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.

In the new rules of AoS there is a rule that says that at the end of the turn, after the battleshock, if you have any units out of cohesion you must remove models until that unit is back in cohesion.

Since AoS is the testing ground for 40K, there is a non zero chance that such a rule will be someday introduced.

What changes would this have on the game?

Spoletta wrote:
In the new rules of AoS there is a rule that says that at the end of the turn, after the battleshock, if you have any units out of cohesion you must remove models until that unit is back in cohesion.

Since AoS is the testing ground for 40K, there is a non zero chance that such a rule will be someday introduced.

What changes would this have on the game?

A weird fix for a problem GW created for themselves when they didn't add the rule from previous editions that you cannot break unit coherency when removing dead models.
don't see what you would go the AoS direction for this rather then simply add the old rule back in. Units being out of coherency basically never happened before.

Spoletta wrote:
What changes would this have on the game?

None. You choose which models to remove as casualties, and you aren't going to be dumb enough to do so in a way that leaves some of them out of coherency and give yourself pointless extra casualties. There might be some rare edge-case scenarios where the rule applies, but it won't have any meaningful impact on the game.

Currently, if a unit loses coherency it's simply forced to move back into coherency the next time it moves. This can cause tactical problems and can mess up certain shooters, but otherwise isn't a terrible thing.

If your models were slain until the unit was back into coherency, that'd be a bit devastating. If such a rule were in place, I suspect there would be a lot less coherency shenanigans. I think people would be more cautious about trailing their models in a chain. People would likely keep their models in coherency of 2-3 other models, instead of just 1 at times. I think people would be a little more careful about which models they remove and I think they'd have to think twice about where they put their special weapons within a unit because if you put your flamer in the front and remove the guys behind him, he might end up dying, too.

It would prevent the conga-line stretching of 30-strong units across battlefields to hold multiple objectives.

I could see it as being useful and worthy of implementing

I could see this as well. Yesterday in my game with my Slaanesh Daemons I had to really stretch to surround a unit so it couldn't fall back out of combat - this rule would have totally changed the game, because either:

I pull a couple models that leaves part (or parts) of my unit out of coherency, or I pull a model at the end of the line between the unit and another unit of Daemonettes, opening up a gap for my opponent to fall back through with clever casualty removal of his own. Needless to say, I pulled the models that broke coherency so he couldn't fall back. If this new rule shows up it would've let the unit fallback out of combat, which means it would no longer have protected Zarakynel or a huge number of other units I had in combat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I could see this as well. Yesterday in my game with my Slaanesh Daemons I had to really stretch to surround a unit so it couldn't fall back out of combat - this rule would have totally changed the game, because either:

I pull a couple models that leaves part (or parts) of my unit out of coherency, or I pull a model at the end of the line between the unit and another unit of Daemonettes, opening up a gap for my opponent to fall back through with clever casualty removal of his own. Needless to say, I pulled the models that broke coherency so he couldn't fall back. If this new rule shows up it would've let the unit fallback out of combat, which means it would no longer have protected Zarakynel or a huge number of other units I had in combat.

So basically yet another nerf to close combat, with virtually zero effect on shooting units.

fe40k wrote:

So basically yet another nerf to close combat, with virtually zero effect on shooting units.

How do you work that out? Was it assault units that conga lined between objectives? Or acted as picket lines? No, it was shooty units usually. Casualty removal is the same no matter whether the unit is shooty or choppy, you get to remove the models you positioned. So if removing a specific model causes you serious problems, either remove another model, or position them better next time.

Seems like a good rule. But I prefer being able to pick which models to remove as otherwise exactly as stated: More time taken to carefully position models.

 Icculus wrote:
It would prevent the conga-line stretching of 30-strong units across battlefields to hold multiple objectives.

I could see it as being useful and worthy of implementing

Could of sworn you could ever only hold one objective (though im sure you can contest multiple if you had big enough unit

big thing maybe snipers breaking the center chain of a conga.
would that mean in battle shock you have to lose half the chain?

 Desubot wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
It would prevent the conga-line stretching of 30-strong units across battlefields to hold multiple objectives.

I could see it as being useful and worthy of implementing

Could of sworn you could ever only hold one objective (though im sure you can contest multiple if you had big enough unit

big thing maybe snipers breaking the center chain of a conga.
would that mean in battle shock you have to lose half the chain?

Holding one objective per unit is a 7th edition rule that no longer applies in 8th. Snipers dont get to pick the model removed.

ItsPug wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
It would prevent the conga-line stretching of 30-strong units across battlefields to hold multiple objectives.

