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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^that's not how multiwound units work. Wounds don't track on individual models.

Yes they do.

I don't think there are any possible ways to have more than one wounded model in a unit now that Celestine got nerfed.

I think there are some rare niche cases where you can. Perils'ing multiple times with different multi-wound models in a squad of psykers, maybe?

Wyldhunt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^that's not how multiwound units work. Wounds don't track on individual models.

Yes they do.

I don't think there are any possible ways to have more than one wounded model in a unit now that Celestine got nerfed.

I think there are some rare niche cases where you can. Perils'ing multiple times with different multi-wound models in a squad of psykers, maybe?

Mob up as well I just remembered. Game breaks if that happens too. :(

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^that's not how multiwound units work. Wounds don't track on individual models.

Yes they do.

Huh, so they do. I guess it's just never come up for me.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^that's not how multiwound units work. Wounds don't track on individual models.

Yes they do.

When the unit is wounded that wound is allocated to a model in it. If a model is damaged that model must be allocated to first. I had crisis suits hurt themselves with overcharge recently and this rule would apply.

I agree with the OP that something should be done to eliminate the daisy chaining of units. The consensus seems to agree and the biggest hurdle to making this workable is definitely the way model removal in coherency interacts with the requirement to apply wounds to already wounded multi-wound models.

I think the idea of removing out-of-coherency models (a la morale) has some merit, but this might be overly harsh. If this was the rule there would need to be a clarification for when which models should be removed if a unit is split into equally sized groupings where each grouping is in coherency - imagine a 5 model unit standing in a line and the middle model is removed as a casualty. Now there are 2 groups of 2 models. which ones are removed as being out of coherency? What if a unit is split into more than 2 groups?

My preferred approach is to keep wound and damage allocation the same as it is now and to change the movement rules for coherency. Models still must move into coherency if at all possible. I'd change the rule regarding if a unit is unable to move into coherency. I don't like that a unit out of coherency can still capture objectives and act as normal outside of the movement phase. I suggest that the movement rules are based on the pile in rules - When a unit is out of coherency at the start of the movement phase the unit MUST move such that it ends its move in coherency. If it is unable to end its move in coherency it MUST move such that the unit is closer to coherency than at the start of the phase. And then provide a disincentive for being out of coherency for example: Units not in coherency may not fire in the shooting phase, or psychic powers. In addition units not in coherency always fight last in melee and only hit on a 6+ irrespective of modifiers. Units out of coherency do not benefit from any auras, strategems or chapter tactics (or equivalent) and are unable to hold objectives.

Aash wrote:
I think the idea of removing out-of-coherency models (a la morale) has some merit, but this might be overly harsh. If this was the rule there would need to be a clarification for when which models should be removed if a unit is split into equally sized groupings where each grouping is in coherency - imagine a 5 model unit standing in a line and the middle model is removed as a casualty. Now there are 2 groups of 2 models. which ones are removed as being out of coherency? What if a unit is split into more than 2 groups?

The solution is to just remove the entire unit should it be unable to move into coherency.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aash wrote:
I think the idea of removing out-of-coherency models (a la morale) has some merit, but this might be overly harsh. If this was the rule there would need to be a clarification for when which models should be removed if a unit is split into equally sized groupings where each grouping is in coherency - imagine a 5 model unit standing in a line and the middle model is removed as a casualty. Now there are 2 groups of 2 models. which ones are removed as being out of coherency? What if a unit is split into more than 2 groups?

The solution is to just remove the entire unit should it be unable to move into coherency.

That's definitely an option, just seems a little too harsh to me. When would you remove the unit from the tabletop, right there and then in the movement phase? What about giving the unit in question the opportunity to charge and thus make it into coherency at the end of it's charge move if it rolled high enough?

I can imagine this being abused to wipe out units - hypothetical - the middle model in a 5 man unit standing in a line (not abusing the coherency rules, but just a fairly ordinary set-up), the middle model dies from overcharging a plasma weapon. the unit is now out of coherency. In the opposing player's turn this unit is charged and the attacker positions his models in such a way that the out-of-coherency is now unable to regain coherency. Should the whole unit be wiped out?

Aash wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aash wrote:
I think the idea of removing out-of-coherency models (a la morale) has some merit, but this might be overly harsh. If this was the rule there would need to be a clarification for when which models should be removed if a unit is split into equally sized groupings where each grouping is in coherency - imagine a 5 model unit standing in a line and the middle model is removed as a casualty. Now there are 2 groups of 2 models. which ones are removed as being out of coherency? What if a unit is split into more than 2 groups?

The solution is to just remove the entire unit should it be unable to move into coherency.

