Switch Theme:

No, you can't daisy chain (mostly)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in kw
Been Around the Block




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 15:41:46


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

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

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





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.
   
Made in ca
Fully-charged Electropriest






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.


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 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.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in ca
Fully-charged Electropriest






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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 18:04:38


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 18:26:30


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 21:35:33


 
   
Made in us
Sister Oh-So Repentia





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.

"If you are forced to use your trump card, then the battle is already lost" 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 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.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




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.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 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...
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/01 03:30:37


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






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.


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in is
Courageous Beastmaster




Iceland

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.

Cypher | Craftworlds | Drukhari | Dark Angels | Necrons | Emperor's Children(30k/40k) | Tyranids | Orks | Death Guard | Sisters of Battle

Daughters of Khaine | Blades of Khorne | Stormcast Eternals | Flesh-Eater Courts | Idoneth Deepkin | The Legion of Chaos Ascendant
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






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.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Honored Helliarch on Hypex




West melbourne, Florida

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

Ayn Rand "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality"

My wonderful podcast concerning philosophy and culture https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4r1CYrFf27gYCArk6smhFw?view_as=subscriber


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 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?

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in ca
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut






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.

14,000 points!
 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




?
It just means you can't easily wrap.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




"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 ?

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 18:07:32


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: