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.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?

Well, it certainly COULD. Before, I might be able to string my termagants around a building to be sure that I hug cover while staying in Synapse and trying to get a few shots off (not abusing a conga line, just trying to sneak through terrain.)

Now, potentially, if I'm not careful, I could lose any of them that are not within 2" of two models. So, I'm forced to blob them up instead of hug the terrain. Now, I should move into the terrain and not around it (so much for LOS-blocking L-shaped buildings). It will change the way I move, the way I hide and the way I deploy.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.

Unless you are really trying to space out and get as close to 2" as possible between models I doubt it would be an issue. If you are trying to do that, well you know what you are getting into.

But then I come from AoS where its 1" coherency and 40k's 2" is like 'wheeee! I can dance everywhere!"

tneva82 wrote:

RedNoak wrote:
I really don't get why this coherency bs is only for 6+ model units... why doesnt it work that way for ALL units... you know like a general RULE...

units with more than 2 models must be in 2" of two other models

then lets see if people still think it wouldn't be a big deal :/


...so much hassle and fukkup potenial... for what? to screw big units even more??? as if 5 marines never congolined to hold objectives and maintain buffs... SO FREAKIN STUPID

Eh if you have been watching previews you should have noticed theme by now. Kick in loins for big units. It's all about MSU spam and solo models.

It's more likely because of melee combat and how that impacts small units trying to pile in while maintaining coherency.

MSU has some obvious buffs, but a fair number of armies are going to play bigger units so they don't have to spend CP on extra detachments, and also makes them better at using strats and gaining buffs from characters (as well as protecting characters). Larger units have an easier time keeping opposing units off objectives when they do stuff like "raise the banner".

All I'm getting at is that things aren't as cut and dry as is being presented.

people can keep dropping everything to 5 man models if they want, but on the flipside you seriously have to consider the watering down effect of strategem use.
Sure, 6 man skyweavers now have to be weary of blast and coherency, but that is one fewer models to make use of prismatic blur or murderous entrance, etc. Same with many other units (Dark Angels and Weapons of the Dark Ages for example).

Yes, MSU looks to be the way, but MSU does not gain max benefits or reliance on strategem use.....and this is a great balancing factor IMHO.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?

Yes and no. If you want to get the maximum space advantage out of your horde - which is the reason you play a horde in the first place - you are going to have to be really careful with your movement. If you are content to just push a bunch of base-to-base models up the field, obviously you are not going to care.

It's very similar to what blast templates did to the game. If you were content to let more than the minimum necessary number of models be hit by them, it wasn't a big deal, you just pushed your models up the table and took your lumps. But if you wanted to play carefully, you spent a long time carefully moving everything so the least possible models were covered by any possible blast marker.

So basically, if you play casually and just shove models up the field without thinking much, this has little impact. But if you play optimally, it is going to slow down playing a horde quite significantly.

Now blast templates were explicitly removed because the time it took to guard against them was considered unacceptably long. So make of that what you will with regard to this new mechanic that is basically like the mirror image of the old blast rule.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.

Unless you are really trying to space out and get as close to 2" as possible between models it won't be an issue. If you are trying to do that, well you know what you are getting into.

But then I come from AoS where its 1" coherency and 40k's 2" is like 'wheeee! I can dance everywhere!"

Well another part of my gripe comes from competitive gaming. Many times, there is a lot of "can you check that range?" or "You sure you have LOS?" Now I can see a lot of "hey, check coherency on those guys."

Before it wasn't a big deal, but now I could potentially lose models without not only carefully placing them, but also placing them in such a way that if I am shot at I can remove models and not lose any more in the casualty removal sequence. Long story short, it adds time and more bookkeeping. It just makes me want to play Nidzilla instead, which I think is what GW is going for: a game of Tanks, MSUs and monsters.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?

Yes and no. If you want to get the maximum space advantage out of your horde - which is the reason you play a horde in the first place - you are going to have to be really careful with your movement. If you are content to just push a bunch of base-to-base models up the field, obviously you are not going to care.

It's very similar to what blast templates did to the same. If you were content to let more than the minimum necessary number of models be hit by them, it wasn't a big deal, you just pushed your models up the table and took your lumps. But if you wanted to play carefully, you spent a long time carefully moving everything so the least possible models were covered by any possible blast marker.

