
it is harder to break the chain but you're still covering less ground. And 3 casualties (assume you take off the ends first in these examples) break cohesion and requires a reform.

You cover less distance, so the wrap is smaller or needs more units. Trailing from an aura point (say a Cpt or equivalent) and chaining 1/3rd of the table is also going to be a liability.

Grand scheme of things - if they'd made this '3' other models instead of '2' other models people would complain more about taking larger than 5-man units (oh you lucky marine players where your minimum size is always something like 5 so you declare a rule dead because you don't have to interact with it) and as the '2' it squishes the conga-line but doesn't remove it entirely.

Need to see this played in game along with any casualty removal rules changes (imagine if it goes back to you had to remove closest first for example) to see what impact this will have overall.

Spoletta wrote:
AoS has a rule where if you end the turn out of coherency, you remove the models.

We could discover that the same rule is being added here, which would make this change much more impactful when you take casualtes on a conga lined unit.

Except then no mention of what happens(can't move) if you can't move to coherency. That would be irrelevant with ao# rule

Also you remove from rear. If going forward 2" lost movement. That's it

 BroodSpawn wrote:

method described by some then the loss of 2 models breaks cohesion. So you will have to reform it.

This rule has no compulsion to make a move, only a compulsion to return to coherency *IF* one moves and is out of coherency.

Very important distinction.

AoS has a rule where if you end the turn out of coherency, you remove the models.

We could discover that the same rule is being added here, which would make this change much more impactful when you take casualtes on a conga lined unit.

That's a good point. Also wonder if this might not tie into other morale based rules or something like that.

EDIT: Ninja'd by several people lol

Also:

Just make it so that no unit can be bigger than 5 models. That's by far the cleanest solution if you want to avoid congalining.

You're not wrong with that, but then what do you do with armies like IG, Orks, Nids, etc ...

They most likely are also changing how being out of coherency works to tho. You might have to remove models until you are back in coherency.

If you do try to conga line with the bookends doubled up, doesn't it mean that the loss of a single model breaks your unit coherency?

Sterling191 wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:

method described by some then the loss of 2 models breaks cohesion. So you will have to reform it.

This rule has no compulsion to make a move, only a compulsion to return to coherency *IF* one moves and is out of coherency.

Very important distinction.

That is true. I had missed that on an initial read. I still believe in the larger state that is on the table the conga-line will be less viable since if the unit should move it now has to reform that coherency.

The rule doesnt say anything about the psychic phase. What happens when you warptime a unit ? Can they be scattered all over the battlefield ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentineil wrote:
If you do try to conga line with the bookends doubled up, doesn't it mean that the loss of a single model breaks your unit coherency?

Removing losses is irrelevant, your models can be more than 2" away form each other. When you move, you must move in a way that the unit ends up in coherency, if you cant do that, you cant move. That how it is in 8th.

 Sentineil wrote:
If you do try to conga line with the bookends doubled up, doesn't it mean that the loss of a single model breaks your unit coherency?

Same as it does now, if you pick a model from the daisy chain in the middle. Sure.

 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt say anything about the psychic phase. What happens when you warptime a unit ? Can they be scattered all over the battlefield ?

Presumably covered by 'any sort of move'

Really, it does virtually nothing to units of 40 Cultists or 30 Gaunts.


However, it is a major Pain in the Neck for 6 Centurions, 6 Skyweavers, 6 Ironstrider Ballistari, etc.. that sort of thing.

Im not a native english speaker, but shouldnt the rule say "within 2" horizontally and within 5" vertically" ? How am supposed to place my models on the battlefield when there is no terrain that has 5" height ?

No, they are really dead. You die out of coherency.

From the Genestealer Article, we have more info about Unit Coherency.

This seems like it DOES kill the conga line as we know it.

 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt say anything about the psychic phase. What happens when you warptime a unit ? Can they be scattered all over the battlefield ?

Note the rule says the coherency applies when the unit is set up, with warptime (and similar) you remove the unit, then set it up again - so coherency applies during the set up (again). It also says it applies after any sort of move, warptime might be considered a 'sort of move'.

Called it

Scratch that - just saw coherency check.

I dig it. Hordes and screens are going to have a much harder time covering large areas of the board. No more conga-lining Infantry Squads to block chargers.

This counts as 1 point on my scale of "9th edition changes that help melee armies".

I wonder what the order of operations is, because if you remove a model that is not in coherency and that causes a different model to no longer be in coherency, do you remove that model as well? Could you unzip a thirty man unit down to five models if you set them up stupidly?

If so This seems like the true death of three pointing, because a long thin wrap can get the whole unit unzipped out of coherency.

 catbarf wrote:
I dig it. Hordes and screens are going to have a much harder time covering large areas of the board. No more conga-lining Infantry Squads to block chargers.

Still definitely possible, but like for my Orky boys, I'll need a lot of 10 man grot squads or big ones to actually do it.

I 100% agree, though. Conga lines are really dumb. They'll have to change some rules I think (some auras make no sense without the conga line concept), but I can't complain, because it makes the rules better.

I absolutely love this rule for the aesthetics as much as anything else. Games will be much more interesting to look at because you won't have to actively maintain your suspension of disbelief when the daemon worshipping cultists form a single file line across the whole battlefield so one guy can hear the Dark Apostles' sermon and whisper to the rest like the most violent game of broken telephone.

Have to say, I like the new coherency rules and coherency check. Units will have to move and act like a coherent unit rather than stretching out all across the battlefield or risk serious repercussions.

Whether it leads to weird interactions remains to be seen, but this seems like a good change to me.

Edit: it also addresses the concerns some had with how blast weapons might be “unrealistic” because large units are likely to be spread out in a line.

How many chickens are going to hatch again?

 Grimgold wrote:
I wonder what the order of operations is, because if you remove a model that is not in coherency and that causes a different model to no longer be in coherency, do you remove that model as well? Could you unzip a thirty man unit down to five models if you set them up stupidly?

If so This seems like the true death of three pointing, because a long thin wrap can get the whole unit unzipped out of coherency.

It chains.

The rule is clear, you remove models until the remaining ones are in coherency.

In AoS it has devastating effects at times.

This rule might be the single biggest thing to make movement, manoeuvring and positioning an important tactical part of the game again.

Grimgold wrote:I wonder what the order of operations is, because if you remove a model that is not in coherency and that causes a different model to no longer be in coherency, do you remove that model as well? Could you unzip a thirty man unit down to five models if you set them up stupidly?

It would seem so. If, say, in all the previous examples of 8oooooooooooooo8 conga lines being posted, if one of the models on the end of the conga line died, the entire chain would fall apart until it reached like 5 models on the other end.

Ah yeah, love it.

Deleted.

Risk with the “8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8” deployment?

Shooting casualties. With that one, even a single casualty is immediately breaking your unit coherency.

Deleted.

 Elbows wrote:
What a poorly written and integrated rule. Absolute gak. I can see it being the first rule ignored by casual players.

I don't know, we've lived with most parts of this rule very well in Age of Sigmar. It's a rule that requires you to positiion your troops and be smart about it.

On another note this rule does make the GW movement trays more handy.

 Elbows wrote:
What a poorly written and integrated rule. Absolute gak. I can see it being the first rule ignored by casual players.

Compared to the terrain rules? It's not that badly written, and the integration isn't so bad.

The main thing I'd just say to new players/casual players regarding this rules would just be "bunch up your models".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Risk with the “8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8” deployment?

Shooting casualties. With that one, even a single casualty is immediately breaking your unit coherency.

Only rules which allow the shooting/attacking unit to "pick" the exact model - something a few psychic powers could use. Beyond that, the targeted player simply picks a model at the end of its row. If you "push" models slightly closer together, they're still in 2" coherency.

Even if you pick someone at the end of the row, then you've now got a model on the end of the row with only one model in coherency? You've just swapped out 8oooooooooooo8 for ooooooooooooo8 - and that means the lone model at the left end is outside of coherency, and then the model after, and then after them, and then after them, and so on.

Unless you do something like 8888888, you're going to be at risk

Deleted.

And yet, skirmish order is a real thing with a long and storied history. Seems like the wrong fix to the problem...

 Flinty wrote:
And yet, skirmish order is a real thing with a long and storied history. Seems like the wrong fix to the problem...

There's no real need for skirmish order when you're playing a game that isn't a simulation. Maybe when the Old World comes back.

 Elbows wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Risk with the “8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8” deployment?

Shooting casualties. With that one, even a single casualty is immediately breaking your unit coherency.

Only rules which allow the shooting/attacking unit to "pick" the exact model - something a few psychic powers could use. Beyond that, the targeted player simply picks a model at the end of its row. If you "push" models slightly closer together, they're still in 2" coherency.

What it does is limit which models can be chosen as casualties, and strongly discourage single line congas.

