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.

Dudeface 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.

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

Bingo, and Aggressors aren't some overpowered unit either. They're GOOD but they're not the be-all-end-all.

Is there basis that 1PL is still roughly equivalent to 20 points?

They're changing points across the board so I could see either way whether it changes or not, but have we seen anything to prove it one way or another?

Because if not, it very well could be about 30pts per PL?

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
Is there basis that 1PL is still roughly equivalent to 20 points?

They're changing points across the board so I could see either way whether it changes or not, but have we seen anything to prove it one way or another?

Because if not, it very well could be about 30pts per PL?

The Combat Patrol is up to 500 points/25 PL so that's where the 20 pts per PL is coming from.

 Sasori wrote:

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
Is there basis that 1PL is still roughly equivalent to 20 points?

They're changing points across the board so I could see either way whether it changes or not, but have we seen anything to prove it one way or another?

Because if not, it very well could be about 30pts per PL?

The Combat Patrol is up to 500 points/25 PL so that's where the 20 pts per PL is coming from.

Oh gotcha, dont know how i missed that

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

Most Necron units don't have a leader, so... ?

 Daedalus81 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


EDIT:
and not only that... its now near impossible to trap or wrap around units... also why nerf multicharges in the first place???? would've been punishing enough with the coherency rules!
btw... does the new emergency disembarkment strat imply that units being forced out of transports suffer from the explosion?

1) You have to draw the line at some point
2) 5 marines barely cover ground compared to what other units can
3) 10 marines currently cover (8 * 2) + 12 = 28 inches; 5 will cover (3 * 2) + 4 = 10 inches - that's a pretty significant difference
4) People keep pretending this has no effect on screening and that it only hurts melee blobs - you need to stop playing the victim and start thinking a little more

Not only can you just take two 5 man squads, you can take a 10 man squad and combat squad it.

Marine units effected by this change are not basic marine infantry. It's the mega murder squads.

This might be an attempt to stealth nerf mega squads. I play custodes. In 6 or more man squads for any of my units it dramtically slashes my melee capabilities. And, as a melee army, that's all sorts of fethed for me. I'll probably be limiting my squads to 5 or less, but this ALSO hard nerfs my defenses, since I can no longer protect one big squad, I have to protect 2 or 3 smaller squads with my CP, meaning the enemy can easily cycle targets. This does worry me for melee armies. all the other talks of melee nerfs have been a shrug to me. But this one, this one hurts a lot.

Slayer-Fan123 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.

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.

How about great? At the 100 points they're rumored to be they do more damage to a T7 chassis at 24" than Hellblasters(165pts) do at 15, after overcharge. Even on T8+ they only do 1 wound less for close to 60pts cheaper despite being 9" longer range(for full damage).

yukishiro1 wrote:
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.

So I could have 3 Centurions who are in coherency positioned as a triangle and each of them are 14" from each other. Cool.

I guess more practically 3 Centurions who have 6" between each model in a line. Covering chaff has never been easy!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
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.

So I could have 3 Centurions who are in coherency positioned as a triangle and each of them are 14" from each other. Cool.

I guess more practically 3 Centurions who have 6" between each model in a line. Covering chaff has never been easy!

I would assume the 2” model to model requirement would stay.

ERJAK wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 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.

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.

How about great? At the 100 points they're rumored to be they do more damage to a T7 chassis at 24" than Hellblasters(165pts) do at 15, after overcharge. Even on T8+ they only do 1 wound less for close to 60pts cheaper despite being 9" longer range(for full damage).

Wow, the Melta unit is finally doing more to a tank than Hellblasters? Also Hellblasters are awful outside stupid specific configurations so not sure what your point is there.

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

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, you can deploy them in two lines of (or one of 4 and one of 2). The point is that it's deeply silly that:

6 skyweavers base to base in a line = unacceptable conga line under 9th edition rules. This line is 14 inches long.

5 skyweavers in a line 2" from one another = acceptable conga line under 9th edition rules. This line is 20 inches long.

14 inch line of base to base models = bad, 20 inch line of models spaced 2 inches apart from each other = fine.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
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.

So I could have 3 Centurions who are in coherency positioned as a triangle and each of them are 14" from each other. Cool.

