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.

 Nevelon wrote:
Do we know that coherency is required for CC? I seem to recall prior editions played it fast and loose while combat raged, but once things settled down you needed to muster the troops together before moving on.

Coherency is required in melee in 8th, and I don’t remember playing in an edition where it didn’t, but I never played 6th or 7th, and barely played 5th.

The coherency rules are a huge pain for melee. Which is probably why they did it instead of the much simpler "all models must remain with X" of all other models" approach: they wanted to make it extremely difficult to wrap more than one target, or to wrap any unit that hasn't lost the vast majority of its members.

6" consolidate is going to be a lot more important in 9th if you are actually trying to wrap stuff with units bigger than 5 models.

The big downside of the approach (aside from just making it harder to wrap) is that it makes combat even more technical and positioning-dependent than it was in 8th, meaning it takes even more time than it did before. If you want to wrap something you're going to have to painstakingly pay attention to every single model in the squad's precise position throughout each of the three moves you get as part of a charge. It's going to be a real headache, unless you just give up and stop trying to wrap in the first place and just accept that your unit is going to be blown off the table after one round of combat.

To take from previous editions: "[For a unit to be in Unit Coherency,] the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2″ horizontally and 6″ vertically. "

GW, you had coherency working fine before, why can't you just do it properly again?

 Nevelon wrote:
Do we know that coherency is required for CC? I seem to recall prior editions played it fast and loose while combat raged, but once things settled down you needed to muster the troops together before moving on.

You need to maintain coherency for ANY kind of move. Unless gw writes consolidiiation/pile in isn't some sort of move it applies there

'Must pile in/consolidate closer to nearest enemy' and coherency is going to be a hell of a leash.

They might change pile in/consolidate requirements, of course, but if they stay, going for aggressive moves to put more models in engagement range for extra attacks could end up costing a chunk of the unit, even if you don't take any losses from the enemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Do we know that coherency is required for CC? I seem to recall prior editions played it fast and loose while combat raged, but once things settled down you needed to muster the troops together before moving on.

You need to maintain coherency for ANY kind of move. Unless gw writes consolidiiation/pile in isn't some sort of move it applies there

The new coherency rule specifically takes a time out to reference moving in the charge and fight phases. It definitely applies.

Edit:
Huh. That actually means aggressively engaging to get more attacks isn't actually a legal move. You can't even do it. If you have a 10 man blob of berserkers, Berserker Stan can't sweep around the edges of the enemy unit to kill more, he has to stay within 2" of Fred and George at all times- his unleashed rage hits a tether and he stops to chew scenery instead.

And coherency punishment happens at the end of the morale phase regardless of anything (whether they took casualties or did anything at all). Anyone out of formation simply vanishes from the universe. But technically speaking, only casualties can trigger it, because you literally can't move a unit in a way that it would trigger on its own. The move just cannot happen.

Yeah, you can't even make a movement that would take you out of coherency. It's going to be a huge task each combat just to determine who is able to move where to fight and who isn't. Unless you just go with the flow and never take units of more than 5 like the edition is clearly trying very hard to get you to do.

Welcome to 9th edition
Only units containing 5 models or less may apply.
But just because blast weapons will pay addition points for rules that will never trigger as they dont kick in below 6 models.

This is really feeling like it is going to be armies of 5 model units and 1 model units. Anything else is going to need to be rediculous to be worth the downsides.

The only real hope is that the requirement to move towards the nearest model when piling in and consolidating is relaxed. Otherwise the combination of having to maintain coherency with 2 models and also move closer to the closest model is really going to be an absolute nightmare to figure out.

As much as I rip on GW, I have a hard time believing even they would be stupid enough to enforce both coherency to 2 models and a requirement that you can only pile in and consolidate towards the closest model, rather than towards any model in the unit. I have to think even they can see how oppressive that would be.

Having done some tests with models, you can still daisy chain 25mm models as long as you keep them base to base or fairly close, it shouldn't pose too much trouble while in combat as long as you stay densely packed. I think we can safely write off wrapping/trapping a unit with one large unit this edition so we have to make peace with that. If we want to trap a unit we'd have to engage with several MSU for more freedom of movement, or a ridiculously large unit that can maintain coherency.

Above 32mm bases it could get harder, but otherwise just moving them in contact base to base to each other safely prevents any coherency shenanigans. We'll have a more dense and reduced threat bubble with large units though, as they can cover less ground.

Ice_can wrote:
Welcome to 9th edition
Only units containing 5 models or less may apply.
But just because blast weapons will pay addition points for rules that will never trigger as they dont kick in below 6 models.

