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.

I got a thread locked for asking about this in a old thread, so I'll repeat my question here:

How does unit coherency with non-infantry models work in 9th edition? If I take three land speeders and assign them into a single unit in order to conserve force org slots, do I have to move all 3 land speeders always in 2" coherency? And if I lose one model and am forced out of coherency, do I lose another model? If so, I will instead spend two force org slots so then I will only have 2 speeders at most and losing one will not force losing another..

Does the same apply to Tarantulas? So if I assign 3 tarantulas to a single unit, they all must be deployed in 2" coherency? And if one of the tarantulas is destroyed, do I risk losing another due to losing coherency?

Thanks

The unit needs to have 6+ models for every model to have to stay in coherency of two other models.

For units of 5 or less you just stay in coherency of one other model.

 Stux wrote:
The unit needs to have 6+ models for every model to have to stay in coherency of two other models.

For units of 5 or less you just stay in coherency of one other model.

Ok, but if I congaline the models in the unit like this

O O O

and there's 1.5" between each of them, AND the model in the middle had lost a wound already, so it'd have to be assigned the target for future attacks, if I'd lost that middle model, I'd lose another because the two remaining models would no longer be within 2" of each other?

If the answer is yes, I need to start wasting a lot of force org slots for my land speeders and tarantulas.. Or well, at least only having up to two models in a unit, effectively doubling slot costs.

 Stux wrote:
The unit needs to have 6+ models for every model to have to stay in coherency of two other models.

For units of 5 or less you just stay in coherency of one other model.

I don’t think number of models in the unit applies here. If a unit of 3 models is in a line abreast arrangement 2” apart and the middle model is destroyed, then yes you would lose another model from the unit in the morale phase for being out of coherency. This also applies to vehicles.

Having 6+ vehicle models in a single unit would be quite a logistical nightmare as far as coherency is concerned

tauist wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The unit needs to have 6+ models for every model to have to stay in coherency of two other models.

For units of 5 or less you just stay in coherency of one other model.

Ok, but if I congaline the models in the unit like this

O O O

and there's 1.5" between each of them, AND the model in the middle had lost a wound already, so it'd have to be assigned the target for future attacks, if I'd lost that middle model, I'd lose another because the two remaining models would no longer be within 2" of each other?

If the answer is yes, I need to start wasting a lot of force org slots for my land speeders and tarantulas.. Or well, at least only having up to two models in a unit, effectively doubling slot costs.

Yes, but this is why you should have one of the end ones take the hits so that if it dies you still have 2 within 2” of each other...

tauist wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The unit needs to have 6+ models for every model to have to stay in coherency of two other models.

For units of 5 or less you just stay in coherency of one other model.

Ok, but if I congaline the models in the unit like this

O O O

and there's 1.5" between each of them, AND the model in the middle had lost a wound already, so it'd have to be assigned the target for future attacks, if I'd lost that middle model, I'd lose another because the two remaining models would no longer be within 2" of each other?

If the answer is yes, I need to start wasting a lot of force org slots for my land speeders and tarantulas.. Or well, at least only having up to two models in a unit, effectively doubling slot costs.

The answer is yes. Coherency doesn't change by unit type- same rules apply to everything.

In your hypothetical, I've no idea why you'd assign wounds to the middle model. Either don't do that (keep an already damaged one on the outside) or keep the models closer together.

That's right. Guess I'm overthinking the casualty aspect. But still having thought about this some more, I think I'll rather blow 3 CP on an extra outrider detachment in the future. The thought of having to keep all these fragile light vehicles clumped to a singular threat/target point sounds worse and worse the more I think about it. Much better to go for 1 model units for maximum flexibility.

I kinda feel like 9th should address vehicle unit coherency going forward. It's very unintuitive tbh when applied to things like 3 predators or 3 vindicators (unless those dont act as a single unit after deployment).

Cheers

Very few vehicles squadrons remain as squadrons once deployed these days.

Coherency works for all units the same, regardless of whether they are vehicles or not.

That being said, only a select handful of vehicles even remain in units after deployment any more (the only ones I can think off the top of my head are Land Speeds, Killa Kanz, and Sentinels), most are deployed together then become individual 1 model units. It's actually a massive detriment since you can lose models to morale (Killa Kanz it's easy to do, Sentinels and Land Speeders need a pretty niche occurrence, but I've seen a Land Speeder run away in terror).

To answer your Tarantula question specifically, they remain a single unit. If you take a unit of 3, they must be deployed in coherency and remain in coherency the entire battle. Since they are immobile this shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

As others have said, simply always assign wounds to one of the vehicles on the end of the line first. If the vehicles have different loadouts make sure one of the least valuable ones is on an end.

Its really not going to be much of an issue outside of really niche situations.

tauist wrote:
Having 6+ vehicle models in a single unit would be quite a logistical nightmare as far as coherency is concerned

Not really run them as 3 x 2 stacked like bricks and kill from the ends in

O O O
--O O O

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Coherency works for all units the same, regardless of whether they are vehicles or not.

That being said, only a select handful of vehicles even remain in units after deployment any more (the only ones I can think off the top of my head are Land Speeds, Killa Kanz, and Sentinels), most are deployed together then become individual 1 model units. It's actually a massive detriment since you can lose models to morale (Killa Kanz it's easy to do, Sentinels and Land Speeders need a pretty niche occurrence, but I've seen a Land Speeder run away in terror).

To answer your Tarantula question specifically, they remain a single unit. If you take a unit of 3, they must be deployed in coherency and remain in coherency the entire battle. Since they are immobile this shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

Dropping three tarantulas on a singular point on the table feels like a waste to me. Such a clumped firebase can be avoided easier than spreading them apart in single model units. Its not doing any favours either that one has to aim the closest target with em, further limiting their flexibility.. But yeh. They're such a fluffy choice for marines that I cannot leave them unfielded