That's definitely an option, just seems a little too harsh to me. When would you remove the unit from the tabletop, right there and then in the movement phase? What about giving the unit in question the opportunity to charge and thus make it into coherency at the end of it's charge move if it rolled high enough?

I can imagine this being abused to wipe out units - hypothetical - the middle model in a 5 man unit standing in a line (not abusing the coherency rules, but just a fairly ordinary set-up), the middle model dies from overcharging a plasma weapon. the unit is now out of coherency. In the opposing player's turn this unit is charged and the attacker positions his models in such a way that the out-of-coherency is now unable to regain coherency. Should the whole unit be wiped out?

Yes, it's wiped out. Now the player has learned a valuable lesson about model positioning and to have overlapping coherency and not string his or her models out like that

Fair enough. Not my preferred solution, but I would expect if this were the rule players would be strongly encouraged to position their models to avoid it, as intended.

I'm surprised that the suggestions are stopping where they are and don't just go "You automatically lose, to punish the player and teach them to play better next time."

 solkan wrote:
I'm surprised that the suggestions are stopping where they are and don't just go "You automatically lose, to punish the player and teach them to play better next time."

Yeah it kinda feels like we would. I'm not a fan of disproportionate punishment though. It's not fun for every little slip to be a waste of an entire evening setting up imo. One reason I'd rather play casually.

What's the harm in removing the requirement to allocate wounds to damaged models first? It'll make multi- wound units tougher, reducing the payoff for partially hurting the unit. It'll allow choice in model allocated to work more ( like a crisis suit unit where one model has 2+ and another has 4++). Are those automatically bad considering how we often complain that elite units are too squishy? Am i missing something?

Won't totally solve the plasma issue though.

It would go a long way to stopping the players with huge mobs of blood letters stretching all over the board tieing up multiple units while holding objectives.

Raises a question: can one unit control multiple objectives? A long chain of models?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It would go a long way to stopping the players with huge mobs of blood letters stretching all over the board tieing up multiple units while holding objectives.

Raises a question: can one unit control multiple objectives? A long chain of models?

RAW is yes.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It would go a long way to stopping the players with huge mobs of blood letters stretching all over the board tieing up multiple units while holding objectives.

Raises a question: can one unit control multiple objectives? A long chain of models?

I haven't come across this myself, but as far as I'm aware, a unit can hold multiple objectives simultaneously.

As much as I hate the chains, I don't think removing the unit is the way to go. If anything, I'd be for removing the smaller portion of the unit if they can't regain coherency. OR perhaps the smaller portion of the unit has to take an immediate morale check, possibly with a modifier.

 Insectum7 wrote:
As much as I hate the chains, I don't think removing the unit is the way to go. If anything, I'd be for removing the smaller portion of the unit if they can't regain coherency. OR perhaps the smaller portion of the unit has to take an immediate morale check, possibly with a modifier.

Which as already stated leads to issues about determining what the "smaller" portion is. It's a lot simpler to just nuke the unit entirely when someone starts playing silly buggers.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
As much as I hate the chains, I don't think removing the unit is the way to go. If anything, I'd be for removing the smaller portion of the unit if they can't regain coherency. OR perhaps the smaller portion of the unit has to take an immediate morale check, possibly with a modifier.

Which as already stated leads to issues about determining what the "smaller" portion is. It's a lot simpler to just nuke the unit entirely when someone starts playing silly buggers.

Lower model count. If same, defender chooses. Simple enough.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
As much as I hate the chains, I don't think removing the unit is the way to go. If anything, I'd be for removing the smaller portion of the unit if they can't regain coherency. OR perhaps the smaller portion of the unit has to take an immediate morale check, possibly with a modifier.

Which as already stated leads to issues about determining what the "smaller" portion is. It's a lot simpler to just nuke the unit entirely when someone starts playing silly buggers.

Lower model count. If same, defender chooses. Simple enough.

What happens if the unit is split into 3 or 4 different parts? Rules writing isn't easy, which is why GW doesn't hire competent writers (too expensive). It's also too easy to abuse that to minimise the impact on the defender.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
As much as I hate the chains, I don't think removing the unit is the way to go. If anything, I'd be for removing the smaller portion of the unit if they can't regain coherency. OR perhaps the smaller portion of the unit has to take an immediate morale check, possibly with a modifier.

Which as already stated leads to issues about determining what the "smaller" portion is. It's a lot simpler to just nuke the unit entirely when someone starts playing silly buggers.

Lower model count. If same, defender chooses. Simple enough.

What happens if the unit is split into 3 or 4 different parts? Rules writing isn't easy, which is why GW doesn't hire competent writers (too expensive). It's also too easy to abuse that to minimise the impact on the defender.

Biggest group stays. If there are two or more units of equal size, defender chooses. I don't see what the "abuse" issue is, we're already chopping up units.