For instance, and only for example, a mob of 30 Ork Boyz. Right now, their bases are what, 1” wide or so? At maximum spacing right now, they can conga 86” wide - I came to that number based on 30 1” bases, with 28 28” gaps. I’m pretty sure my calculation is correct, but my brain has been a bit wonky.

In 8th, when shooting up that unit, my opponent can select his casualties from either end without concern. He could also pick them from a single end.

Now? The conga line can be a maximum of (oh god this hurting my brain, apologies if my numbers are off) 82”. Yet, the second they start taking casualties, I’m breaking his unit coherency. Even a single ded Boy is setting that off.

To have a single conga line, where each model remains within 2” of two others at all times drastically reduces that board control potential.

Now my example is silly. Very silly indeed. It seems incredibly unlikely anyone would do such a conga line, other than for a laff.

But, it does help limit ‘Dave, sit on the objective whilst Bob and Barry smash up that bloke’ type things. This in turn helps limit how much a single unit can control.

Melee auras from Deep Strike (unless they're CHARGE related) are completely dead as of 9th, unless they're upped to 9" to make up for the >9" deep strike rule whereas Shooting auras are for the most parth left untouched by the new coherency rules

Deleted.

Check the actions and you have your answer.

Only one unit can perform the action, so if it is a small one the opponent will have an easy game negating your victory points.

 Elbows wrote:
So the question is...is GW intentionally trying to kill units of models over five? We see that blast weapons resolve more hits...and there is a completely arbitrary coherency penalty applied to larger model units. They also, more or less, suffer more from coherency death issues, etc.

I don't know what the new detachment style rules are or will be, but I see almost zero reason to take aspect warriors over a unit of five. Have GW released any information that suggest benefits of hordes or even simply "normal" sized squads?

Blast weapons hardly produce more hits for 10 man units.

 Elbows wrote:
So the question is...is GW intentionally trying to kill units of models over five? We see that blast weapons resolve more hits...and there is a completely arbitrary coherency penalty applied to larger model units. They also, more or less, suffer more from coherency death issues, etc.

I don't know what the new detachment style rules are or will be, but I see almost zero reason to take aspect warriors over a unit of five. Have GW released any information that suggest benefits of hordes or even simply "normal" sized squads?

The only new rules that seem to give any sort of benefit to larger units are attrition (insofar as morale us less deadly to larger units than it was in 8th, but it doesn’t actually make larger units “better”, just “less bad”), look out sir (larger units are able to better provide characters with protection) and the detachment CP rules which might encourage larger units to prevent taking multiple detachments and so spend CPs if you run out of slots.

The existing benefits of more effective use of buffs, auras and strategems for large units seem to be unchanged. Overall it looks to me that smaller units is still better in most cases.

This is what’s going to stop daisy chains

Think its mixed tbh.

This rule will prevent X-X-X-X-X bubblewrap by say Guardsmen round tanks.
They'll have to go
X-X-X-X-X
-X-X-X-X-X
Or so.

But if I've got say 20 GSC Acolytes charging, where before I might have conga lined 3 back to get into buff range, now I'll have to use 4. Sure those 4 are at risk - but I can decide whether I want to remove them as casualties, or remove a couple of casualties from the 16 guys in the front.

Its probably a good idea all the same - but yeah. In my experience at least conga lining was more filing back 6-8 inches, often because the unit had made a charge and the buff bot character had failed, or you wanted to buff numerous units at once. It wasn't about having units go 40" across the table.

So for most you'll have to line up 2 units side by side, each one two ranks deep, instead of two units one in front of the other each 1 model deep.
Not really super hard to achieve, but yes it does reduce some of the silliness from long lines of models with 1 guy in an aura passing it to the rest. Not stop it, but reduces the spread of the effect.

"The furthest two models can't be more than 8" apart."

There I did it better.

This post ignores the other part of unit coherency that was posted on WH community:



This means that a single casualty (i.e. controlling player removes a model as a result of casualty) can cause such congaline (8-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-8) to continue to lose models until it reaches 5-man unit as this formation relies on having two models, and only two models, in coherency.

So conga line is officially curtailed with this rule.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read 2nd page of this post.

Tyel wrote:
Think its mixed tbh.

This rule will prevent X-X-X-X-X bubblewrap by say Guardsmen round tanks.
They'll have to go
X-X-X-X-X
-X-X-X-X-X
Or so.

But if I've got say 20 GSC Acolytes charging, where before I might have conga lined 3 back to get into buff range, now I'll have to use 4. Sure those 4 are at risk - but I can decide whether I want to remove them as casualties, or remove a couple of casualties from the 16 guys in the front.

Its probably a good idea all the same - but yeah. In my experience at least conga lining was more filing back 6-8 inches, often because the unit had made a charge and the buff bot character had failed, or you wanted to buff numerous units at once. It wasn't about having units go 40" across the table.

I think the bigger "abuse" was stringing 30 gretching 2" apart across your whole backfield.

Now that reserves are a thing there needs to be more of a cost. Additionally it really helps melee slip in which was needed.

I feel like this was a total missed opportunity for the GW rules writers. If the rules writers think this is going to change much, it shows they really don't play the game the same way as most of their players.

I feel a better change would have been:

"Models must stay within 2" of each other, and within Ld range of the unit leader"

Would have made it so units can't conga line, and abilities that increase the Ld of a squad matter for more than just morale rolls, it would allow squads to spread out a bit more.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I feel like this was a total missed opportunity for the GW rules writers. If the rules writers think this is going to change much, it shows they really don't play the game the same way as most of their players.

I feel a better change would have been:

"Models must stay within 2" of each other, and within Ld range of the unit leader"

Would have made it so units can't conga line, and abilities that increase the Ld of a squad matter for more than just morale rolls, it would allow squads to spread out a bit more.

This will not change much?

You sure that you have read the full rules? Conga lines are history.

The idea is good, but the implementation is seriously flawed. It doesn't actually stop conga-lining back to buffs, it just means you have to use one additional model to do so. The models in the chain theoretically become vulnerable if you take casualties, but only if you choose to pull one of them, so the situation doesn't change very much vis-a-vis how it works now. At max you maybe lose 2-3 more models than you otherwise would have if you commit to a chain and then have to start pulling models from the chain.

It does make conga-lining with large units to screen board space more difficult and risky. This is the part of the rule that more or less works.

And then it also leads to this wonderful stupidity:

This unit is in legal coherency:


But this unit is performing an illegal conga line:

\

Now does this situation come up often? No, not really. But it is undeniable stupid when it does.

I don't care much about conga lines, but how are models like termintors suppose to do melee now, if being out of cohorency kills models, everything is going to have to move as a blob.

Karol wrote:
I don't care much about conga lines, but how are models like termintors suppose to do melee now, if being out of cohorency kills models, everything is going to have to move as a blob.

Has anything changed for terminators? Aren’t they normally in units of 5, and in 8th they had to maintain coherency too, including in melee.

Paladins are run in units fo 10. The fringe models are never close to 2 models. So do termintors suppose to move in a two row phalanx or something?

Karol wrote:
Paladins are run in units fo 10. The fringe models are never close to 2 models. So do termintors suppose to move in a two row phalanx or something?

I’m not super familiar with GKs, didn’t realise they have 10 model terminator units. Can they combat squad? It looks like moving them in 2 ranks would be the best way to deal with the new coherency rules.

Aash wrote:

Karol wrote:
Paladins are run in units fo 10. The fringe models are never close to 2 models. So do termintors suppose to move in a two row phalanx or something?

I’m not super familiar with GKs, didn’t realise they have 10 model terminator units. Can they combat squad? It looks like moving them in 2 ranks would be the best way to deal with the new coherency rules.

GK go all in on paladins, heck I'm sure GK players would take units of 20 or 30 if they could as that way they can stack all the psychic powers and strategums on their paladin deathstar.

Yeah you'll be running them in the stagered line or a triangle or diamon formation from now on.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I feel like this was a total missed opportunity for the GW rules writers. If the rules writers think this is going to change much, it shows they really don't play the game the same way as most of their players.

I feel a better change would have been:

"Models must stay within 2" of each other, and within Ld range of the unit leader"

Would have made it so units can't conga line, and abilities that increase the Ld of a squad matter for more than just morale rolls, it would allow squads to spread out a bit more.

*Looks at 30 model units with LD4/5 and no access to LD increase*
*shakes head*

From the wording, it looks like the coherency check takes place after the morale is resolved? This is a big deal if its the case, because under the new morale system, units lost to attrition are random. You roll per model. So if you had a loose formation and took several attrition losses, and happened to roll the ones in the middle, you could end with a squad split in half, and then lose one half to the coherency check.