So basically, if you play casually and just shove models up the field without thinking much, this has little impact. But if you play optimally, it is going to slow down playing a horde quite significantly.

I feel you are inaccurately distilling a lot of grey area down to two very uncommon extremes.

yukishiro1 wrote:


Yes and no. If you want to get the maximum space advantage out of your horde - which is the reason you play a horde in the first place - you are going to have to be really careful with your movement. If you are content to just push a bunch of base-to-base models up the field, obviously you are not going to care.

It's very similar to what blast templates did to the game. If you were content to let more than the minimum necessary number of models be hit by them, it wasn't a big deal, you just pushed your models up the table and took your lumps. But if you wanted to play carefully, you spent a long time carefully moving everything so the least possible models were covered by any possible blast marker.

So basically, if you play casually and just shove models up the field without thinking much, this has little impact. But if you play optimally, it is going to slow down playing a horde quite significantly.

Now blast templates were explicitly removed because the time it took to guard against them was considered unacceptably long. So make of that what you will with regard to this new mechanic that is basically like the mirror image of the old blast rule.

This, thank you.

 puma713 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.

Unless you are really trying to space out and get as close to 2" as possible between models it won't be an issue. If you are trying to do that, well you know what you are getting into.

But then I come from AoS where its 1" coherency and 40k's 2" is like 'wheeee! I can dance everywhere!"

Well another part of my gripe comes from competitive gaming. Many times, there is a lot of "can you check that range?" or "You sure you have LOS?" Now I can see a lot of "hey, check coherency on those guys."

Before it wasn't a big deal, but now I could potentially lose models without not only carefully placing them, but also placing them in such a way that if I am shot at I can remove models and not lose any more in the casualty removal sequence. Long story short, it adds time and more bookkeeping. It just makes me want to play Nidzilla instead, which I think is what GW is going for: a game of Tanks, MSUs and monsters.

Yeah, the toxic atmosphere of competitive gaming really sucks.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?

Yes and no. If you want to get the maximum space advantage out of your horde - which is the reason you play a horde in the first place - you are going to have to be really careful with your movement. If you are content to just push a bunch of base-to-base models up the field, obviously you are not going to care.

It's very similar to what blast templates did to the same. If you were content to let more than the minimum necessary number of models be hit by them, it wasn't a big deal, you just pushed your models up the table and took your lumps. But if you wanted to play carefully, you spent a long time carefully moving everything so the least possible models were covered by any possible blast marker.

So basically, if you play casually and just shove models up the field without thinking much, this has little impact. But if you play optimally, it is going to slow down playing a horde quite significantly.

I feel you are inaccurately distilling a lot of grey area down to two very uncommon extremes.

Of course I am distilling it down to two extremes. That's the point of a generalization. I outlined the two ends of the spectrum. Most play will fall somewhere in the middle, meaning the coherency changes will slow things down a bit, but not dramatically. For optimal, competitive play, however, this is going to make moving units of more than 6 models take a lot longer than it did before, because you're going to have to think extremely carefully about how you want to do it to get the least penalty from the rule.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

I kinda agree with Slayer here, yes it's a good volume of melta shots at a fair price point, but you've got to get them there and their defensive stats aren't that amazing. Likewise in the era of having infinite height los blocking and -1 to hit terrain dotted about, there's good odds people will get the drop on these guys first.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.

A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th

Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.

Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I dunno where you get those suppositions about what they "obviously wanted" from. Couldn't it just be that they wanted to get rid of conga-lining but their rule to do so doesn't actually do it very well?

It seems weird to think that GW carefully planned this rule in a way to create precisely the silly interactions it does. Do you really think they wanted to let people bow-tie a conga-line, at the cost of losing most of the unit if it takes casualties? That is as "gimmicky" an interaction as it gets - way, way more gimmicky than tri-pointing ever was, for example.

It looks to me like they just came up with a rule full of loopholes and unintended interactions, rather than that all these loophole and unintended interactions are actually part of the master plan.

Yeah it makes sense that a rule allowing something is a side effect they didn't want. Even when they split the rule in two parts, just to allow that effect.

Could it be that you're just looking for things to bitch about in every single news about 9th ?

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.

A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th

Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.

Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.

PL is an average of all available options, so more than likely there are wargear options we haven't seen and won't release until we see the full kit.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.

A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th

Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.

Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.

PL is an average of all available options, so more than likely there are wargear options we haven't seen and won't release until we see the full kit.