This is really feeling like it is going to be armies of 5 model units and 1 model units. Anything else is going to need to be rediculous to be worth the downsides.

For competitive tournament players, maybe.

For everyone else the game will probably be like it always has been. Play whatever you like and have some fun with it.

I think the coherency and blast rules are going to get hard FAQed very quickly.

Intention good - implementation just opens a pandoras box.

All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.

 McGibs wrote:
All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.

As I think some people have said - isn't the difference in AoS that you only have a 1" range (or loads vertically) but you only need to be in contact of one model?

In some ways I think it could be a better rule which achieves a similar purpose.

Not sure MSU will really be king.

Some secondaries, probably more than we know, require a unit to perform an action of taking an objective. If the unit is wiped out it obviously fails to complete the mission.

5 man units are going to find it difficult to survive an entire enemy turn of shooting and assault.

My Daemons and Sisters will make short work of 5 man squads really quick. I'd be more intimidated to assault 20 ork boys trying to gain an objective than I would be of assaulting 5 Intercessors.

 McGibs wrote:
All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.

There are two considerations going on. One is the unit coherency rule puts a major leash on units with the 'if the move doesn't end in unit coherency, the move CANNOT be made' That's going to cause a lot of rewinds and recalculations. If your ork mob piles in, you need to recheck the positions of the orks on the ends, make sure they can actually be there, because you don't want to realize (or be told) at the wounds step that two of the orks can't actually be where they are because of the unit coherency so you need to redo all the attack sequences with however many fewer attacks.

Second consideration is you really need to bog down in details with coherence at the end of combat. A minor error (either in placement or casualty removal or morale removal) can mean half your unit snaps out of existence.


And on top of that, at 5 or smaller, you just don't have to care about any of this crap. Berserker Steve can swoop around the side of Berserker Fred and get to killing- he doesn't have to stand at the back and hold hands with Fred _and_ George anymore.
---

The AoS comparison isn't really accurate. Coherence with 1 other model is very different than coherence with 2.

 McGibs wrote:
All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.

Again, coherency in AOS is only drawn to one model. It's 1" instead of 2", but it's only to one model. This is fundamentally different from the 9th edition rule that draws to 2 models for units of 6 or more. It's a totally different ballgame. Try moving some models on a table if you don't believe me. It's just a matter of geometry. Having to draw lines to 2 other models for every model fundamentally changes the way your models can legitimately move.


Nobody would care about this if it was coherency to only 1 model like in AOS.

25mm based models are pretty easy to maintain coherency. In a strait line a 25mm model can be within 2 inches of 6 other models, 3 to the right and 3 to the left.

If you just blob them together, a 25mm based model can be in coherency with 36 other models.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.

Again, coherency in AOS is only drawn to one model. It's 1" instead of 2", but it's only to one model. This is fundamentally different from the 9th edition rule that draws to 2 models for units of 6 or more. It's a totally different ballgame. Try moving some models on a table if you don't believe me.

Nobody would care about this if it was coherency to only 1 model like in AOS.

I don't care about coherency rule for 9th. The people making the biggest issue out of it, IMO, are the ones that abused conga lines to grab multiple objectives. Now you have to play in ranks, for the most part, so your conga lines aren't as wide.

How about taking more than one mob of 30 gretchen? or 30 termagants or 30 plaguebearers. I run 3 x 30 plaguebearers in my Daemons. I've never felt the need to conga line to grab multiple objectives, I just send out multiple PB units.

Plus we are forgetting that some secondaries require you to sit through an opponents entire phase to score that objective. If you want to game 9th edition to stretch your conga line out I'll just shoot the crap out of said unit, you will realize you cannot remove models in such a way, and so the (action) of taking said objective fails and I deny you VP. In the meantime my unit of 30 plaguebearers will most likely complete their (action) of objective taking and score me VP's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but games in 9th are fixed to 5 turns.

Nice change. It also forces people to play the mission from turn 3, not turn 4 or 5 hoping for a turn 6 or 7.

 cuda1179 wrote:
25mm based models are pretty easy to maintain coherency. In a strait line a 25mm model can be within 2 inches of 6 other models, 3 to the right and 3 to the left.

If you just blob them together, a 25mm based model can be in coherency with 36 other models.

Its worth noting that GW may be phasing out 25mm bases. Quite a few armies don't use them at all anymore, and even 'normal humans' have started creeping in on 28.5mm or 32mm (or higher, freaking Sisters characters) in the last year.
Repentia wearing only body gloves are on the 28.5 bases.