Certainly not so. You roll for attrition losses randomly per model, but it is a global roll like the current losses for a unit inside a destroyed transport : you still get to choose who goes away.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
From the wording, it looks like the coherency check takes place after the morale is resolved? This is a big deal if its the case, because under the new morale system, units lost to attrition are random. You roll per model. So if you had a loose formation and took several attrition losses, and happened to roll the ones in the middle, you could end with a squad split in half, and then lose one half to the coherency check.

I hope that's not correct because that seems really time consuming (going model by model in say a cultist unit), and can lead to some very awkward rules interactions. However, you know what they say, the best way to get the right answer on the internet is to post the wrong one, so I'm sure someone will mention if that's not the consensus interpretation.

One thing people haven't mentioned yet, is this gives us a way to kill our own units. Remember you can't fall back and shoot, but you don't need to if all of the units in CC died due to lack of unit coherency. There are probably more than a few edge cases where killing your own units would be desirable, and since it happens after morale units killed in this way don't affect morale. I suspect there will be great potential for janky rules interactions.

So, again, why am I taking units above 5 models in 9th?

And I have real problems with rules that just outright remove models regardless of what they are (Gretchin vs Custodes). They do not scale well at all.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
From the wording, it looks like the coherency check takes place after the morale is resolved? This is a big deal if its the case, because under the new morale system, units lost to attrition are random. You roll per model. So if you had a loose formation and took several attrition losses, and happened to roll the ones in the middle, you could end with a squad split in half, and then lose one half to the coherency check.

I hope that's not correct because that seems really time consuming (going model by model in say a cultist unit), and can lead to some very awkward rules interactions. However, you know what they say, the best way to get the right answer on the internet is to post the wrong one, so I'm sure someone will mention if that's not the consensus interpretation.

One thing people haven't mentioned yet, is this gives us a way to kill our own units. Remember you can't fall back and shoot, but you don't need to if all of the units in CC died due to lack of unit coherency. There are probably more than a few edge cases where killing your own units would be desirable, and since it happens after morale units killed in this way don't affect morale. I suspect there will be great potential for janky rules interactions.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I thought that was what people had concluded before. Do we have the full combat Attrition rules somewhere? I can only find the bullet points.

And good point about choosing to let things die.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So, again, why am I taking units above 5 models in 9th?

Simply put I'm with you on the you just don't unless its a throwaway screen you expect to loose T1 anyway.

Karol wrote:
Paladins are run in units fo 10. The fringe models are never close to 2 models. So do termintors suppose to move in a two row phalanx or something?

This is what upset me too. So my Blightlords when taken in a 10 man squad now have to move in a phalanx when a 5 model unit can spread as much as they want? How does that make any sense? As for someone who said this was a boon for melee, how exactly? Before I could consolidate/pile in to my hearts desire and now I have to make sure all of my models are at least holding hands with 2 others. Yet another unnecessary nerf to melee who already seem hamstrung so far in 9th. Now as with all things 9th so far, I'll withhold full judgement until I see the full picture but this seems another clumsy attempt at fixing something that A) wasn't that big a problem to begin with (daisy chaining), B) seems to needlessly nerf a bunch of unrelated units that didn't need one to begin with.

This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

Was looking forward to the GSC article since they're the next army I'm working on. Instead the only compelling piece of new information is that GW want to slap hordes with the nerf bat even harder and nerf the one thing my Guardsmen for AM were still useful at.

This doesn't save time, now as a horde player you have to think mathematically and sequencially about individual model positions and how you remove your models all the time, which is absurd. I can just tell that this is going to cause me headaches.

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

At the very least, daisy chaining was ugly, and it let basically every unit in your army benefit from 6" auras (I know because I play DA, and every unit I cared about had full rerolls, even if only a fraction of those benefited from the 4++), which was patently not their intention. Also moving towards more objective based play large units could cap two objectives, removing causalities from the middle.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

At the very least, daisy chaining was ugly, and it let basically every unit in your army benefit from 6" auras (I know because I play DA, and every unit I cared about had full rerolls, even if only a fraction of those benefited from the 4++), which was patently not their intention. Also moving towards more objective based play large units could cap two objectives, removing causalities from the middle.

While I can agree to this somewhat, between all the other gamey mechanics daisy chaining was never the worst offender for me, and this is yet another needless nerf for horde style units. Maybe next time GW can use play testers that aren't so overly hostile to horde style units.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

At the very least, daisy chaining was ugly, and it let basically every unit in your army benefit from 6" auras (I know because I play DA, and every unit I cared about had full rerolls, even if only a fraction of those benefited from the 4++), which was patently not their intention. Also moving towards more objective based play large units could cap two objectives, removing causalities from the middle.

The objective holding thing is easy, just make it so a squad can hold only a single objective. No problem. Also, it's a rule they had in the past, possibly 6th or 7th edition.

As for being ugly, I think that's less important than the idea that a squad somehow can't string out to present a dispersed formation and a wide front, which I think is fairly common. Being forced to clump up breaks immersion for me, personally.

And Auras. . . well. . . I guess I'd just rather there be less of those.

If they wanted to get rid of conga lines, there was an obvious and extremely easy solution:

All models in a unit must be within X" of all other models. This is super easy to apply, because all you have to do is create a paper cutout of X" diameter and lay it over a unit to make sure no bases are sticking out.

If they want to allow units to spread out the same as a 5-man 32mm base unit can currently do under the rule they have, they would set X" at 14". If they wanted to allow greater spread, they could set this higher. The normal 2" coherency within the bubble would still obviously apply.

This does a far better job of stopping daisy-chaining - under the 9th edition rule, a 30 man unit can still daisy chain off the entire short board edge - while also being vastly easier to apply.

I, for one, never really liked thin lines of troops. I much preferred bunched up blobs of units and models sticking closer together - so tight phalanxes and close order drills appeal to me far more aesthetically than what I perceived as the gaminess of a super dispersed and sparse screen meant to maximise space efficiency.

But then, I'm not really an efficient player.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I, for one, never really liked thin lines of troops. I much preferred bunched up blobs of units and models sticking closer together - so tight phalanxes and close order drills appeal to me far more aesthetically than what I perceived as the gaminess of a super dispersed and sparse screen meant to maximise space efficiency.

But then, I'm not really an efficient player.

But the new rule doesn't even prevent that, it just means each dude has to be holding hands with a buddy.

A 30 man unit of grots can still screen off the entire 44" short board edge under the new 9th edition rules.

So they've managed to do something that doesn't really even cure the problem, while adding a significant amount of complexity, and leading to patently absurd situations like the 6-model unit that has to huddle up much closer than the 5-man unit that can spread out.

Meanwhile they had a super simple solution that would have stopped units from spreading out in the "every model has to be within X" of every other model" rule that some other games use.

It's just a really weird choice to address conga-lines in this particular way.

One of the things I liked about the removal of blast markers was that That Guy™ players would stop spending every movement phase checking the measurements of all their individual models to reduce the damage your blasts could cause.

Now we all have to do it to make sure that our units don't auto-delete themselves.

This adds nothing to the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
One of the things I liked about the removal of blast markers was that That Guy™ players would stop spending every movement phase checking the measurements of all their individual models to reduce the damage your blasts could cause.

Now we all have to do it to make sure that our units don't auto-delete themselves.

This adds nothing to the game.

Yeah, it is almost exactly like bringing back blast weapons. Really hard to understand why they chose this particular method if what they were trying to do was stop the conga line - which it doesn't even do.

Just a quick thought but it should have stayed the same for units 10 and under, then units 11+ have to be within X and 3 models sounds better than 2 right now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I feel like this was a total missed opportunity for the GW rules writers. If the rules writers think this is going to change much, it shows they really don't play the game the same way as most of their players.

I feel a better change would have been:

"Models must stay within 2" of each other, and within Ld range of the unit leader"

Would have made it so units can't conga line, and abilities that increase the Ld of a squad matter for more than just morale rolls, it would allow squads to spread out a bit more.

*Looks at 30 model units with LD4/5 and no access to LD increase*
*shakes head*

Hah, that is fair. I forget about some of the units like that since I never see them.

Here's a great example as to why I love having an army comprised fully of 25mm bases - this means if I run a line in base to base contact, and remove every second model, I will still have coherency. See below:

ooooooooooo

o_o_o_o_o_o

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

No, but there is now reserves and reserve blocking is a thing.

And yet you can still (safely, without risking losing the unit) screen out an entire board edge with 30 grots even under the new system.

And your point is what exactly?

We get it. You don't like the rule. Moaning about it constantly in two different thread isn't going to make the rule go away. It off to the printer and coming to a table near you.

If you don't want to discuss the rule, don't discuss the rule. Moaning about someone else allegedly moaning is not only very ironic, but off-topic spam that is not allowed on these forums.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

No, but there is now reserves and reserve blocking is a thing.

