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.

Well, my friend who has drafting software at work made this up for us quick to demonstrate that 1" ranged 40mm models don't have it so bad off, assuming you can mathematically perfectly place their bases tangentially


edit: For the most part, since we don't play tournaments really and everybody is used to the concept from Infinity, I'm going to try to push a more "play by intent" model for AoS to make it so nobody feels like they need to spend an hour with protractors to maximize their units' combat efficiency. If we know, mathematically, that your models can fight in whatever ranks, don't even bother spacing them out "perfectly" unless we're in dire need of precisely measuring model locations. Have a 3x2 formation of Ogor Gluttons all count as within 1", just for Sigmar's sake don't pull out the protractor. I don't really care that much!

 Galas wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think it should have kicked in at 11+ instead of 6+ but it doesn't seem that bad to me. I am actually glad because I always hated when the viable tactic was stringing things out in some weird noodle because it just doesn't feel very narrative and that is important to me. Yeah I know I can just not do that (and I do), but it is still an artificial handicap which reduces fun for me.

But I actually like paying attention to formation and ideal placement, and I can definitely see how other people would find this change as unfun for them as it is fun for me. So I certainly respect the position of people who do not like it

Until you play big units like Ogres and Minotaurs with 1" range attack weapons and suddenly your 6 man unit can't attack with half his models because this stupid rule.

Meanwhile 25mm based morterk guard with their 2" spears will hit like a fething truck.

Well it's not that bad. 2 out of 6 at back is 33%.

Well one can　hope in theory that ghb2021 points factor this in


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:
It's fine, you just need to lose 1 model to be able to hit with all 5 that are left. It's ironically better to not shoot an unit of 6 gluttons so they have to pile in after 1st CC phase to hit with more models than to kill 1 model with shooting.

Well gluttons can opt to spread during charge, attack with 6 accepting 1 will die end of turn and having buffer to lose to return attacks. If enemy kills 1, no difference

I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.

jaredb wrote:
The recent article on warhammer community about slaves to darkness mentions Grand Strategies. Anyone know anythingabout this yet? Looks like maybe secondary objectives for aos?

Looks like that but end game bonus points　rather than in game book keeping like　40k

 Galas wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think it should have kicked in at 11+ instead of 6+ but it doesn't seem that bad to me. I am actually glad because I always hated when the viable tactic was stringing things out in some weird noodle because it just doesn't feel very narrative and that is important to me. Yeah I know I can just not do that (and I do), but it is still an artificial handicap which reduces fun for me.

But I actually like paying attention to formation and ideal placement, and I can definitely see how other people would find this change as unfun for them as it is fun for me. So I certainly respect the position of people who do not like it

Until you play big units like Ogres and Minotaurs with 1" range attack weapons and suddenly your 6 man unit can't attack with half his models because this stupid rule.

Until 1 dies.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.

Getting 6/6 wasn't that　hard before.

Stormcast, ogres, fec, gloomspite. 4 armies i have this affects. Hell sce doesn't have 25mm or 32mm bases...

tneva82 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.

Getting 6/6 wasn't that　hard before.

Stormcast, ogres, fec, gloomspite. 4 armies i have this affects. Hell sce doesn't have 25mm or 32mm bases...

40mm isn't really impacted (combat wise, they still have to clump up, obviously), as you can get 6/6 into melee. Light and heavy cav gets 5/6, as one guy has to sit in the back sideways. 50mm is the worst hit, as they can only manage 4/6 as a frontage.

So minos and trolls might not be ideal in larger units. At least until you start losing some, anyway.

I agree with tneva and I think it leads to a larger point; this hurts 6-man 40mm units more than anything else. I really wish they had it kick in at 11 instead.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Well the 19th takes the decision about getting Dominion or not out of my hands as I'll be at work.
*shrug*
[/quote

Do you have an FLGS? Just preorder through them

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.

I play ogres and khorne minotaurs. Tell me I'm overestimating anything.

How I'm gonna play my minotaur units with 50mm bases and 1" great axes? This change is horse gak and we all know it. It only makes the gap between those monstrous infantry units and hordes bigger. And hordes were allready the most strong unit in the game.

We have to remember that these are the core rules, individual armies might get alterations to those rules which adapt them. Armies with all huge bases might well get special changes. Or we might see a wave of weapon profile changes as well.