And the 'what are valid base sizes?' in 9th edition hasn't been raised yet. The old answer of 'whatever was originally in the box' doesn't seem OK anymore, since you're pointing out there is _very_ a notable game advantage for putting models on 32mm bases on 25mm instead.

jivardi wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.

Again, coherency in AOS is only drawn to one model. It's 1" instead of 2", but it's only to one model. This is fundamentally different from the 9th edition rule that draws to 2 models for units of 6 or more. It's a totally different ballgame. Try moving some models on a table if you don't believe me.

Nobody would care about this if it was coherency to only 1 model like in AOS.

I don't care about coherency rule for 9th. The people making the biggest issue out of it, IMO, are the ones that abused conga lines to grab multiple objectives. Now you have to play in ranks, for the most part, so your conga lines aren't as wide.

How about taking more than one mob of 30 gretchen? or 30 termagants or 30 plaguebearers. I run 3 x 30 plaguebearers in my Daemons. I've never felt the need to conga line to grab multiple objectives, I just send out multiple PB units.

Plus we are forgetting that some secondaries require you to sit through an opponents entire phase to score that objective. If you want to game 9th edition to stretch your conga line out I'll just shoot the crap out of said unit, you will realize you cannot remove models in such a way, and so the (action) of taking said objective fails and I deny you VP. In the meantime my unit of 30 plaguebearers will most likely complete their (action) of objective taking and score me VP's.

You will care about it if you ever try to use a combat unit of more than 6 models, because it radically limits how you can move them. Unless you're one of those guys who just smushes a bunch of models into base to base contact with the enemy every time you charge.

The new coherency rules don't stop a unit of 30 from holding multiple objectives. That's still totally possible.

What they do do is put a huge limitation on how you can move your models during combats.

A lot of people here are reacting as if the change is not a big deal, when in fact it is the single biggest gameplay change announced so far. The idea that it only impacts daisy-chains is simply wrong. If you respond to this change with "meh, won't affect me because I don't daisy-chain" that is objectively wrong. It affects everyone playing the game, in very significant ways, unless neither you nor your opponent has any squads with more than 5 models.

Voss wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
25mm based models are pretty easy to maintain coherency. In a strait line a 25mm model can be within 2 inches of 6 other models, 3 to the right and 3 to the left.

If you just blob them together, a 25mm based model can be in coherency with 36 other models.

Its worth noting that GW may be phasing out 25mm bases. Quite a few armies don't use them at all anymore, and even 'normal humans' have started creeping in on 28.5mm or 32mm (or higher, freaking Sisters characters) in the last year.
Repentia wearing only body gloves are on the 28.5 bases.

And the 'what are valid base sizes?' in 9th edition hasn't been raised yet. The old answer of 'whatever was originally in the box' doesn't seem OK anymore, since you're pointing out there is _very_ a notable game advantage for putting models on 32mm bases on 25mm instead.

IDK, 25mm is still the standard for Imperial Guard, Tau, Genestealer Cult, Eldar, and Dark Eldar.

The new plastic banshees were moved to 28mm. The reason the rest of the eldar line is still on 25mm is because those models are literally decades old in many cases.

It is pretty clear that for new releases GW is moving away from 25mm bases.

Also the only stuff on 25mm for GSC is neophyte squads.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The new plastic banshees were moved to 28mm. The reason the rest of the eldar line is still on 25mm is because those models are literally decades old in many cases.

It is pretty clear that for new releases GW is moving away from 25mm bases.

Also the only stuff on 25mm for GSC is neophyte squads.

It really just comes down to the model itself. If it looks better on a bigger base that is what it will get.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
25mm based models are pretty easy to maintain coherency. In a strait line a 25mm model can be within 2 inches of 6 other models, 3 to the right and 3 to the left.

If you just blob them together, a 25mm based model can be in coherency with 36 other models.

Its worth noting that GW may be phasing out 25mm bases. Quite a few armies don't use them at all anymore, and even 'normal humans' have started creeping in on 28.5mm or 32mm (or higher, freaking Sisters characters) in the last year.
Repentia wearing only body gloves are on the 28.5 bases.

And the 'what are valid base sizes?' in 9th edition hasn't been raised yet. The old answer of 'whatever was originally in the box' doesn't seem OK anymore, since you're pointing out there is _very_ a notable game advantage for putting models on 32mm bases on 25mm instead.

IDK, 25mm is still the standard for Imperial Guard, Tau, Genestealer Cult, Eldar, and Dark Eldar.

