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.

A simple one here, but it would fix a lot of the issues with massive daisy chains of units.

"Models can not be removed as casualties in such a way that would leave any other model in the unit out of coherency". You can still do the daisy chain to stay in range of buffs/multiple objectives, but it would mean taking casualties actually mattered. You can't just keep the two cultists 30" inches from each other alive to hold an objective and stay within a fearless aura.

I'm not sure why this isn't already a rule tbh.

yes but then you run into the issue of 7th where certain special models will always be in the middle to avoid this as the models slain will get pulled from the outside. I hated having to pull from the front first and have my nob at the back never make combat.

mhalko1 wrote:
yes but then you run into the issue of 7th where certain special models will always be in the middle to avoid this as the models slain will get pulled from the outside. I hated having to pull from the front first and have my nob at the back never make combat.

Then why don't you put the nob at the front and pull casualties from the back? You still get to pick which models to remove, you just can't pick them in a way that the unit loses coherency. For normal cases not involving units trying to daisy chain their way across half the table there is zero practical difference.

 Peregrine wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
yes but then you run into the issue of 7th where certain special models will always be in the middle to avoid this as the models slain will get pulled from the outside. I hated having to pull from the front first and have my nob at the back never make combat.

Then why don't you put the nob at the front and pull casualties from the back? You still get to pick which models to remove, you just can't pick them in a way that the unit loses coherency. For normal cases not involving units trying to daisy chain their way across half the table there is zero practical difference.

I agree, this kind of rule is needed because it just forces the player to do what they should be doing. Front, back or middle it matters not. You keep pulling based on some kind of logic, just like with assigning wounds to multi-wound models, we already have precedence for this type of rule.

You'd run into a little bit of weirdness with multi-wound units. Say I'm fielding a squad of 5 terminators. On your turn, you take a single wound off of the guy on the end. On my turn, I spread the unit out with the wounded guy in the middle serving as the only point of coherency for the dudes to his left and his right. On your turn, you shoot me again and inflict another wound.

I'm not allowed to remove the wounded guy in the middle because it would break coherency. So do I get to spread wounds around to make models die more slowly by assigning the new wounds to a guy at the end of my terminator daisy chain?

Wyldhunt wrote:
You'd run into a little bit of weirdness with multi-wound units. Say I'm fielding a squad of 5 terminators. On your turn, you take a single wound off of the guy on the end. On my turn, I spread the unit out with the wounded guy in the middle serving as the only point of coherency for the dudes to his left and his right. On your turn, you shoot me again and inflict another wound.

I'm not allowed to remove the wounded guy in the middle because it would break coherency. So do I get to spread wounds around to make models die more slowly by assigning the new wounds to a guy at the end of my terminator daisy chain?

Good point.

I would discouraging this kind of behavior in the first place might be more effective.

I'll give you an example, we have a power gamer in our store who constantly tries to bend and flex the rules, constantly makes the most over powered and broken lists, argues to high heavens over a half an inch of "x." in order to get benefit and come out on top.

After a year of this. Not. One. Of. Us. Will. Play. A. Game. With. Him.

Remember, we have the power to nix bad behavior!

Wyldhunt wrote:
You'd run into a little bit of weirdness with multi-wound units. Say I'm fielding a squad of 5 terminators. On your turn, you take a single wound off of the guy on the end. On my turn, I spread the unit out with the wounded guy in the middle serving as the only point of coherency for the dudes to his left and his right. On your turn, you shoot me again and inflict another wound.

I'm not allowed to remove the wounded guy in the middle because it would break coherency. So do I get to spread wounds around to make models die more slowly by assigning the new wounds to a guy at the end of my terminator daisy chain?

Yeah I assumed there would be a way to game it that I hadn't seen lol. In that case, just add the line "if possible"

An additional rule to this could be that any models outside coherency at the end of the turn automatically flee. That way, players have an incentive not to game the system.

Yeah definitely think there needs to be more clarity in this area of the game. Chaining just looks goofy to me when playing. Not sure what I would propose to fix though.