I guess more practically 3 Centurions who have 6" between each model in a line. Covering chaff has never been easy!

No, you would keep the 8th edition 2" coherency rule, as I stated when I explained it in more detail a couple posts before that one, then referenced it by saying "Again."

 Daedalus81 wrote:

"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?"

"My intention was for these models to be in range of that devastating psychic ability. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving them into range?"

"My intention was for these models to be in range of my rapid-fire Helblasters. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving them into range?"

"My intention was for these models to be within range of this chaplain so I could reroll all my hits. If they're slightly out of range, are you ok with me moving him into range?"

"My intention was for these models to be able to see your models on the other side of that ruin. If they're slightly out of LOS, are you ok with me moving them into LOS?"


I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.

yukishiro1 wrote:

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.

I'm not really trying to make it personal but it's the feeling that I got from you every single day (or it looks like it). Did you find a news you thought was good ?

yukishiro1 wrote:
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?

Listen, there is one rule allowing you to spread your minis nearly as much as before and another one, penalising you for it but not during the same phase.
You can howl "incompetence", I will say "intent". That's it. And the intent isn't "bow tie", to be clear. It's to allow you to spread and penalising you if you do. Sure the bow tie shape in itself is a side effect, one they probably feel comfortable with.

That's fine. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you shouldn't be attacked personally for it.

The second rule doesn't penalize you for spreading your minis per se, it penalizes you for pulling casualties in particular ways. It was imported from AOS, which doesn't have the first rule, and it was necessary whether or not they created the bowtie loophole in the first rule. Citing the one as proof the other is intended is not very convincing when you consider those two facts.

It looks to me very much like they didn't anticipate the bow-tie, just like they didn't anticipate wrap and trap or flyers being used to screen in 8th edition. We know for a fact that the argument that "something is allowed by the rules, therefore it is intended" is not true historically, so I don't see any reason why it has to be true here.

 puma713 wrote:

I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.

How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's fine. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you shouldn't be attacked personally for it.

The second rule doesn't penalize you for spreading your minis per se, it penalizes you for pulling casualties in particular ways. It was imported from AOS, which doesn't have the first rule, and it was necessary whether or not they created the bowtie loophole in the first rule. Citing the one as proof the other is intended is not very convincing when you consider those two facts.

It looks to me very much like they didn't anticipate the bow-tie, just like they didn't anticipate wrap and trap or flyers being used to screen in 8th edition. We know for a fact that the argument that "something is allowed by the rules, therefore it is intended" is not true historically, so I don't see any reason why it has to be true here.

It has to be true because they reworked the rule specifically for it to work like it does. But there is no point arguing this, you "think" something and I "think" something else. None of us has facts.
I was genuinely curious if you found a rule you didn't had any negative against tho.

dhallnet wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.

How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?

Because you can easily start a chain reaction in 9th that leaves your unit with 5 models left if you are trying to maximize the space your unit takes up on the table and get it slightly wrong.

Yes, if you are just shoving some models up the table with one hand it isn't going to impact you. But if you were trying to maximize your unit's footprint, it's going to take far longer to do so safely in 9th than it did in 8th. This is just an objective fact based on how the rule is written, the same way that blast templates made people take a lot longer to move hordes before they were removed.

Now you can think that the extra time is worth taking - that's a subjective opinion. But you can't credibly argue that it won't take a lot more time in 9th to move a horde unit while maximizing its unit footprint.

dhallnet wrote:

I was genuinely curious if you found a rule you didn't had any negative against tho.

Definitely - to cite a very recent example, I am all for the changes to inquisitors and assassins to make it easier to take them in armies. This isn't about me, though. Either my arguments are convincing or they aren't. What I've argued elsewhere should have no impact on whether my argument on a particular point is correct.

dhallnet wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.

How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?

Really?

yukishiro1 wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.

How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?

Because you can easily start a chain reaction in 9th that leaves your unit with 5 models left if you are trying to maximize the space your unit takes up on the table and get it slightly wrong.

Yes, if you are just shoving some models up the table with one hand it isn't going to impact you. But if you were trying to maximize your unit's footprint, it's going to take far longer to do so safely in 9th than it did in 8th. This is just an objective fact based on how the rule is written, the same way that blast templates made people take a lot longer to move hordes before they were removed.