Yeah, but I've got a berserker squad that was on 25mm until literally 4 months ago when I rebased them. If 'what was originally in the box' is still OK, I apparently made a big mistake, because I could fit more models into engagement range with fewer coherency worries. And use a fluffier 8 man unit with fewer concerns.

GSC is also weird, since genestealers have been on 25mm for decades, acolytes are only 32mm, and neophytes are weirdly split. Despite the fact that genestealers are impractical to squeeze together in base to base without playing arm tetris, technically you can. Which makes them better for engagement and coherency shenanigans, if nothing else.

Marine scouts are still on 25mm, right?

Edit: Forgot there's Skitarii too.

Yes, it's a big deal in how it affects combat with piling in and consolidating.

No, it's not a big deal to check if a model is within 2" of two other models. It isn't hard. Just a glance will do usually.

The simple fact of bad touching will have more impact (except vs ultrasmurfs), with fly fall back shoot going away. Throwing a trash mob of ten will be my way to go, with overwatch gone they will make it to combat more likely, take the punch, then die but after having Wasted some shots along the way.
Perhaps something along these lines I dunno, 6 point cultists make me think that trash mobs of ten will be too expensive but who knows...

Guess two trash mobs of 5 will always be better at that though. Like 5 kabalytes bad touching something Getting close to the objective they are defending hiding in dense terrain, perhaps might be worth it I dunno

jivardi wrote:
Not sure MSU will really be king.

Some secondaries, probably more than we know, require a unit to perform an action of taking an objective. If the unit is wiped out it obviously fails to complete the mission.

5 man units are going to find it difficult to survive an entire enemy turn of shooting and assault.

My Daemons and Sisters will make short work of 5 man squads really quick. I'd be more intimidated to assault 20 ork boys trying to gain an objective than I would be of assaulting 5 Intercessors.

Are people saying this really just consistently misunderstanding that "A turn" means "YOUR turn" and not "your turn and your opponent's turn"? That's a "round" and the action rules we've seen so far all use "Turn".

And we also have people saying that people spread hordes out to score multiple objectives. Which has been illegal all 8th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 addnid wrote:
The simple fact of bad touching will have more impact (except vs ultrasmurfs), with fly fall back shoot going away. Throwing a trash mob of ten will be my way to go, with overwatch gone they will make it to combat more likely, take the punch, then die but after having Wasted some shots along the way.
Perhaps something along these lines I dunno, 6 point cultists make me think that trash mobs of ten will be too expensive but who knows...

Guess two trash mobs of 5 will always be better at that though. Like 5 kabalytes bad touching something Getting close to the objective they are defending hiding in dense terrain, perhaps might be worth it I dunno

People already take skitarii, harlequins, fire warriors, kabalites wyches etc in 5-man squads.

In 9th, with overwatch gone, and all these rules gaking on 6+? You're just never going to take squads that are min 10. You'll always use min 5 squads, 100% of the time. No reason not to.

RIP orks, RIP guardians, RIP daemons, RIP cultists, RIP neophytes. You were already suboptimal and only used as CP batteries.

Someone must have tripointed a GW employee's Leman Russ with cultists one time and he went back to his office grumbling "I'll fix you" while the bright eyed excited intern walked out of the planning office door with the shiny new Iron Hands supplement ready for the printers.

@the_scotsman

Gw previewed a rule that stated you scored your pointa for holding the objectives at the start of your command phase, ie the start of your turn, so between you moving onto the objective in your movement phase and the start of your next command phase the enemy has a complete turn.

GW have now shown a conpletely different rule for actions that are scores at the end of your turn so which is correct? One the other or Both, I really wish i didn't believe it but I suspect GW have both in the mission pack and it will depend game to game how they arw scored.

Ice_can wrote:
@the_scotsman

Gw previewed a rule that stated you scored your pointa for holding the objectives at the start of your command phase, ie the start of your turn, so between you moving onto the objective in your movement phase and the start of your next command phase the enemy has a complete turn.

GW have now shown a conpletely different rule for actions that are scores at the end of your turn so which is correct? One the other or Both, I really wish i didn't believe it but I suspect GW have both in the mission pack and it will depend game to game how they arw scored.

A unit of Bullgryns or Tyranid Warriors is still going to be a much more durable unit for that purpose than an Infantry Squad or blob of Termagants.

I liked the reveal about actions just on the face of it, but at 2K points, any army that can't remove 30 T3 or T4 wounds with marginal saves has already lost. I can't see hordes or ten-model light infantry squads coming back just to perform actions or hold objectives.