Until we see rules in full it is somewhat a bit of guesswork how things might interact.

GW does tend to over-compensate whenever they change something for the better; or make core rules one thing and then have a multitude of armies that ignore/change those rules.

 Overread wrote:
We have to remember that these are the core rules, individual armies might get alterations to those rules which adapt them. Armies with all huge bases might well get special changes. Or we might see a wave of weapon profile changes as well.

Until we see rules in full it is somewhat a bit of guesswork how things might interact.

GW does tend to over-compensate whenever they change something for the better; or make core rules one thing and then have a multitude of armies that ignore/change those rules.

This is itself a problem on it's own.

Let's say Beasts of Chaos get a new book early on, and their 50mm minotaurs get 3" swingin' range to compensate for new coherency rules... Sure they're fine but think about the Pusgoyle Blightlord/Nurgle Airforce players? When will they get their book?

 Galas wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think people are vastly overestimating how common units of 6+ models with 40mm or larger bases are, and also vastly overestimating how many models in those units are getting to fight with the current coherency rules. That 12-man glutton unit was not fighting with all 12 except on rare occasion. Generally speaking 2/3 of the unit getting in range was what one could count on as an average. Now in a protacted combat obviously more models could shift and more could get into range, but models also die. And that is really what the extras are there for; ablative wounds that die without costing the unit offense. I say this with a lot of experience in running 40mm and 50mm units, before someone makes that accusation.

I play ogres and khorne minotaurs. Tell me I'm overestimating anything.

How I'm gonna play my minotaur units with 50mm bases and 1" great axes? This change is horse gak and we all know it. It only makes the gap between those monstrous infantry units and hordes bigger. And hordes were allready the most strong unit in the game.

Tell me the percentage of players playing ogres and minotaurs then I'll get back to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:

 Overread wrote:
We have to remember that these are the core rules, individual armies might get alterations to those rules which adapt them. Armies with all huge bases might well get special changes. Or we might see a wave of weapon profile changes as well.

Until we see rules in full it is somewhat a bit of guesswork how things might interact.

GW does tend to over-compensate whenever they change something for the better; or make core rules one thing and then have a multitude of armies that ignore/change those rules.

This is itself a problem on it's own.

Let's say Beasts of Chaos get a new book early on, and their 50mm minotaurs get 3" swingin' range to compensate for new coherency rules... Sure they're fine but think about the Pusgoyle Blightlord/Nurgle Airforce players? When will they get their book?

As a member of the latter, it isn't a big deal. Pusgoyles are bought in increments of 2 and 4-man is the largest size you generally want to go. Additionally half the models are higher-offense thanks to an extra weapon, so the front half of models are a majority of damage output rather than just half. Plague drones enjoy 6-man but even with fly it is rare to get more than 4 of them in range unless one strings them out, which is itself risky because an enemy can flank you and you're screwed. And even then, as soon as one dies it is no longer a factor where if none of them are dying things are going pretty well already.

tneva82 wrote:

Cronch wrote:
It's fine, you just need to lose 1 model to be able to hit with all 5 that are left. It's ironically better to not shoot an unit of 6 gluttons so they have to pile in after 1st CC phase to hit with more models than to kill 1 model with shooting.

Well gluttons can opt to spread during charge, attack with 6 accepting 1 will die end of turn and having buffer to lose to return attacks. If enemy kills 1, no difference

You aren't allowed to break coherency after any move.

 Gallahad wrote:
It bothers me that the wooden frames are inset in the stone, I think it makes it look like a toy set.

Isn't it a toy set?

 Overread wrote:
We have to remember that these are the core rules, individual armies might get alterations to those rules which adapt them.

Has that happened at all in 40k yet with it's similar restrictive coherency rules?

This problem goes away if GW changes 6+ to 11+.

We still don't know if AoS has inherited a version of the second rank rule from 40k. This would solve a lot of the problems.

It's just stupid that 6 32mm models cannot stand shoulder to shoulder in a line according to the new rules. Talking about what's "immersive" is a bit of a joke when the rule doesn't allow that, but does encourage weird sideways-moving cavalry in complex geometric patterns.