Now you can think that the extra time is worth taking - that's a subjective opinion. But you can't credibly argue that it won't take a lot more time in 9th to move a horde unit while maximizing its unit footprint.

Hordes weren't maximising their footprint before and hadn't to stay in coherency before ?
So we should care now more because it's punishing ? But we already had to check tho. No ?

Are you going to be that guy and check if every single unit's models on the table isn't more than 2" appart (checking if it has 2 buddies is quite fast) or you're going to do like before and just treat the one that might be out of range ?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface 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.

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

Bingo, and Aggressors aren't some overpowered unit either. They're GOOD but they're not the be-all-end-all.

If your yardstick for balance is aggressors a unit then you may aswell stop pretending your trying to achieve balance against anything other than other marines.
Enjoy Marine Vrs Marines Codex 3.0, the rest of us will be over here playing the non powerarmour version of 9th edition.

 puma713 wrote:
Really?

Yes. Cause you had to check before, so if it wasn't an issue, it shouldn't be now.
It's just that the outcome has raised and you feel like you or your opponent must take advantage of it. Or rather, to take advantage of your opponents little mistakes while measuring, which seems quite fun. Really.

Of course hordes were maximizing their footprint before, but to do so, you only had to check coherency between one model and one other model, not two. Now you have to check coherency to two models for every model. This is an exponential increase in the total number of measurements that need to be done, to the point where calculating the optimal shape for a horde to take is almost impossibly complex. You can "fake it" and get 95% of the benefit without TOO much added hastle, but to actually optimize your horde's placement becomes incredibly complex as matter of geometry. This is so objectively true that I feel like you may be missing something fundamental here about the change. You are appreciating that coherency before was only ever measured between one model and one other model, and that it's now being measured between one model and two other models, right?

If your argument is that the rule doesn't matter because people will just ignore it for normal play, about the best I can say about it is that it's *an* argument.

 puma713 wrote:


I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.

Frequent. I pre-measure for abilities - I would never be asking to gain advantage. I ask to declare my intention for an action that is entirely possible with the move range I have available.

"Can you see these models from there?"

Models get bumped. Table gets moved. Things happen that might minutely affect a model. Making intent clear helps keep this from being a problem in 99% of games. If I ever run into someone who says "no" (hasn't happened) then whatever - they'll get a free win on being a TFG and will get as good as they give.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Definitely - to cite a very recent example, I am all for the changes to inquisitors and assassins to make it easier to take them in armies. This isn't about me, though. Either my arguments are convincing or they aren't. What I've argued elsewhere should have no impact on whether my argument on a particular point is correct.

So not a 9ed change then.
As far as your arguments are concerned, I think I addressed them and we agreed to disagree as far as i'm concerned.

yukishiro1 wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.

How many times did you stop to check coherency in 8ed ? Why should it change in 9 ?

Because you can easily start a chain reaction in 9th that leaves your unit with 5 models left if you are trying to maximize the space your unit takes up on the table and get it slightly wrong.

Yes, if you are just shoving some models up the table with one hand it isn't going to impact you. But if you were trying to maximize your unit's footprint, it's going to take far longer to do so safely in 9th than it did in 8th. This is just an objective fact based on how the rule is written, the same way that blast templates made people take a lot longer to move hordes before they were removed.

Now you can think that the extra time is worth taking - that's a subjective opinion. But you can't credibly argue that it won't take a lot more time in 9th to move a horde unit while maximizing its unit footprint.

But is it really? Knowing the consequences of messing up, won't you just accept that trying to Conga Line is a bad idea under these rules and run an offset double line to maximize your space while avoiding the whole issue?

That's what GW has basically done. They have maximized your ability to place your unit the way you want to while encouraging you to keep the unit in a more compact form. It's not like W40K units are dinky little WM units that can be giving a short range around the commander to say in and call it a day. 15 Models (25mm base) at maximum 2" distance from each other is 43" long. Now place the second rank of 15 offset behind that line and you still have a 30 model unit blocking off the entire short edge of the recommended 44x60 battlefield.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


I'm not sure if you're a regular tournament-goer or not, but having to say the above every time you move your units of 30 orks will get old after awhile. Eventually, your opponent is going to say, "No, measure more carefully." That's if your opponent accepts your request to begin with. In most of the tournaments I have played in, if you mis-measured, you mis-measured, whether you intended to or not.

