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.

Over 6 men units need coherency to 2 models, means conga lines need to be 2 ranks. Coherency is 2" horizontal 5" vertical. On realism, I think 2 lines feels a bit more natural than 1 thin line will look a little less goofy.

Here is the new rule for posterity.

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Could you not still conga out and then have a triangle at the end?

I like the idea, but it's only going to slightly stop it

Unit coherency changed :

You don't need two ranks. Just one line and a triangle in each end. So basically you 'lose' 2 models on a congaline. I appreciate the intent, the wording isn't very efficient though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I hate to tell GW but the new coherency rule, while good, doesn't stop congalines, it just makes them shorter and thicker as they work in two ranks.

It changes nothing really, the dude in the middle has a model 2" to it's left and 2" to it's right so complies with the rule, it's only the ones on the end that need to change

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Could be wrong on... the rule.
But at least on the quick flash and bullet points - nah.

You will need to have 2 models at the *ends* of the conga - but in the current rules everyone except those at the end, is in coherency with 2 additional models.

Because (End)-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-(End). The X models should always within coherency of 2 other models.

Now you need a sort of tripod formation at the end - but otherwise its unchanged.

Well this post got rapidly ninjaed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I hate to tell GW but the new coherency rule, while good, doesn't stop congalines, it just makes them shorter and thicker as they work in two ranks.

Yes, with one model at each end 2" away from the others. Harder to pull off though.

Unit a 6+ models; must be in 2" coherency with 2 other models + 5" vertically.

You just have to have two models on the end of each side of the conga line.

It shortens it a little bit, but it by no mean solves the problem.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

So this would still be valid yes (Assume the models at end are within 2" of the others near them)

Like the intent, but they clearly didn't think through the execution too much lol.

Doohicky wrote:

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Could you not still conga out and then have a triangle at the end?

I like the idea, but it's only going to slightly stop it

Yep. 2 models at each end to which first model onward expands. Can't remove casualties from center carelessly but minor annoance

Doohicky wrote:

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Could you not still conga out and then have a triangle at the end?

I like the idea, but it's only going to slightly stop it

If you make conga lines with triangles to circumvent the rule, how are you managing the losses on the unit ?
You would be forced to lose movement and constantly rearrange the formation.

So how fast do you think it will be errataed to 3 models have to be in coherency instead of 2?

So, what all this doesn't answer for me, still, is:

Why, in 9th edition, would I ever ever ever ever ever ever willingly field a unit of 6 or more god damn models?

What is the point? What is the purpose? You're just signing yourself up for an unending pain train of getting utterly hosed by every single core rule in the game!

Lets say I play Tau. I want to screen my lines with fire warriors. I can either field 4 units of 5 fire warriors, or 1 unit of 20.

If I take 1 unit of 20, here's what I get:

1) Vulnerability to morale. To take a single morale casualty with my 5-man squads, I need to take 4 casualties, then roll SPECIFICALLY a 5 on the morale dice (thanks, Bonding Knife Ritual!).

2) Automatic full hits from every blast weapon.

3) I can only score 1 objective, potentailly giving up 100% of my shooting for the turn if I have to take an "Action" to do it. My 4 squads of 5 can score 4 objectives, or I can take an "action" with one squad and keep 75% of my firepower.

4) Now I have to adhere to the new unit coherency rules

5) A single model getting into engagement range shuts off my whole battle line. My 5-man squads do overwatch exactly the same, but then you only get to engage 1 of my 4 squads if you only have a couple units or say 1 dreadnought or something.

Why in the flying hell would I ever take a unit of 6 or more models in 9th ed? What's the point?

Have they covered casualty removal yet? Because if you can knock out the middle of that chain it collapses.

5 power for 3 Eradicators puts them at approx 100 points for 3, or a likely points value of 30-35 points per model.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

Doohicky wrote:

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Could you not still conga out and then have a triangle at the end?

I like the idea, but it's only going to slightly stop it

If you make conga lines with triangles to circumvent the rule, how are you managing the losses on the unit ?
You would be forced to lose movement and constantly rearrange the formation.

Remove from 1 edge, rearrange there next

Eradicators double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.

Murderbuckets bump up to 6 attacks each that hit on 3+ whrn next to a CRYPTEK unit.

Man, those eradicators seem potent as well

And that coherency rule is now the rule that will be the most forgotten about during games.

Where's this Eradicator stuff posted?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.

Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples

Also, Assault MultiMeltas.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.

This is insane. They have nerfed melta weapons to the ground when releasing 8th edition.
But for the new shiny primaris marines they want to sell more of, they make a bespoke assault melta gun that outshines multi-meltas.
Freaking overpowered.

Doohicky wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.

Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples

They have to shoot all three meltas at the same target so it comes in with a restriction. And it actually makes the melta not bad for once.

Darsath wrote:
5 power for 3 Eradicators puts them at approx 100 points for 3, or a likely points value of 30-35 points per model.

Hahahahahahahahaahahah.

So, a fire dragon but

2x the range
2x the firepower
3x the wounds
+1T
+1Ld
ATSKNF
Combat Doctrines
3x the melee attacks
+1S

for the same price

GW really has been loving the "let's totally invalidte aspect warriors' train recently.

The Cryptothralls have a much more different stat line than I was expecting. They certainly don't look Strength and Toughness 5, never mind multiwound. The one thing I noticed is that they had both Living Metal and Reanimation Protocols. Can't think of any units that currently have both of these in the current codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Darsath wrote:
5 power for 3 Eradicators puts them at approx 100 points for 3, or a likely points value of 30-35 points per model.

Hahahahahahahahaahahah.

So, a fire dragon but

2x the range
2x the firepower
3x the wounds
+1T
+1Ld
ATSKNF
Combat Doctrines
3x the melee attacks
+1S

for the same price

GW really has been loving the "let's totally invalidte aspect warriors' train recently.

I want to reiterate that I'm going off the basis so far that 1 Power translates to roughly 20 points.

the_scotsman wrote:
[
GW really has been loving the "let's totally invalidte aspect warriors' train recently.

Well not just aspect warriois. Gw has dropped all pretense of non marines being anything but npc

Darsath wrote:
The Cryptothralls have a much more different stat line than I was expecting. They certainly don't look Strength and Toughness 5, never mind multiwound. The one thing I noticed is that they had both Living Metal and Reanimation Protocols. Can't think of any units that currently have both of these in the current codex.

They are also Canoptek with Reanimation Protocols. The living metal leads me to believe that that rule is changing, as it doesn't make much sense on a 2W model as it is now.

 Ghaz wrote:
Have they covered casualty removal yet? Because if you can knock out the middle of that chain it collapses.

Which raises an interesting question, if you do that, and the unit just skips its move phase, does it matter?

Unit Coherency doesn't seem to matter if the unit never moves, so can you intentionally group up at ends of a conga line, take casualties from the middle of line and just functionally have two separate immobile firebases for the rest of the game?

Say you're trying to cover mutiple objectives or spread out across two pieces of cover, and you just eliminate the ones in the middle that aren't in cover as the unit takes casualties. Does the unit just not care as long as it doesn't move?



---
Usually when a game system dives this deep into unit coherency, they mention that a unit out of coherency must move at the soonest opportunity to restore it.