I could see it as being useful and worthy of implementing

Could of sworn you could ever only hold one objective (though im sure you can contest multiple if you had big enough unit

big thing maybe snipers breaking the center chain of a conga.
would that mean in battle shock you have to lose half the chain?

Holding one objective per unit is a 7th edition rule that no longer applies in 8th. Snipers dont get to pick the model removed.

Blarg you are right my 7th is showing.

forgot snipers thing is targeting characters

I think there was one pysker spell that could remove specific models under a line in 8th.

 Desubot wrote:
I think there was one pysker spell that could remove specific models under a line in 8th.

There are a number of "beam" type powers, but they all target a model for the purposes of drawing a line, and then inflict mortal wounds to the unit(s) the line crosses, or in some cases a number of mortal wounds equal to the number of models under the line. But mortal wounds are all allocated by the defending player.

Only Gift of Chaos selects a specific model, and you need to be within 6" to do so.

I think a lot of people may disagree, but it seems like a easy fix for the issue of conga lines, etc would be stating that you need to be within cohesion distance of at least 2 other models in the unit. Weirdest you'd be able to get away with is circles.

Hatachi wrote:
I think a lot of people may disagree, but it seems like a easy fix for the issue of conga lines, etc would be stating that you need to be within cohesion distance of at least 2 other models in the unit. Weirdest you'd be able to get away with is circles.

All that would mean is you have a unit formation where the ends of the conga lined unit fold back. Like so...

X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

All models are within 2" of another model. Plus, what happens when you're down to two models in the unit?

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What changes would this have on the game?

None. You choose which models to remove as casualties, and you aren't going to be dumb enough to do so in a way that leaves some of them out of coherency and give yourself pointless extra casualties. There might be some rare edge-case scenarios where the rule applies, but it won't have any meaningful impact on the game.

But that isn't true. What is true is that people wouldn't make themselves take extra casualties, but it would indeed rein in possible daisy chain shenanigans. An example I've seen: a unit of AdMech infantry stands in a chain about ten inches long. This chain is in melee combat at one end while the other stands ObSeccing an objective and denies it from the enemy, who can meaningfully only come near it with a non-Troops choice before the game ends next turn. The AdMech player takes his casualties from in between the ends and let's this one guy hang at the back and keep that objective until the game ends. He is also immune to shooting, even if his squad is like 6 inches away.

Preventing things like that with such rulings is a small step that I could easily see added in. Hope to see it in the next round of FAQs or CA.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What changes would this have on the game?

None. You choose which models to remove as casualties, and you aren't going to be dumb enough to do so in a way that leaves some of them out of coherency and give yourself pointless extra casualties. There might be some rare edge-case scenarios where the rule applies, but it won't have any meaningful impact on the game.

But that isn't true. What is true is that people wouldn't make themselves take extra casualties, but it would indeed rein in possible daisy chain shenanigans. An example I've seen: a unit of AdMech infantry stands in a chain about ten inches long. This chain is in melee combat at one end while the other stands ObSeccing an objective and denies it from the enemy, who can meaningfully only come near it with a non-Troops choice before the game ends next turn. The AdMech player takes his casualties from in between the ends and let's this one guy hang at the back and keep that objective until the game ends. He is also immune to shooting, even if his squad is like 6 inches away.

Preventing things like that with such rulings is a small step that I could easily see added in. Hope to see it in the next round of FAQs or CA.

Yeah, i have won games like this. 30 hormgaunts surrounding a model and conga lining to obsec a point.

Seems that the old 2" between model coherency rule wasn't so bad after all.
What might have ruined it for some people were the minmaxxers measuring every exactly 2", when the idea was it had to be less, but if more a tad then a friendly adjustment or, if playing competitively, then just make dammmm sure it is under 2 when you place the model cuz you shouldn't be allowed to place it again strictly speaking and using a measuring stick to premeasure before declaring an action is ... well... another dumbing down that actually encouraged the minmaxxers and made the game (and the game environment) less compelling, less skill oriented (unless writing a to hit to wound probability applet is the skill we are after in tbltp.).
Plus, during especially tense, so called competetive play, it would make sense for units to remain more tightly grouped, moving more carefully. Frankly, I would like to see an overhead view with an interface that measures the distance moved and range for every model on the table at all times, maybe with little rfid chips in the bases, or simply by tracking patterns specified by the players after deployment with a simple GUI. Then, after each movement phase, every ork that got pushed 7 inches instead of 6 would be called out and removed. No premeasuring allowed, but every nudged model or parallax error reading a floating tape measure from across the table can be caught out objectively, and used as a way of scoring event play maybe too...

Anyways, I like any return to unit coherency rules that restore realism and rid the game of conga lines and bubblewrap ...

I find it messes more with melee oriented units than anything else really