Reserve blocking is a thing, buuuut you have to block three out of four table edges, and that requires quite a bit of effort. Plus, if reserve blocking is potentially a valid move to use against your deployment/army/etc. you should maybe consider addressing that threat before it catches you out.

Besides, two squads of five scouts will reserve-block more area than a single squad of ten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
And your point is what exactly?

We get it. You don't like the rule. Moaning about it constantly in two different thread isn't going to make the rule go away. It off to the printer and coming to a table near you.

What a helpful post.

With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

Spoletta wrote:
With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

We sure that's actually going to happen?

I don't like this, as it gives me thought process to coherency which believe it or not will slow some players a ton, which sucks if you play them. Added to that, it's beyond immersion breaking to imagine you just lose people because they are out of coherency, where are they going exactly ? Did they slip away for a squash game with the Eradicator ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
One of the things I liked about the removal of blast markers was that That Guy™ players would stop spending every movement phase checking the measurements of all their individual models to reduce the damage your blasts could cause.

Now we all have to do it to make sure that our units don't auto-delete themselves.

This adds nothing to the game.

Yes, I think this is a huge step backwards because of the penalty of the world just eating models to make coherency return people will agonize over this for if the fear is real or imagined they'll check, double and triple check just to be sure. Good thing we saved all that time from over watch, now we can spend it checking and watching people check coherency.

They're blinked out of existence by Thanos.

I guess the play testers should have aimed for the head then, as this sucks.

Martel732 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

We sure that's actually going to happen?

We know perfectly well that the "You can still totally play with 3x2 boards!" is purely PR talk.

The dimensions of the board have too much of an impact on the gameplay to just ignore it as a variable. Events will adopt the 44x60 standard, and in less than an year all stores will have adapted to that.

Doesn't the efficacy of this rule depend entirely on when a unit coherency check is performed?

I mean, if it's only performed at the end of your movement phase, then BooBs are still valid, but if if has to be performed at the end of any other phase, then each BooB is going to be completely demolished until thel last three models.

Ice_can wrote:

Aash wrote:

Karol wrote:
Paladins are run in units fo 10. The fringe models are never close to 2 models. So do termintors suppose to move in a two row phalanx or something?

I’m not super familiar with GKs, didn’t realise they have 10 model terminator units. Can they combat squad? It looks like moving them in 2 ranks would be the best way to deal with the new coherency rules.

GK go all in on paladins, heck I'm sure GK players would take units of 20 or 30 if they could as that way they can stack all the psychic powers and strategums on their paladin deathstar.

Yeah you'll be running them in the stagered line or a triangle or diamon formation from now on.

Well I do run 15 paladins, 10 termintors and 15 strikes. If I could make them troops and run them instead of termintors, I totaly would. being -1 to hit, -1 to wound, ++4 and ignore wounds of 1-3, is a big buff comparing to normal termintors that get nothing. Plus str6 storm bolters with buffed ap rolling a bucket of dice are good offensive unit, specialy when they can shot from behind a building.

Cool, so there is a way to run them. Funny thing though, they are going to look at lot like units from 9th age.

Spoletta wrote:
With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

If that was intention they managed to do epic spectacular failure. Like the rabbit in japanese folk tale losing race to turtle by taking nap midrace.

yukishiro1 wrote:
And yet you can still (safely, without risking losing the unit) screen out an entire board edge with 30 grots even under the new system.

They're not covering a long board edge, which is 60". That's 18" short based on your example. A considerable distance when previously they covered something like 30" plus 60". Their coverage was cut in half if they're playing it safe.

Which is also prevents this - and no they don't need be that far back to block the back field :

yukishiro1 wrote:
And yet you can still (safely, without risking losing the unit) screen out an entire board edge with 30 grots even under the new system.

But you can't do it with 10, that's the whole point. 30 grots aren't cheap enough just to mess up reserves, and large squads are also affected by the new blast rules. Not to mention that grots are T2 6+ saves.

With the coherency rules those 30 grots should be fielded in two rows, so it's actually 15-18 dudes at most with 25mm bases in the largest row. SM can do the same job with two rhinos, which are not particularly more expensive than 30 grots but extremely resilient in comparison and can maybe cover a wider area. Also Drukhari with 2 raiders, etc...

You couldn't screen entire board edge with 10 in 8th ed either...

Epic failure by GW if screening board edge was what they wanted to prevent.

tneva82 wrote:
You couldn't screen entire board edge with 10 in 8th ed either...

Epic failure by GW if screening board edge was what they wanted to prevent.

Not the entire board of course, but 10 dudes hand to hand could draw a long line. With the new rules it'll be 40-50% shorter.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

If that was intention they managed to do epic spectacular failure. Like the rabbit in japanese folk tale losing race to turtle by taking nap midrace.

Why do you think so?

These rules seem to be quite effective at reducing the area that can be covered by a single unit.

Yes, you can technically still cover almost the same area as 8th, but in doing so you suicide the unit. Sometimes it could be a worthy sacrifice, but is still a sacrifice.

Players said they wanted more tactical choices. Here, take them.

 Slayer6 wrote:
Here's a great example as to why I love having an army comprised fully of 25mm bases - this means if I run a line in base to base contact, and remove every second model, I will still have coherency. See below:

ooooooooooo

o_o_o_o_o_o

You could do that or your could line up like this:

8 8 o o 8 8

And take models from either end. Once you take the fifth model you'll only have lost the two outermost columns and you'll be down to needing only one other model in coherency.

At 20 models, you could probably line up similar with the same effect. Well, looking at it, no. You could line up

8 8 8 8 o o o o 8 8 8 8

and take from the two outer edges. If you lost more than 11 models in a single round of shooting you'd lose more though. I guess at 20 models you would want to give a double file serious consideration.

I don't give a crap about the trying to make people need to be " Gotchaed ! " by reserves. Sure, make reserve hammer a thing, but the time wasted by people taking way too long to worry of unit placement so they don't magically lose models to lack of coherency is awful.

Why can't they just move into coherency when next they move ? I guess it depends when they check for coherency but the idea men just " run oft " because they're close to Fred but far too far away from Bob, is stupid to the extreme.

It turns a good idea to limit gamey formations into a punitive annoyance of wasted time. Which is especially stupid when some of these changes was supposed to be to save time, at least they claim such, like very limited over watch.

Well I guess it is going to save time when other people test out the best set ups and formations for units, and then people will just have to memorise them. Could have movment for whole turns locked in, and then the game is going to go faster.

I can only imagine play of warhammer is very different there Karol, as most everyone I play with won't memorize formations and just check and re check set ups forever. This won't save me any time and in fact be a net loss all because they want to pack in a punishment mechanic to coherency checks.

Much like how taking loses from the closest models didn't really save time and instead led to much time spent in concern of who would die first ( back a couple editions ).

This is just that, but in troop placement to make something that was a relatively simple act need to be double checked unless the net goal is just to have armies be blobs kinda moving around the board which really isn't any better looking than conga lines imo of course.

Also this here might be possible for a 30 man unit:

o8ooo8oooooo8oooooo8ooo8o
=> loose 1-5 models: remove the single dudes at the end and the 8ths in the middle
=> loose 6 models: remove one end of the chain
=> loose 7-9 models: remove one end of the chain + the 8ths in the middle and/or the single dude at the other end of the chain
=> loose 10-12 models: remove both ends of the chain
=> loose 13: remove both ends + the 8 in the middle
=> loose 14-15: remove two "Segments" on one end of the chain
etc

This way you will have to experience serious losses before you really get in trouble removing models without breaking coherency. And the chain is only 5 dudes shorter than a conventional daisychain.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I can only imagine play of warhammer is very different there Karol, as most everyone I play with won't memorize formations and just check and re check set ups forever. This won't save me any time and in fact be a net loss all because they want to pack in a punishment mechanic to coherency checks.

Much like how taking loses from the closest models didn't really save time and instead led to much time spent in concern of who would die first ( back a couple editions ).

This is just that, but in troop placement to make something that was a relatively simple act need to be double checked unless the net goal is just to have armies be blobs kinda moving around the board which really isn't any better looking than conga lines imo of course.

So, didn't your fellow players check whether they were at 2" coherency in 8th?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I can only imagine play of warhammer is very different there Karol, as most everyone I play with won't memorize formations and just check and re check set ups forever. This won't save me any time and in fact be a net loss all because they want to pack in a punishment mechanic to coherency checks.

Much like how taking loses from the closest models didn't really save time and instead led to much time spent in concern of who would die first ( back a couple editions ).

This is just that, but in troop placement to make something that was a relatively simple act need to be double checked unless the net goal is just to have armies be blobs kinda moving around the board which really isn't any better looking than conga lines imo of course.

Or they just form a circle/ovoid and it takes the same time as before?

Maybe wait until you've played a bunch of games before declaring the end of all things. I think this is a great change that will open up the table to more dynamic movement and reserves, it'll be harder to screen which is going to hurt my armies for sure but better for the game overall. I could easily screen out a Bloodletter bomb with strings of skitarii, this is going to make it significantly harder.