Frequent. I pre-measure for abilities - I would never be asking to gain advantage. I ask to declare my intention for an action that is entirely possible with the move range I have available.

"Can you see these models from there?"

Models get bumped. Table gets moved. Things happen that might minutely affect a model. Making intent clear helps keep this from being a problem in 99% of games. If I ever run into someone who says "no" (hasn't happened) then whatever - they'll get a free win on being a TFG and will get as good as they give.

Definitely, but "my intent was to take up maximum space on the table with this horde until while still being able to take away casualties with the greatest flexibility without starting a coherency chain reaction" stretches playing by intent well past anywhere it can realistically go.

95% of players are just going to fudge it and not worry about the lost couple inches of screening. But to actually play optimally under the new unit coherency rules requires almost impossible complex geometric calculations that change dynamically for each model you lose.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course hordes were maximizing their footprint before, but to do so, you only had to check coherency between one model and one other model, not two. Now you have to check coherency to two models for every model. This is an exponential increase in the total number of measurements that need to be done, to the point where calculating the optimal shape for a horde to take is almost impossibly complex. You can "fake it" and get 95% of the benefit without TOO much added hastle, but to actually optimize your horde's placement becomes incredibly complex as matter of geometry. This is so objectively true that I feel like you may be missing something fundamental here about the change. You are appreciating that coherency before was only ever measured between one model and one other model, and that it's now being measured between one model and two other models, right?

If your argument is that the rule doesn't matter because people will just ignore it for normal play, about the best I can say about it is that it's *an* argument.

You're telling me you were checking that every model had one buddy perfectly at 2" ?
And yeah, I get how it works but is it that hard to form 2 rows of models separated by 2" ?

What these rules do : they let you conga line (more or less) during the move phase, let you do weird moves during charges and consolidations BUT if you're still not in coherency at the end of your turn, you're gonna be (potentially heavily) penalised for it. So you probably can't wrap around a unit in CC, you can't hold multiple objectives with one single unit, etc. Unless you're willing to lose that unit.

I haven't thought this all the way through 100% but this also seems like a situation where fast rolling saves would give the defender an advantage as they then have a known number of models to remove instead of 1 by 1.
It's minor but just another think that means enforcing this rule is going to get tedious I suspect.

 Ghaz 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

Most Necron units don't have a leader, so... ?

5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader for the entire game

 alextroy wrote:
But is it really? Knowing the consequences of messing up, won't you just accept that trying to Conga Line is a bad idea under these rules and run an offset double line to maximize your space while avoiding the whole issue?

Isn't this just the "people will settle for good enough" argument - which, although true for most players, is not a very good argument in favor of a rule in a competitive format? Your rule shouldn't be so complex that people will respond by not even trying to play directly with it and just settling for a less optimal but safer way to make sure they aren't going to run afoul of the most gimmicky interactions it can produce.

 alextroy wrote:
That's what GW has basically done. They have maximized your ability to place your unit the way you want to while encouraging you to keep the unit in a more compact form. It's not like W40K units are dinky little WM units that can be giving a short range around the commander to say in and call it a day. 15 Models (25mm base) at maximum 2" distance from each other is 43" long. Now place the second rank of 15 offset behind that line and you still have a 30 model unit blocking off the entire short edge of the recommended 44x60 battlefield.

But this shows that their rule doesn't even really accomplish what it's supposed to accomplish. You can still conga-line a whole board edge off with a 30 man unit, you just need to have your dudes holding hands with a buddy.

That doesn't make the rule better, it's another reason the rule is not a very good solution to the problem. It's needlessly complex, while not even really stopping conga-lining for someone who really wants to do it.

MaxT wrote:

 Ghaz 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

Most Necron units don't have a leader, so... ?

5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader for the entire game

But if all the models have to stay X inches from the leader, we now can't do some moves this rule still allows, it isn't the same.
And you would still have to measure and your opponent would still be able to take advantage of your mistake or a little bump in the tabletop.