I'd go further, and say: "Any unit with models not in coherency may not be affected by any abilities not on its datasheet, nor any stratagems that affect the whole unit, nor may models in it count for the purposes of holding an objective, until it regains unit coherency."

So you can still remove what you want, but the unit becomes significantly less useful if you do it that way.

 Kcalehc wrote:
I'd go further, and say: "Any unit with models not in coherency may not be affected by any abilities not on its datasheet, nor any stratagems that affect the whole unit, nor may models in it count for the purposes of holding an objective, until it regains unit coherency."

So you can still remove what you want, but the unit becomes significantly less useful if you do it that way.

This seems to me the best idea.

I personally never understood how if my terminators unload their stormbolters into the ranks of the 20 daemon blob in front of them, the 6 guys in back are the ones who fall over. You should have to remove the models closest to the attacker.

Same with melee. I swing my hammer 4 times, and three guys 5" away fall over from crushed skulls. No, that is silly.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I personally never understood how if my terminators unload their stormbolters into the ranks of the 20 daemon blob in front of them, the 6 guys in back are the ones who fall over. You should have to remove the models closest to the attacker.

Same with melee. I swing my hammer 4 times, and three guys 5" away fall over from crushed skulls. No, that is silly.

Because feth melee armies, right?

Wyldhunt wrote:
You'd run into a little bit of weirdness with multi-wound units. Say I'm fielding a squad of 5 terminators. On your turn, you take a single wound off of the guy on the end. On my turn, I spread the unit out with the wounded guy in the middle serving as the only point of coherency for the dudes to his left and his right. On your turn, you shoot me again and inflict another wound.

I'm not allowed to remove the wounded guy in the middle because it would break coherency. So do I get to spread wounds around to make models die more slowly by assigning the new wounds to a guy at the end of my terminator daisy chain?

I don't think that's how it works. Units take wounds, but models get removed as casualties. When the first Terminator takes a wound, that's just a wound on the unit, and not tracked on the individual Terminator. When the unit takes a second wound, then you just remove a valid model of your choice.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I personally never understood how if my terminators unload their stormbolters into the ranks of the 20 daemon blob in front of them, the 6 guys in back are the ones who fall over. You should have to remove the models closest to the attacker.

Same with melee. I swing my hammer 4 times, and three guys 5" away fall over from crushed skulls. No, that is silly.

Mechanically it creates a lot of issues. You pay points for a guy with a flame thrower. It has the shortest range. You put the guy in front of the pack. The unit gets shot before the flamer gets into range, now the flamer dies first. Points well spent? This is not the only example just A example.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I personally never understood how if my terminators unload their stormbolters into the ranks of the 20 daemon blob in front of them, the 6 guys in back are the ones who fall over. You should have to remove the models closest to the attacker.

Same with melee. I swing my hammer 4 times, and three guys 5" away fall over from crushed skulls. No, that is silly.

I much prefer it the way it is, there's no tracking or fiddly decision making based on distance or whatever. Maybe the guys in front see the Terminators open up and dodge aside, but the guys in back take the hits anyways. In CC the models close to the enemy take the hits, but others fill their place in all the rush. IMO the unit-to-unit interactions should be broad strokes as much as possible, so the abstraction works, and owner-choice casualty removal is just faster.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I personally never understood how if my terminators unload their stormbolters into the ranks of the 20 daemon blob in front of them, the 6 guys in back are the ones who fall over. You should have to remove the models closest to the attacker.

Same with melee. I swing my hammer 4 times, and three guys 5" away fall over from crushed skulls. No, that is silly.

You are killing the models closest to you. The rest of the unit in rushing forward to fill the gap. That's the chaos of abstracted battle.

RevlidRas wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I personally never understood how if my terminators unload their stormbolters into the ranks of the 20 daemon blob in front of them, the 6 guys in back are the ones who fall over. You should have to remove the models closest to the attacker.

Same with melee. I swing my hammer 4 times, and three guys 5" away fall over from crushed skulls. No, that is silly.