For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I can only imagine play of warhammer is very different there Karol, as most everyone I play with won't memorize formations and just check and re check set ups forever. This won't save me any time and in fact be a net loss all because they want to pack in a punishment mechanic to coherency checks.

Much like how taking loses from the closest models didn't really save time and instead led to much time spent in concern of who would die first ( back a couple editions ).

This is just that, but in troop placement to make something that was a relatively simple act need to be double checked unless the net goal is just to have armies be blobs kinda moving around the board which really isn't any better looking than conga lines imo of course.

Well there only seem to be those two options, aside for maybe house ruling how the destroy out of cohorancy models. Either you adjust everything single model yourself and then the game takes longer, or you let the w40k community playtest it for you, and then when they did that you just have to learn how best units are run.
I mean maybe, and I am saying this with zero actual knowladge, the squad sizes will change. Maybe the MSU squad of primaris is going to be optimal at 6 dudes , run in two 3 lines, or 7 dudes in a 2-3-2 star like formation. Maybe big units are going to be 10 man, unless other rules will warrent it, but we are going to see old XVII century tertio being used with 3-3-3 formations protected by skimishers on 3 sides to protect the flanks. I feel it could be cool,or at least for me it would feel cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

It is important for charges and getting maximum number of models in to melee. specialy if you want to trip point two units, so only one can escape.

I might be wrong, but depending on when the unit coherency check is made, it might give another tool against tripointing. Imagine a player has caught 3 models of a larger unit and tripointed them. When in 8th he was safe in CC as long as he does not kill all three in the fight phase, now removing one of those three models might put one of the other two out of unit coherence killing it, followed by the other and thus ending the tripointing.

I think there might be some really wonky positioning shananigans possible using that to remove multiple cheap chaff units as soon as just one dies, thus leaving CC units out in the open again.

The initial reveal of this seemed pretty bad but the addition of the check coherency step in the Morale phase actually makes this rule pretty good IMO. I don't think it'll slow things down as people will quickly realise what formations work, and it's probably less time consuming than waiting for someone to carefully space out all their models as much as possible to screen out as much of the board as possible.

I hope this is only part of the solution for conga-lining though as I'd love to see rules that change all auras to only apply to units wholly within an aura's range and a reversion to the old rule that a unit can only control a single objective.

I'm sure it'll create more gamey stuff once the gamey types get their hands on it but at least they're trying.

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

It is important for charges and getting maximum number of models in to melee. specialy if you want to trip point two units, so only one can escape.

Why is it important for charges? If you're wanting the most amount of models in, you just go for something like:
8o
8o
8o
8o
8o
8o
instead (with 2" on every diagonal) - if people are so paranoid, why don't they put their models in base contact or 1" coherency instead, to ensure that they're not out of range?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

It is important for charges and getting maximum number of models in to melee. specialy if you want to trip point two units, so only one can escape.

Why is it important for charges? If you're wanting the most amount of models in, you just go for something like:
8o
8o
8o
8o
8o
8o
instead (with 2" on every diagonal) - if people are so paranoid, why don't they put their models in base contact or 1" coherency instead, to ensure that they're not out of range?

Because if you do that you get 45 min arguments turn 2 which model belongs to which unit, if you move them as a single 60 model blob?

And it is important to charges, because models who don't fly and have big termintors sized bases to trip point have to hook an end of a unit .
Am not sure what the diagram is suppose to be though. If I did that with my paladins then the last group of 3 would be kissing the back end of my deployment zone, and that is generaly bad for units that try to get in to short range or melee.

Discard the idea of tripoint. Between the coherency check for the attacker, the stratagem and the possibility of suiciding with the coherency check of the defender, tripointing is dead.

Spoletta wrote:
Discard the idea of tripoint. Between the coherency check for the attacker, the stratagem and the possibility of suiciding with the coherency check of the defender, tripointing is dead.

100%, I actually suspect that some crazy shenanigans like vehicals and mosters that can shoot into combat with units becoming some nasty screen's rather than the cheapest chaff.
Punisher cannon russ with flamer sponsons anyone?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

if people are so paranoid, why don't they put their models in base contact or 1" coherency instead, to ensure that they're not out of range?

"BeCAUsE It'S nOT oPTiMAl"

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I might be wrong, but depending on when the unit coherency check is made, it might give another tool against tripointing. Imagine a player has caught 3 models of a larger unit and tripointed them. When in 8th he was safe in CC as long as he does not kill all three in the fight phase, now removing one of those three models might put one of the other two out of unit coherence killing it, followed by the other and thus ending the tripointing.

I think there might be some really wonky positioning shananigans possible using that to remove multiple cheap chaff units as soon as just one dies, thus leaving CC units out in the open again.

Or there is no coherency check in melee. There is also currently a consolidation rule - up to 3" towards closest model. Do people REALLY think GW set rules that would force your units to lose models in melee?

Or they could be changing the rules for Pile In and Consolidation to take into account the new rules for coherency. Which do you think is more likely?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

Maybe because that's (yet another) thing that gaks on large squads of melee units? The fact that if you blob up, you give up the board control that's your only advantage, and you can't use half the models in your unit as anything except bullet sponges?

dhallnet wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

if people are so paranoid, why don't they put their models in base contact or 1" coherency instead, to ensure that they're not out of range?

"BeCAUsE It'S nOT oPTiMAl"

nice attitude.

In 8th, spreading your models for melee is important because it lets you wrap something you didnt kill or consolidate into another unit if you did kill the one you charged.
(All this is assuming the rules are stayign the same for the fight phase)


1 : we have two units, A and B.
AAAAA_ _ _BBBBB


__________CCCCCCCC


2: my unit charges unit B and piles in.

AAAAA_ _ CBBBBBC
_________ CCCCCC


3: If i didnt kill the unit B, i can chose to wrap it

__________C C C
AAAAA_ _ CBBBBBC
__________C C CC

4 :If i killed it, i can chose to pile into unit A


AAAAAC______C
______CCCCCC


That's why spreading your units out is important in 8th.

We still need to wait to see the fight phase rules.

Or you could just play shooty elites, stuff your gray half-assembled starter box primaris marines in a box, upend them on the table and declare yourself deployed. EDIT, sorry, after ensuring that your 68pt chapter master and 50pt lieutenant are deployed in approximately the center of the blob to give everything full rerolls to hit and rerolls of 1 to wound.

Then you don't need to touch your models for the remainder of the game and you can just sit down with 5-6 cubes of chessex dice to roll and reroll and reroll for 4 hours.

You know, the optimal warhammer 40,000 experience that the rules are designed to encourage and enhance.

the_scotsman wrote:
Or you could just play shooty elites, stuff your gray half-assembled starter box primaris marines in a box, upend them on the table and declare yourself deployed. EDIT, sorry, after ensuring that your 68pt chapter master and 50pt lieutenant are deployed in approximately the center of the blob to give everything full rerolls to hit and rerolls of 1 to wound.

Then you don't need to touch your models for the remainder of the game and you can just sit down with 5-6 cubes of chessex dice to roll and reroll and reroll for 4 hours.

You know, the optimal warhammer 40,000 experience that the rules are designed to encourage and enhance.

you jest but it sure does feel a lot like it for now. My demons seem like they'll be pretty bad so far.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Or you could just play shooty elites, stuff your gray half-assembled starter box primaris marines in a box, upend them on the table and declare yourself deployed. EDIT, sorry, after ensuring that your 68pt chapter master and 50pt lieutenant are deployed in approximately the center of the blob to give everything full rerolls to hit and rerolls of 1 to wound.

Then you don't need to touch your models for the remainder of the game and you can just sit down with 5-6 cubes of chessex dice to roll and reroll and reroll for 4 hours.

You know, the optimal warhammer 40,000 experience that the rules are designed to encourage and enhance.

you jest but it sure does feel a lot like it for now. My demons seem like they'll be pretty bad so far.

I mean I don't. Marines got turned into a static gunline more obnoxious than any meta tau build I've ever experienced and suddenly all the marine players were like "participating in only one phase of the game is good actually, my models have the same firepower if they're 2" away and 30" away, this is good game design, pass me the spare dice cube I need to attack with my stormcannons."

I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

This is why I'm not totally sure *its the end of the world* is the right response.
But... yeah. You are going to get weirdly gamey unit deletions to avoid being in combat - which I feel is the wrong direction. (cue *waaa waaa, tripointing is evil, I should be able to just walk away from a guy beating me over the head with a chainaxe")

In theory, yes, just keep everyone in 2" of another model. Is it less flexible than now? Sure, but you'll just have to live with it.
Its *another* nerf to horde units and a sort of implicit buff to small elite ones - but I'm starting to just assume someone important at GW playing Marines got repeatedly destroyed by GSC, Orks and someone running mass plaguebearers+Tzeentch casters, and the resulting 12+ months have just been one long temper tantrum about that.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

AoS and 40k are different games.