Unless they are flamers, why would thet be flamestorm agressors exsist they are too cheap, Grav and Melta the two likely options are still in the same points range and the double shoot is built into the models not the weapons.

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I dunno where you get those suppositions about what they "obviously wanted" from. Couldn't it just be that they wanted to get rid of conga-lining but their rule to do so doesn't actually do it very well?

It seems weird to think that GW carefully planned this rule in a way to create precisely the silly interactions it does. Do you really think they wanted to let people bow-tie a conga-line, at the cost of losing most of the unit if it takes casualties? That is as "gimmicky" an interaction as it gets - way, way more gimmicky than tri-pointing ever was, for example.

It looks to me like they just came up with a rule full of loopholes and unintended interactions, rather than that all these loophole and unintended interactions are actually part of the master plan.

Yeah it makes sense that a rule allowing something is a side effect they didn't want. Even when they split the rule in two parts, just to allow that effect.

Could it be that you're just looking for things to bitch about in every single news about 9th ?

There's no need to make things personal. If you can't engage in discussion without attacking the person you're talking with because you don't like their arguments, you probably shouldn't be engaging in that discussion to begin with.

GW has a long history of creating rules with unintended consequences. The flyer rules from 8th come to mind. They spent literally years slowly changing those rules to try to eliminate some of what was clearly not intended interactions like move-blocking with flyers. They worked at it for literally the whole edition and still didn't fix it. Under your logic, they wanted people to move block with flyers because it was possible to do so...even though they removed that from 9th specifically because, in their own words, it was "stupid." And even though they spent all of 8th edition slowly nerfing how effective it was.

I find it very hard to believe that GW created this rule with the intent that people would conga-line with bowties in certain circumstances. Do you really, honestly think GW thinks that adding bowties to conga-lines for 9th edition is a smart change that will make the game better?

The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.

What it should have been:

1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc

There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness

MaxT wrote:
The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.

What it should have been:

1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc

There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness

This. You can even vary the distance based on squad size so that you don't screw hordes too much. Though GW wants to kick hordes in the loins.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.

A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th

Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.

Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.

An aggressor with boltstorm, frag launchers & powerfists are 37 points now, so it's not that crazy.

MaxT wrote:
The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.

What it should have been:

1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc

There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness

That, or, even easier, just have a rule that the entire unit has to be within a bubble of X inches - 14" if you want to approximate the same conga-line a unit of 5 32mm models can make, or round it up to 16" for some extra play if you want. This is super easy to measure, because you just get a piece of paper with the right dimensions and lay it over the unit and make sure no bases are poking out. Then just keep the normal 2" of any other model coherency rule. No need for bizarre consideration of bowtie unit formations or anything like that.

The point being there are multiple other ways to get rid of conga-lining without these strange loopholes and break-points that arbitrarily penalize certain unit sizes for no reason.

MaxT wrote:
The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.

What it should have been:

1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc

There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness

Soo.... this is why Warmachine is the No. 1 miniatures wargame in the world?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

I don't play hordes so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but since they seem to be trying to discourage you from stringing out your blobs of infantry, unless you're being really silly about what models you're removing this isn't going to be that much of an issue is it?

It isn't. People just like being dramatic.

Except your a bit wrong on this. Sure, hordes generally wont care, it hurts their board control a bit and stops them conga lining areound the place but keeping in coherency with them wont be that much of a problem. It's units like bikes, Wraithguard/blades, Grotesques, Crisis Suits etc that you're going to have to think a lot more about and be a lot more careful with, especially combat units where you've got to charge, pile in and consolidate.

Not sure how I feel about the tzeentch addition. Too much tzeentch going on in the real world vs the grim dark.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

MaxT wrote:
The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.

What it should have been:

1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc

There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness

Soo.... this is why Warmachine is the No. 1 miniatures wargame in the world?

God no, warmachine has lots of ugly rules too, but in this they got it entirely correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

MaxT wrote:
The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.

What it should have been:

1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc

There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness

This. You can even vary the distance based on squad size so that you don't screw hordes too much. Though GW wants to kick hordes in the loins.

Yeah, or a general +2” per 10 full models in the unit or whatever. Can tweak the details to suit, but the concept is simple and straightforward to both write and understand.

 puma713 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I dread the 10-minute "coherency check" part of morale now for anyone playing IG, Orks or Nids. But at least they made the game quicker by eliminating Overwatch!