If they really wanted to do 40k-style coherency, just do 40k-style coherency, and move the basic measure to 2". W/in 1" of 2 models creates absurd results. Even visual stupidity aside, there are going to be cases where you are not allowed to charge with your unit because the opponent has cheesed the coherency rules so you can't get into whatever gap it is while meeting the coherency rules; this is going to be particularly bad with stuff on big bases. 6 pigs will be a nightmare, for example.

Chikout wrote:
We still don't know if AoS has inherited a version of the second rank rule from 40k. This would solve a lot of the problems.

It would also neccessate errating _every single unit_ in the game.

tneva82 wrote:

Chikout wrote:
We still don't know if AoS has inherited a version of the second rank rule from 40k. This would solve a lot of the problems.

It would also neccessate errating _every single unit_ in the game.

Not necessarily. You could just say a model can fight if it is in range or within 1/2 an inch of a model that is in range. 2 inch range is still valuable because it lets you fight in three ranks in some cases. It would make the combat phase much faster as you don't have to measure everything.

There would be some fallout from that though, there is some serious exploitation possible in AoS that isn't viable in 40k because of the radically different attack dynamic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's just stupid that 6 32mm models cannot stand shoulder to shoulder in a line according to the new rules.

Are there any pitched battle profiles where it is possible to take a 6-man 32mm unit? Seems like it would always be 5 or 10. And regardless--you want to stagger them anyways in order to give the unit a more narrow frontage.

Chikout wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Chikout wrote:
We still don't know if AoS has inherited a version of the second rank rule from 40k. This would solve a lot of the problems.

It would also neccessate errating _every single unit_ in the game.

Not necessarily. You could just say a model can fight if it is in range or within 1/2 an inch of a model that is in range. 2 inch range is still valuable because it lets you fight in three ranks in some cases. It would make the combat phase much faster as you don't have to measure everything.

You don't think invalidating point of many weapons would require errating?

"Oh gee I have weapon that gave me advantage X and now everybody gets that for free"

hint: Ability to fight in two ranks is SUPPOSED to be advantage some weapons have in return of having weaker punch. So now you are suggesting fighting in two ranks with better weapons for free.

remember how soulblight skellies have swords and spears under one statline...it makes sense now.

If none in book had range bigger than 1" maybe but as they have no.

It still means without rewriting every unit at once(at least with weapon ranges longer than 1") they cant just make core rule based on distance to enemy model or own model in range to enemy like 40k

In 40k the range to be in melee is only 1" so having something like a 2" weapon range would be strange.

This new coherency would make sense if combat range worked similarly as in 40k, but one of the new SC units revealed still has a melee range stat so I believe we won't see much change.

I do believe this might result in a point crunch as quite a few units have now potentially less damage.

I'm sure some of you will have seen this rumour.

"Reinforcements are 4 max in a 2000 point army. Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. Battleline units can be reinforces 2 times. None battleline only 1 time."

If true, alongside the new coherency rules which are causing such consternation, it's pretty clear GW are pushing MSU.

One bonus of GW pushing more smaller units is there's more chance of fitting more model types into the same 2K points even if point values remain the same. Instead of 2 or 3 units of the same model bulked out to 30 you might have several different kinds if smaller units become more viable and functional in the game. So you might have one big unit and then 5 or 6 smaller ones.

For armies like Stormcast, with big unit rosters, this will be a boon in encouraging variety of builds.


One thing that will annoy me a bit is that a lot of old world models have musicians and standards and it just seems freakishly odd and visually wrong to me to see those present in large numbers on thebattlefield. I don't even like GW's attitude of allowing multiple banners per 10 models in a unit and such (and yet always only 1 leader model).

On the one hand, I do like the possibility of there being a lot more variety on the table and cohesion will be much less of a concern.

On the other hand, I don't like that I've just spent an entire edition bulking everything up to take advantage of the horde discount to now, if true, have a ridiculously large number of excess models.

Hey ho, such is life following GW...

More variety is good I think in the long run. I do think armies like Fyreslayers will still suffer until GW can bulk out their armies with more variety.

With wargames there's always a bit of a battle between fielding big units and fielding lots of units. Players generally want to use more of their toys and nothing is worse than having lots of armies with lots of optoins, but only ever seen a tiny fraction of them actually make it to the table.