You are killing the models closest to you. The rest of the unit in rushing forward to fill the gap. That's the chaos of abstracted battle.

This. There are advantages to removing the closest models first, but it also results in a lot more fiddling with exact model placement just so that you have a slightly better chance of not losing your sergeant or meltagun before some random bolter marine. I kind of prefer the current casualty removal system to 7th's. It favors plot armor and rule of cool over agonizing over exact model distance.

What about just a rule stating a unit MUST move back into coherency on their turn, and if they cannot do so the unit flees ala morale.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What about just a rule stating a unit MUST move back into coherency on their turn, and if they cannot do so the unit flees ala morale.

I mean, we have something very close already. Except instead of taking morale casualties, you're just sort of stuck in place.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What about just a rule stating a unit MUST move back into coherency on their turn, and if they cannot do so the unit flees ala morale.

I mean, we have something very close already. Except instead of taking morale casualties, you're just sort of stuck in place.

Which is crazy. It should just be you have to move as close as possible by the straightest line possible each turn until coherency is restored. No other actions can be taken by the unit until it is.

 Lance845 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What about just a rule stating a unit MUST move back into coherency on their turn, and if they cannot do so the unit flees ala morale.

I mean, we have something very close already. Except instead of taking morale casualties, you're just sort of stuck in place.

Which is crazy. It should just be you have to move as close as possible by the straightest line possible each turn until coherency is restored. No other actions can be taken by the unit until it is.

What do I do if my remaining models are spread out in a vague rectangle? Or what if they're spread out roughly equidistantly along an L shape? Do I like... calculate the geometric center of the survivors' formation?

Take the 2 farthest models.

Draw a line between them. Move them their max distance towards each other. Move every one else towards those 2 or the central point between them. .

Wyldhunt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What about just a rule stating a unit MUST move back into coherency on their turn, and if they cannot do so the unit flees ala morale.

I mean, we have something very close already. Except instead of taking morale casualties, you're just sort of stuck in place.

Those units can still cap objectives. If they flee, they can't.

You don’t run into weirdness with non coherency with multiwound units. You don’t ban taking a model that would break coherency, you heavily punish it instead.

If you remove a model that results in a unit breaking coherency, that unit is immediately void of making any other actions, including attacking in close combat that game turn. In the owning players turn they must move back into coherency, they can then act as normal.

In addition to the above, a non coherent unit acts at half their usual leadership (rounding down) for the purpose of morale tests. In the case of shenanigans that allow auto pass (bonding knife) or daemons replenishing numbers on certain rolls, these rules are not applicable for a non coherent unit.

Effectively, you can place that 1 wound terminator in the middle if you want, you will just be fibbed when you pull him and he breaks unit coherency.

I don't know the perfect solution, but do agree that it is a huge problem. Especially in high level play when both players are really good at absuing the system, you can end up with 100 disposable models strung out all over the table and it looks awful.

I'd probably be in favour of units that can't maintain coherency as counting as fleeing. It's not a difficult thing to maintan, so people who don't should be punished.

Cynista wrote:
I don't know the perfect solution, but do agree that it is a huge problem. Especially in high level play when both players are really good at absuing the system, you can end up with 100 disposable models strung out all over the table and it looks awful.

I'd probably be in favour of units that can't maintain coherency as counting as fleeing. It's not a difficult thing to maintan, so people who don't should be punished.

I'd probably be okay with that. As far as I'm aware, there isn't really a way to forcibly break the coherency of the enemy unit; it's up to your opponent to position models and remove casualties in such a way as to make that happen. The perma-frozen models thing that results from being unable to reestablish coherency is weird and gamey. I think I'm coming around. Just removing models that are out of coherency as end-of-turn casualties (that don't count towards morale) is probably a reasonable way to go.

Clean. Simple. Just stinks when you accidentally spread your terminators out and left the wounded cheap guy in the middle of your stretched-out line.

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

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

Yes they do.

 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.

You still track who takes wounds. You just have to continue allocating to that model until it dies.