Edit: It will also add a chunk of time to the movement phase, for those that are trying to play carefully and not just push their blob up the field.

Unless you are really trying to space out and get as close to 2" as possible between models it won't be an issue. If you are trying to do that, well you know what you are getting into.

But then I come from AoS where its 1" coherency and 40k's 2" is like 'wheeee! I can dance everywhere!"

Well another part of my gripe comes from competitive gaming. Many times, there is a lot of "can you check that range?" or "You sure you have LOS?" Now I can see a lot of "hey, check coherency on those guys."

Before it wasn't a big deal, but now I could potentially lose models without not only carefully placing them, but also placing them in such a way that if I am shot at I can remove models and not lose any more in the casualty removal sequence. Long story short, it adds time and more bookkeeping. It just makes me want to play Nidzilla instead, which I think is what GW is going for: a game of Tanks, MSUs and monsters.

"My intention is for these models to all be in coherency. If they're slightly off are you ok with me moving them into coherency?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:
The unit coherency rule is just plain ugly. I admire the intent but urgh at the implementation. The sad thing is that Warmachine basically perfected the needed rule years ago with leader model coherency.

What it should have been:

1) units have leader models
2) all models within the unit need to be within 6” of the leader at the end of their movement, or dead
3) auras affect units with their leader within x”
4) leaders need to be within y” to do actions, hold objectives etc

There you go, solves 99% of what they’re trying to do without the ugliness

And then people would complain about not being able to operate away from the leader. What if the leader gets assassinated? What if I'm 6.1" from the leader?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:


God no, warmachine has lots of ugly rules too, but in this they got it entirely correct.

And it completely fails to work for 40K, because you don't lose when the caster dies.

A lot of the complaints I'm seeing about the coherency rule seems to stem from people not wanting to have to move and place their models strategically in a (checks notes) strategy game.

Again, if you don't like the "leader" mechanic, just have a max bubble you have to stay within. All models within X inches of all other models - set it at 14" if you want the same conga-line potential as a 5 man 32mm unit, or higher if you want more. Gets rid of conga-lines far better than their 9th edition rule, with none of the loopholes or strange interactions like a 6 man squad becoming terrible at taking up space compared to a 5 man squad, and is a breeze to apply because you just have a template of the right size to lay over to make sure no bases are sticking out.

If what they intended to do was get rid of conga-lines, they've done an exceptionally bad, convoluted job of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
A lot of the complaints I'm seeing about the coherency rule seems to stem from people not wanting to have to move and place their models strategically in a (checks notes) strategy game.

Quite the opposite. The main problems with the rules are that it encourages gimmicky model placement that has nothing to do with any real strategy, just compliance with a rule that doesn't accomplish what it's actually trying to accomplish. Conga-lines with bowties are not any more "strategic" than congalines, nor is a system that allows you to bowtie a conga-line but at the cost of losing your unit down to 5 models if it takes a casualty. And there is certainly no comprehensible "strategy" in a rule that makes a unit of 6 have to clump up more than a unit of 5.

Rules that don't make sense don't promote strategy. I mean you could have a rule that said "if you have 11 models within 11 inches of one another the unit takes 4 mortal wounds, but if you have 10 or 12 within 11 inches of one another that's fine." That rule wouldn't promote strategy either - not any strategy worth promoting, that is.

A rule that results in 6 skyweavers base-to-base being an unacceptable conga line, but 5 skyweavers spread out at the 2" max being totally fine, is not a good rule.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Except at 40 points each they should be 6PL as 110 points plus is 6PL range not 5PL.
AT 5PL they should max out at 35 points each 105 for the unit in 9th edition points aka 8th +10%.

A devistator with a lascannon is 38 points. 42 in 9th
A Devistator with MultiMelta is 35 points. 39 in 9th
A devistator with a GravCannon is 33 points. 36 in 9th

Thes lads have no business being 40 points unless GW has gone back on its heavy implied position and units actually are getting points drops in the change from 8th to 9th.

Once again GW coming in with the buffs to the 60% win rate faction.

And I will straight up tell you that Devastators aren't that great for lugging around Heavy Weapons outside Grav Cannons, so what you're seeing is just merely a decent Melta unit, which is 100% a rarity. Decent, not good.

I'm fairly sure that skyweavers in base-to-base are within 2" of the model behind their neighbor