The thing is this is yet another rule that targets hordes and by extension melee armies. I'm still waiting to see the full content of 9th but as it stands i feel like even with no innate overwatch, melee hordes (demons, orks, nids, GSC) will be at a disadvantage.

And i feel like the complaints are more that its another mechanic that will slow down gameplay (remeasuring after every movement).
And now that its punishing, the odds of playing against someone that will argue that "that model isnt within 2 of 2" increase and could lead to arguments. compare that to the rules we have now where there is no punishing so a simple misplacement of a model will most likely be resolved by saying "oh wait, that one isnt in coherency, nudges it in place"

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

In AOS the default playstyle is for movement across the board to actually matter, that's not just some weird thing a couple factions do that can't stand in the deployment zone shuffling slightly back and forth to get LOS on stuff/stay in reroll auras.

I'm guessing instead of melee reach we'll just standardize on 1" reach across, 5" reach up for everybody, and they just drop the "within an inch of a model within an inch" rule entirely. Who needs to fight with more than the front model in melee combat? What's one more rule punishing larger squads on the pile, anyway?

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Also this here might be possible for a 30 man unit:

o8ooo8oooooo8oooooo8ooo8o
=> loose 1-5 models: remove the single dudes at the end and the 8ths in the middle
=> loose 6 models: remove one end of the chain
=> loose 7-9 models: remove one end of the chain + the 8ths in the middle and/or the single dude at the other end of the chain
=> loose 10-12 models: remove both ends of the chain
=> loose 13: remove both ends + the 8 in the middle
=> loose 14-15: remove two "Segments" on one end of the chain
etc

This way you will have to experience serious losses before you really get in trouble removing models without breaking coherency. And the chain is only 5 dudes shorter than a conventional daisychain.

That was useful, thank you. Much more effective than my designs for 20+.

Also, someone pointed out on BOLS, I think, that Unit Coherency is checked and any models not in coherency are removed. Does the rule require that coherency be checked again after any models not in coherency are removed? Does it say something like "remove models until all remaining models are in coherency" or does it say "remove models which are not in coherency"? If it just says remove models not in coherency, then you would lose the models on the tips of the rows, but not "unzip" your line. But if you have to remove models until the entire unit is in coherency, then the unzipping happens.

EDIT: Nevermind, the answer is on page 2. I had read it before and re-read it just now.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

Except so far in 40k units dont get points discounts or any buffs (out side of orks) for increasing unit size like I am told AoS does?
Also it's brutal in AoS too if your not used to it.

Good. Daisy-chaining was metagame garbage. Can we get rid of bubble wrap too?

I'd love this change if we could just have the rest of the rule from Apoc - that one model being in engagement range means the unit is engaged. No need for all these stupid piddly little moves to try and make sure the maximum number of models can reach, just move into contact and immediately make your melee attacks.

Easy to resolve, gives melee a much needed buff, removes daisy chaining and speeds up movement.

Of course, though, because 9th edition is "Half Measures, the 40k Edition" they'll just keep melee engagement the same and melee will be even more of a micromanagement nightmare.

Wayniac wrote:
Good. Daisy-chaining was metagame garbage. Can we get rid of bubble wrap too?

If you want to remove bubble wrapping you might as well remove every single tactical thing you can do in the game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Good. Daisy-chaining was metagame garbage. Can we get rid of bubble wrap too?

If you want to remove bubble wrapping you might as well remove every single tactical thing you can do in the game.

Or, you know, go back to the time before you threw in metagaming gameplay.

Wayniac wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Good. Daisy-chaining was metagame garbage. Can we get rid of bubble wrap too?

If you want to remove bubble wrapping you might as well remove every single tactical thing you can do in the game.

Or, you know, go back to the time before you threw in metagaming gameplay.

What are you on about? how is bubble wrapping metagaming gameplay? And even if it is, why should it be considered bad? Is that another case of "NeTLisTs BaD!!!!11!"

bubble wrapping makes sense, why wouldnt the gretchen feth around the lootas?
Why wouldnt guardsmen be sacrificed to the berzerkers trying to get to the artillery?
Why wouldnt bodyguards wrap around their HQ?

Why exactly do you feel bubble-wrapping is a bad thing?

Do you not want to need to strategize when playing a wargame? Would you rather just roll off to decide who wins?

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

If you only had to draw coherency to one other model there wouldn't be an issue with losing models. AOS doesn't have the requirement to draw to 2 models. This makes all the difference here. It's the combination of the two rules that is so restrictive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Good. Daisy-chaining was metagame garbage. Can we get rid of bubble wrap too?

This doesn't get rid of daisy-chaining. It just means each guy in the chain needs to hold hands with a buddy or else one guy dying makes the rest of the unit blink out of existence down to 5 men.

Presumably they weren't trying to stop daisy-chaining, because if they were, this is a terrible way to do it when the "all models must be within x" of all other models" solution actually does fix daisy-chaining, with none of the added tedium, edge cases, or ridiculous results this rule produces.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

You do realize not everyone plays AoS as some don't like the system ? That would be me at least. If I wanted AoS with AoS rules I'd play AoS but I play 40k, well before they apparently want to make it AoE 40k.

Also there is a difference between coherency between two models and three. This will cause some issues and jumps out at me as a pain in the butt and something more penalizing for new players who might fight it strange their units need not only the buddy system but the tri force hug system.

I have a feeling coherency will be checked at the end of the movement phase for removing out of coherency models.

Assuming coherency casualties work on units in melee, you could potentially force a unit to fallback out of combat or be automatically destroyed.

Though on the other side the gunline army could make their casualties in a way that their sacrificial unit is automatically destroyed without needing to use fallback shenanigans to do it.

 warmaster21 wrote:
I have a feeling coherency will be checked at the end of the movement phase for removing out of coherency models.

Assuming coherency casualties work on units in melee, you could potentially force a unit to fallback out of combat or be automatically destroyed.

Though on the other side the gunline army could make their casualties in a way that their sacrificial unit is automatically destroyed without needing to use fallback shenanigans to do it.

It's in the morale phase.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

You do realize not everyone plays AoS as some don't like the system ? That would be me at least. If I wanted AoS with AoS rules I'd play AoS but I play 40k, well before they apparently want to make it AoE 40k.

Also there is a difference between coherency between two models and three. This will cause some issues and jumps out at me as a pain in the butt and something more penalizing for new players who might fight it strange their units need not only the buddy system but the tri force hug system.

40k was just AoS with more guns and worse faction balance in 8th anyway.

 warmaster21 wrote:
I have a feeling coherency will be checked at the end of the movement phase for removing out of coherency models.

Assuming coherency casualties work on units in melee, you could potentially force a unit to fallback out of combat or be automatically destroyed.

Though on the other side the gunline army could make their casualties in a way that their sacrificial unit is automatically destroyed without needing to use fallback shenanigans to do it.

While possibly true, it wouldn't help. The unit coherency check coming at the end of the turn in the morale phase means that taking advantage of this rule in this way actually penalizes the player who does so. Instead of freeing up your army to shoot at the formerly engaged unit, you would be freeing up the opponents formerly engaged unit to charge again. Unless you're trying to make sure they have to charge again so you can overwatch...

 warmaster21 wrote:
I have a feeling coherency will be checked at the end of the movement phase for removing out of coherency models.

Assuming coherency casualties work on units in melee, you could potentially force a unit to fallback out of combat or be automatically destroyed.

Though on the other side the gunline army could make their casualties in a way that their sacrificial unit is automatically destroyed without needing to use fallback shenanigans to do it.

It isn't. Its checked in the morale phase (both armies, in fact, every morale phase). However, the unit coherency rules also point out that if a unit moves in a way that takes it out of coherency, its an illegal move that can't be done. So you have to rewind or shuffle the unit so its in coherency.

The big issue with melee is you've got multiple steps where you move units (charge, pile in and consolidate), and if you're careless with your placement and remove a casualty (during the shooting, fight or morale phases) and accidentally remove a model that holds your coherency together then a chunk of the unit just vanishes from the coherency cascade.

It also doesn't help with things like fliers where you largely ignore them, but can't end any move in engagement range of the flyer. So its worthwhile to park your aircraft bases next to upcoming fights, because it creates a hard denial zone for ground units. Confusingly, despite the fact that you ignore aircraft for almost all movement purposes and can move over them freely, you can't end any move on their base or in their engagement range. They're rather large charge blockers. And on their turn they just make a normal move away with no penalty that you can't do anything about. The best movement wall is a supersonic aircraft.

Spoletta wrote:
This counts as 1 point on my scale of "9th edition changes that help melee armies".

