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.

So my greatest fault is when we have a rules question, I may know the answer but for the life of me, I can never find it in the rule book.

Where does it state that where possible you must remove models in close combat and maintain coherency.


Our question arose when... my powerfist nurgle aspiring champion killed 2 chaos space marines, and my buddy choose to remove not the outer models but 2 innner models, which broke coherency of his unit. He didn't want to lose his plasma guns or his banner. We let it go, but I'm sure its not legal, but I can't find it in the book.

You're thinking of last edition.

There is no requirement in 5th edition to maintain coherency during casualty removal.

You probably read it through and then your brain decided it was too much stupidity to endure and wiped it from your consciousness. I envy you.

Sazzlefrats wrote:Where does it state that where possible you must remove models in close combat and maintain coherency.

As noted, it doesn't say that anywhere. No coherency-oriented casualty removal rules for CC or shooting. (Given the allocation rules, you couldn't have 4th ed-like coherency rules - you may be forced to remove the one model keeping the squad coherent.)

warpcrafter wrote:You probably read it through and then your brain decided it was too much stupidity to endure and wiped it from your consciousness. I envy you.

Can you explain why it's stupid?
For the life of me, I can't understand why the only members of a unit that should die are ones that wouldn't be in coherency. Or, why they should be the first ones, anyway.

Eric

geebus!!!

You can actually remove models without regard to coherancy at any time tbh, the only cavat is that they have to move back into coherancy, but only if they are able to during the movement phase. That means pinned units and units in CC dont have to move into coherancy during the movement phase.

MagickalMemories wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:You probably read it through and then your brain decided it was too much stupidity to endure and wiped it from your consciousness. I envy you.

Can you explain why it's stupid?
For the life of me, I can't understand why the only members of a unit that should die are ones that wouldn't be in coherency. Or, why they should be the first ones, anyway.

Eric

It is open to all sort of abuse, it does not do what it is meant to do, it is one of the worst example of unintuitive 'gamey' mechanics ever created. Watch, this thread will devolve into a 20 page epic of people all either putting forth their own twisted versions of how they think it works or trolling other peoples' pointless opinions.

In what way is this abusive or "gamey," especially given the current casualty removal system?

EDITED for no reason whatsoever.

Oh yeah I intend to use this to my advantage, no more losing powerfists, or special weapons just to maintain coherency. Actually I can't think of a time where its actually happened, but for sure... now... it'll never happen :-)

Well, you don't really get the option like you used to. The powerfist should be its own bucket as should the plasma gunner so you don't really have that choice.

Sazzlefrats wrote:Oh yeah I intend to use this to my advantage, no more losing powerfists, or special weapons just to maintain coherency. Actually I can't think of a time where its actually happened, but for sure... now... it'll never happen :-)

As mentioned these units should be using wound allocation as they are a complex unit anyway, after rolls to wound have been made you will need to allocate the saves to models before taking them. See page 25 of the BRB for more info.

warpcrafter wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:You probably read it through and then your brain decided it was too much stupidity to endure and wiped it from your consciousness. I envy you.

Can you explain why it's stupid?
For the life of me, I can't understand why the only members of a unit that should die are ones that wouldn't be in coherency. Or, why they should be the first ones, anyway.

Eric

It is open to all sort of abuse, it does not do what it is meant to do, it is one of the worst example of unintuitive 'gamey' mechanics ever created. Watch, this thread will devolve into a 20 page epic of people all either putting forth their own twisted versions of how they think it works or trolling other peoples' pointless opinions.

Okay. So, before I respond, can you please clarify:

1) What "abuse," precisely is it open to (if there are more than, say, 3 types, simply listing 3 will suffice)
2) What was it "meant to do?"

I don't want to presume I know what you're referring to and be wrong.

Thanks.
Eric

I think the only thing "abusive" about current wound allocation rules is the ability to prevent the removal of whole multi-wound models.

willydstyle wrote:I think the only thing "abusive" about current wound allocation rules is the ability to prevent the removal of whole multi-wound models.

Nah, not abusive, it's just rules.

Removing already wounded models first in groups of identically multi-wound models is also unrealistic. But again, it's just rules.

double post.

Webbe wrote:

willydstyle wrote:I think the only thing "abusive" about current wound allocation rules is the ability to prevent the removal of whole multi-wound models.

Nah, not abusive, it's just rules.

Removing already wounded models first in groups of identically multi-wound models is also unrealistic. But again, it's just rules.

Well, I did put the word "abusive" in quotations... I agree with you, mostly, as in 4th being multiple wound wasn't actually a really good bonus, although GW tends to price multi-wound models at a premium, usually if you just purchase more 1 wound models you'll end up with more shooting and CC goodness for the same number of wounds.

In fact, the only place where it's really, really powerful is nob bikers, and that's because of the fact that they have (sometimes literally) every save in the game available to them, so the issue is not that they're individual multi-wound models, but the fact that it's so damned tough to put wounds on the in the first place.

Gwar! wrote:You can actually remove models without regard to coherancy at any time tbh, the only cavat is that they have to move back into coherancy, but only if they are able to during the movement phase. That means pinned units and units in CC dont have to move into coherancy during the movement phase.

(emphasis mine)

Moving back into coherency during the next turn is rather annoying when your unit carries heavy weapons which you intend to shoot that turn.