This rule drastically hurts melee units bigger than 5 models. They have a harder time charging, a much harder time piling in, and a harder time consolidating, meaning they are slower and bring fewer models to bare in a fight.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Risk with the “8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8” deployment?

Shooting casualties. With that one, even a single casualty is immediately breaking your unit coherency.

Don't deploy like that. You use the congaline to block reserves, they can move in a mass.

Also space marines will just use 5 man units to do this.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
What a poorly written and integrated rule. Absolute gak. I can see it being the first rule ignored by casual players.

I don't know, we've lived with most parts of this rule very well in Age of Sigmar. It's a rule that requires you to positiion your troops and be smart about it.

On another note this rule does make the GW movement trays more handy.

AoS doesn't require two other models in coherency, just one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
One of the things I liked about the removal of blast markers was that That Guy™ players would stop spending every movement phase checking the measurements of all their individual models to reduce the damage your blasts could cause.

Now we all have to do it to make sure that our units don't auto-delete themselves.

This adds nothing to the game.

I mean, it is actually illegal play to move out of coherency. It isn't a choice you make. You have to do it and if you mess up you are playing the game wrong.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

No, but there is now reserves and reserve blocking is a thing.

The units that are used to block reserves are going to be largely uneffected by this. They'll start turn one in a blob and move out turn 2 into the daisy chain with the anchors on the end and then die, as would happen already to chaff screens turn 2 and on.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't give a crap about the trying to make people need to be " Gotchaed ! " by reserves. Sure, make reserve hammer a thing, but the time wasted by people taking way too long to worry of unit placement so they don't magically lose models to lack of coherency is awful.

Why can't they just move into coherency when next they move ? I guess it depends when they check for coherency but the idea men just " run oft " because they're close to Fred but far too far away from Bob, is stupid to the extreme.

It turns a good idea to limit gamey formations into a punitive annoyance of wasted time. Which is especially stupid when some of these changes was supposed to be to save time, at least they claim such, like very limited over watch.

Again, you can't actually lose models to breaking coherency when you move because you can't move out of coherency. It's not a legal move if you do and if some donkey-cave is trying to gotchya, don't let them, it's not in the rules. The only way to break coherency is through removal of casualties. Otherwise there is no method of breaking coherency.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

Because close combat is a thing and highly reliant on getting your models efficiently into combat.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

It's not losing models that matters. Its having to have 2 models in coherency. Trust me, AoS players would lose their fething minds if this became a rule, because the game is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more combat skewed.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

In AOS the default playstyle is for movement across the board to actually matter, that's not just some weird thing a couple factions do that can't stand in the deployment zone shuffling slightly back and forth to get LOS on stuff/stay in reroll auras.

I'm guessing instead of melee reach we'll just standardize on 1" reach across, 5" reach up for everybody, and they just drop the "within an inch of a model within an inch" rule entirely. Who needs to fight with more than the front model in melee combat? What's one more rule punishing larger squads on the pile, anyway?

I mean, in AoS movement only actually matters for like two or three armies, and everyone else pretty much sonic runs across the board or literally just teleports where they need to be. AoS is a game where all the strong armies are easily in combat turn one (except the one army that is slightly slower at the benefit of being impossible to kill), or are in super shooter range turn 1. It was super frustrating when I quit, and it hasn't gotten any better.

Wayniac wrote:
Good. Daisy-chaining was metagame garbage. Can we get rid of bubble wrap too?

No one, absolutely no one, is going to stop daisy chaining. Daisy chaining is super easy, barely an inconvenience. You just leave on extra model back to soak in all the buffs. That's it. That's literally ALL this rule did to daisy chains.


It did make conga lines more fragile, but that different than a daisy chain.

And it nerfed the ability for units larger than 5 models to successfully charge and fight in combat.

ERJAK wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

You do realize not everyone plays AoS as some don't like the system ? That would be me at least. If I wanted AoS with AoS rules I'd play AoS but I play 40k, well before they apparently want to make it AoE 40k.

Also there is a difference between coherency between two models and three. This will cause some issues and jumps out at me as a pain in the butt and something more penalizing for new players who might fight it strange their units need not only the buddy system but the tri force hug system.

40k was just AoS with more guns and worse faction balance in 8th anyway.

Nah, 40k only managed worse balance with the recent space marines. Up til then there was no point where AoS was well balanced.

Even right this second, hedonites of slaanesh pulls similar winrates to iron hands.

Daisy Chaining is still doable, it's just a little less efficient and you need to be careful which models you assign wounds to prevent a resonance cascade in the Coherency Check step.

If they wanted, they could probably have just done coherency from a leader model, or measure from any single model at the end of a turn.
If a unit has 11 models or more, double the distance.
Less daisy chain but still able to spread out a fair bit.

Ice_can wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

Except so far in 40k units dont get points discounts or any buffs (out side of orks) for increasing unit size like I am told AoS does?
Also it's brutal in AoS too if your not used to it.

I agree that it is brutal, but daisy chaining isn't much of a problem in AoS mostly because the AoS designer went the better route and made auras "wholly within" that explicitly goes against daisy chaining. I am actually surprised they haven't done the same in 40k.

Point discounts are only on the last 5-10 man count in AoS. So if your squad is max 40 you will pay full price for every 10 up to 30 and then for the last 10 to get 40 you will get a small discount. Regarding buffs they tend to be mostly on horde units just like in 40k which has horde buffs on Orks and Tyranids(horde armies). Then occasionally there are special rule buffs like for Mighty Skullcrushers, but that goes as well for Venomthropes that are stronger the larger the unit.

Personally I'd love for the "wholly within" rule to be implemented in 40k. The point discount is a bit harder because 40k has so many sub-model weapons that may or may not be included so I doubt GW will ever make people buy units in sizes of 5 and 10 to make a unit.

Ice_can wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

Except so far in 40k units dont get points discounts or any buffs (out side of orks) for increasing unit size like I am told AoS does?
Also it's brutal in AoS too if your not used to it.

Genestealers also get a buff for a large unit size, fwiw.

If stoping daisy chains was the goal, GW failed.

They need to designate a leader model that all other models in the unit must be within X inches of.

"A unit of Hormagaunts must remain within 12" of its Leader model at the end of any movement."

Different units would have different coherency bubbles depending on lore, rules, balancing, etc.

Daisy Chain problem solved

 BuFFo wrote:
If stoping daisy chains was the goal, GW failed.

They need to designate a leader model that all other models in the unit must be within X inches of.

"A unit of Hormagaunts must remain within 12" of its Leader model at the end of any movement."

Different units would have different coherency bubbles depending on lore, rules, balancing, etc.

Daisy Chain problem solved

Firstly, lore-wise, Tyranids don't have "leader" models in unit, they are controlled by Tyrants or other Synapse creatures.

Also, does this mean if my Sergeant dies my entire unit dies?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:
If stoping daisy chains was the goal, GW failed.

They need to designate a leader model that all other models in the unit must be within X inches of.

"A unit of Hormagaunts must remain within 12" of its Leader model at the end of any movement."

Different units would have different coherency bubbles depending on lore, rules, balancing, etc.

Daisy Chain problem solved

Firstly, lore-wise, Tyranids don't have "leader" models in unit, they are controlled by Tyrants or other Synapse creatures.

Also, does this mean if my Sergeant dies my entire unit dies?

There are ways to deal with that, for tyrants you could just have the rule that at the end of each movement you designate a model, and the unit needs to be in coherency.
For races with a leader model, you can when they die. Designate a new leader.

Could possibly use leadership as the stat for it.

Man am I glad I have more armies other than World Eaters. Trying to get 32mm models into melee without breaking coherency will basically mean I have to keep a third of them outside of the front line just to keep that 2 model.

This does help daisy chaining, but as a by product it hurts melee hard.

?
It just means you can't easily wrap.

dhallnet wrote:
?
It just means you can't easily wrap.

Which means significant portions of a unit, especially a big one, will not be able to get into combat and maintain coherency. Meaning it is a big ol' nerf. The nerf gets bigger the more models and larger bases you have in a unit. So, ten space marines? Mostly fine. 20 berzerkers? fethed. 10 shining spears? fethed.

"Which means significant portions of a unit, especially a big one, will not be able to get into combat and maintain coherency."
What ? If you're talking about units of 30 against units of 5, alright. Otherwise, I don't see it. Even 20 against 10 is fine and 20 against 5 shouldn't be that bad (since here you actually CAN wrap).

And yeah 10 shining spears on the bigger bases is unwieldy, what else is new.

And why wouldn't they be able to maintain coherency ?

dhallnet wrote:
"Which means significant portions of a unit, especially a big one, will not be able to get into combat and maintain coherency."
What ? If you're talking about units of 30 against units of 5, alright. Otherwise, I don't see it. Even 20 against 10 is fine and 20 against 5 shouldn't be that bad (since here you actually CAN wrap).

And yeah 10 shining spears on the bigger bases is unwieldy, what else is new.

And why wouldn't they be able to maintain coherency ?

because they won't be able to move in such a way as to maintain coherency? Remembering that pile ins still require going to the closest enemy model, and terrain is a factor.

20 berzerkers charging are going to struggle to bring 20 models to bare in combat, even against a 10 man unit. Or even another 20 man unit unless it was quite close. Marginal charges are going to feth big units right up in their attempts to pile in, and if forcing multi charges to be declared hadn't already, it's pretty difficult to charge more than on unit, especially if you actually succeed and suddenly your unit can't pile in at all.

It's a huge nerf to combat units. And this is bad

You can't move out of coherency AFAIK. So piling won't put you out of it. The only way to get out of it is by removing casualties.
Also 20 against 10, the most basic way to get everyone to fight is to form 2 rows... Even with weird units positioning, 20 vs 10 should 't be much trouble. Whining about multicharge and not being able to consolidate won't change anything, fly is nerfed, Overwatch too and you don't ear the sobs of all the gun lines players.
There is a nerf to close combat obviously as it is way harder to wrap your opponent and when you succeed he can spend 2 cp to get out so you can't then bad touch his next unit, but bringing units into cc won' t be harder if you placed your models correctly before the charge.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Also this here might be possible for a 30 man unit:

o8ooo8oooooo8oooooo8ooo8o
=> loose 1-5 models: remove the single dudes at the end and the 8ths in the middle
=> loose 6 models: remove one end of the chain
=> loose 7-9 models: remove one end of the chain + the 8ths in the middle and/or the single dude at the other end of the chain
=> loose 10-12 models: remove both ends of the chain
=> loose 13: remove both ends + the 8 in the middle
=> loose 14-15: remove two "Segments" on one end of the chain
etc

This way you will have to experience serious losses before you really get in trouble removing models without breaking coherency. And the chain is only 5 dudes shorter than a conventional daisychain.

Yeah this is the way, and it shows how much this rule fails to actually prevent daisy-chaining. It just makes it even more complicated and gimmicky to do.

Meanwhile, the main impact of the rule is to make it difficult to move units of 6+ in combat to trap stuff, maximize attacks, etc.

It's just a bad rule. "All models in the unit must be within X" of all other models" would have been a so much more elegant way to limit daisy-chains, without screwing melee, which by all accounts did not need screwing in what is already a shooting edition.

dhallnet wrote:
You can't move out of coherency AFAIK. So piling won't put you out of it. The only way to get out of it is by removing casualties.
Also 20 against 10, the most basic way to get everyone to fight is to form 2 rows... Even with weird units positioning, 20 vs 10 should 't be much trouble. Whining about multicharge and not being able to consolidate won't change anything, fly is nerfed, Overwatch too and you don't ear the sobs of all the gun lines players.
There is a nerf to close combat obviously as it is way harder to wrap your opponent and when you succeed he can spend 2 cp to get out so you can't then bad touch his next unit, but bringing units into cc won' t be harder if you placed your models correctly before the charge.

Which means you often CAN'T MOVE to pile in in combat. Get it?

Those 10 models are going to, at bets, be in 2 lines of five, compared to your, at best, two lines of ten, which WILL leave a number of models out of combat range.

I don't know what you're not getting. Are you able to hold a picture of how models have to move in your head? Get out some of your models and play around with it. It limits the number of models you can get close enough to fight with. Simple as. No questions about it. Period.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Also this here might be possible for a 30 man unit:

o8ooo8oooooo8oooooo8ooo8o
=> loose 1-5 models: remove the single dudes at the end and the 8ths in the middle
=> loose 6 models: remove one end of the chain
=> loose 7-9 models: remove one end of the chain + the 8ths in the middle and/or the single dude at the other end of the chain
=> loose 10-12 models: remove both ends of the chain
=> loose 13: remove both ends + the 8 in the middle
=> loose 14-15: remove two "Segments" on one end of the chain
etc

Ok but what if you lose 5 models first, then 3 models later? If you remove all the 8ths in the middle, then take a few more casualties later your chain is screwed. You can't predict how many casualties you will lose over the course of a turn. And the same unit can suffer casualties multiple times before the coherency check occurs.

Am I missing something here?

Understand how much your bases take up in space. Even if you do 50mm bases going oooooooooo where their bases touch, you're fine since 50mm is less than 2 inches.

stratigo wrote:
I don't know what you're not getting. Are you able to hold a picture of how models have to move in your head? Get out some of your models and play around with it.

I'll suggest you give it a try first. Place your models correctly BEFORE the charge and then charge. Tell me how many didn't make their full move.

It's not losing models that matters. Its having to have 2 models in coherency. Trust me, AoS players would lose their fething minds if this became a rule, because the game is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more combat skewed.

AoS also only has a 1" coherency which would probably make 40k players lose their minds.
AoS also has melee weapon ranges which means you won't be always be able to get two flanks to hit your enemy like in 40k, another thing that would drive many 40k players into raving madness of the warp.

I wouldn't be surprised that the 2 models coherency rule is borne out of the fact that they didn't want to change the 2" coherency to 1" coherency so they made this rule instead.

Personally, much as I am already doing in AoS, I'll probably just use movement trays to simplify all of this. Makes the game also quicker being able to move 5 at a time.

dhallnet wrote:

stratigo wrote:
I don't know what you're not getting. Are you able to hold a picture of how models have to move in your head? Get out some of your models and play around with it.

I'll suggest you give it a try first. Place your models correctly BEFORE the charge and then charge. Tell me how many didn't make their full move.

Have you done it yet? No really, have you tried it out? It actually limits the number of models you can get into combat from a reasonable charge range.

Wait, do you know how piling in works?

terrain can play merry hell with the have to move to closest, and sometimes you can't streatch enough to ignore it.

when one side is
000 [Pillars]
00

And I am charging it with a 88888 unit, everything becomes a struggle.
Not that it isn't possible, but if you want optimisation it really lenghtens the movment and assault phase, by a lot. fitting something in to 1" is different from fitting it to 0,5"

I get why GW did the changes, but I wish there was a less time consuming way of doing it.

stratigo wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

stratigo wrote:
I don't know what you're not getting. Are you able to hold a picture of how models have to move in your head? Get out some of your models and play around with it.

I'll suggest you give it a try first. Place your models correctly BEFORE the charge and then charge. Tell me how many didn't make their full move.

Have you done it yet? No really, have you tried it out? It actually limits the number of models you can get into combat from a reasonable charge range.

Wait, do you know how piling in works?

I actually already played with it, yes.
Piling let you move 3 inches towards the closest miniatures. Doesn't forbid you to make proper moves before you have to pile in tho.
Anyway, have fun not being able to charge anything anymore I guess.

Well It is funny that it is easier to charge units on the first floor of a building easier then those 9" away on first floor, when you drop out of deep strike.

dhallnet wrote:

stratigo wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

stratigo wrote:
I don't know what you're not getting. Are you able to hold a picture of how models have to move in your head? Get out some of your models and play around with it.

I'll suggest you give it a try first. Place your models correctly BEFORE the charge and then charge. Tell me how many didn't make their full move.

Have you done it yet? No really, have you tried it out? It actually limits the number of models you can get into combat from a reasonable charge range.

Wait, do you know how piling in works?

I actually already played with it, yes.
Piling let you move 3 inches towards the closest miniatures. Doesn't forbid you to make proper moves before you have to pile in tho.
Anyway, have fun not being able to charge anything anymore I guess.

Okay, do you know how charging works? It isn’t all done from 2 inches away right?

stratigo wrote:

Okay, do you know how charging works? It isn’t all done from 2 inches away right?

Nah I obviously don't know what I do, that's why I'm not seeing the sky falling here.
I think we're done, have fun.

dhallnet wrote:

stratigo wrote:

Okay, do you know how charging works? It isn’t all done from 2 inches away right?

Nah I obviously don't know what I do, that's why I'm not seeing the sky falling here.
I think we're done, have fun.

So, you play sisters and dark angels yeah? Are you okay with this mostly because you benefit from charges being worse? Particularly certain armies’ charges?

Exactly on top of being clueless, I'm biased.

stratigo wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

stratigo wrote:

Okay, do you know how charging works? It isn’t all done from 2 inches away right?

Nah I obviously don't know what I do, that's why I'm not seeing the sky falling here.
I think we're done, have fun.

So, you play sisters and dark angels yeah? Are you okay with this mostly because you benefit from charges being worse? Particularly certain armies’ charges?

Seriously, how about you explain the problem in detail instead of being a donkey cave? Currently you are adding nothing but violations to rule #1.

By daisy chain you mean conga line?
The latter was always annoying when it came to occupying objective.