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.
2020/06/29 22:50:05
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
The takeaway here is that we have so far seen multiple instances of GW writing like a page of bad bandaid rules to badly patch one bad 8th edition rule instead of just making better base rules and 40k is well on its way back to being a chimeric abomination of layers of bandaids like it was before the reboot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/29 22:52:33
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
2020/06/29 22:50:51
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
2020/06/29 22:51:01
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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" ?
But that isn't the optimal way to take up space on the board. Far from it. If you're looking to screen out a bubble, you're not going to deploy in 2 rows to do it. You're going to deploy in a more complex geometric structure that is going to depend on the precise number of models you have. And if there's anything that would prevent you from adopting the ideal geometric shape - enemy models, terrain with walls you can't deploy on top of, etc - you have to reevaluate.
Now obviously most people will take the "good enough for government work" approach and just do something that's obviously safe like a bunch of lines, even though it isn't optimal. But that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't add a huge amount of complexity to measuring - it just means it is so complex that most people will give up at even trying to do it right and just settle for something simpler.
2020/06/29 22:51:49
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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.
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.
Yeah because Aggressors are just dominating EVERYTHING huh?
Man give me a break. The only thing wrong with Aggressors is them double shooting on Overwatch.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/06/29 22:53:25
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
alextroy wrote: Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
Give me the ideal geometric shape of a unit of 23 ork boyz to take up maximum space on the table while still being in 2" coherency of 2 other models and while preserving the ability to pull casualties from as many directions as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
If it's simple, this should be a simple answer, right?
The rule is incredibly complex to apply if you are trying to maximize the space your units can safely take up. Almost impossibly so. While still somehow managing to achieve silly results like the bow-tie conga line on the last turn to get two objectives, or the unit of 6 skyweavers that can't be base-to-base in a line.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 22:55:47
2020/06/29 22:53:33
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
But that isn't the optimal way to take up space on the board. Far from it. If you're looking to screen out a bubble, you're not going to deploy in 2 rows to do it. You're going to deploy in a more complex geometric structure that is going to depend on the precise number of models you have. And if there's anything that would prevent you from adopting the ideal geometric shape - enemy models, terrain with walls you can't deploy on top of, etc - you have to reevaluate.
Now obviously most people will take the "good enough for government work" approach and just do something that's obviously safe like a bunch of lines, even though it isn't optimal. But that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't add a huge amount of complexity to measuring - it just means it is so complex that most people will give up at even trying to do it right and just settle for something simpler.
Do you have an example of the most optimal "geometrical structure" ? Like, right now ?
And, if there is a way to take advantage of the rule by being clever (but not TFG), isn't that... actually good ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 22:54:59
2020/06/29 22:54:05
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
"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.
Call over a judge on this guy for this and literally every move he makes, cause feth this guy
2020/06/29 22:55:16
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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.
The fact that the coherency check happens during your turn I’m generally not bothered about. It’s that it also happens during your opponents turn means casualty removal can now be a long decision making moment due to all the permutations of possible occurrences when you potentially next take casualties. Which it really shouldn’t be.
2020/06/29 22:58:04
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
The fact that the coherency check happens during your turn I’m generally not bothered about. It’s that it also happens during your opponents turn means casualty removal can now be a long decision making moment due to all the permutations of possible occurrences when you potentially next take casualties. Which it really shouldn’t be.
It's another layer you have to take into account when you remove your dudes, yes. Unless you're trying to be inventive with "optimal geometric structures", it shouldn't add that much complexity though.
From the top of my head, If you wanted to keep your footprint mostly unchanged for example, you could make 2 rows + a little buffer in a third and remove casualties from there. Your unit's footprint is mostly unchanged and you didn't even had to think which model to remove
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/29 23:01:39
2020/06/29 22:59:20
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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
So which of the nearly identical Necron Warriors is the Leader again? That one? I'm sure that it was that model over there...
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2020/06/29 22:59:49
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
But that isn't the optimal way to take up space on the board. Far from it. If you're looking to screen out a bubble, you're not going to deploy in 2 rows to do it. You're going to deploy in a more complex geometric structure that is going to depend on the precise number of models you have. And if there's anything that would prevent you from adopting the ideal geometric shape - enemy models, terrain with walls you can't deploy on top of, etc - you have to reevaluate.
Now obviously most people will take the "good enough for government work" approach and just do something that's obviously safe like a bunch of lines, even though it isn't optimal. But that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't add a huge amount of complexity to measuring - it just means it is so complex that most people will give up at even trying to do it right and just settle for something simpler.
Do you have an example of the most optimal "geometrical structure" ? Like, right now ?
And, if there is a way to take advantage of the rule by being clever (but not TFG), isn't that... actually good ?
Uh...that's my point. Figuring out the optimal geometric structure is extremely difficult and context dependent. In other words...it takes a long time to do so, even to do so approximately - doing so precisely is likely impossible without a computer to simulate and then calculate the best deployment. The fact that I can't tell you what it is off the top of my head is precisely why the rule will add so much time to moving a large unit while maximizing the space it takes up.
And no, I don't think that's actually good.
To summarize:
1. This rule makes moving and pulling casualties from horde units much more complex than it was before if you want to maximize board space.
2. It doesn't actually get rid of conga-lines.
Doesn't seem like a great rule if the intent was to get rid of conga lines.
Meanwhile, there are much simpler options for getting rid of conga-lines, if that's what they wanted to do. The X" bubble one being one but certainly not the only solution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 23:01:50
2020/06/29 23:00:42
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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.
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).
You mean the anti-tank unit is better at killing tanks than the anti-PEQ (Primaris Equiv)?
2020/06/29 23:01:10
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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."
This seems like the kind of thing they don't want.
Spoiler:
2020/06/29 23:02:46
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Regarding annoyance of keeping things in coherency I do get the feeling that this will help GW move some movement tray units. I at least foresee using them more in 9th compared to 8th.
2020/06/29 23:03:01
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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.
I'm not sure I'm conveying the whole situation appropriately, but I always err on the side of caution.
The point being - your opponent is human and communication is a valid way of heading off issues.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 23:03:40
2020/06/29 23:04:19
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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.
The fact that the coherency check happens during your turn I’m generally not bothered about. It’s that it also happens during your opponents turn means casualty removal can now be a long decision making moment due to all the permutations of possible occurrences when you potentially next take casualties. Which it really shouldn’t be.
exactly. i guess not many here remember blast weapons of previous editions... IT WAS TEDIOUS... not only do you have to check which model to remove, you can also loose special weapons, leaders etc because they were put in fringe cases and in order to keep the unit in coherency you have to pull them... this is 7th edition bs all over again. were through some kind of positioning you are now able to snipe models.
and again i get it... congo lining is dumb. BUT WHY ON EARTH DOES THE 6+ MODEL UNIT RESITRICTION EXIST?! just make it a rule for everyone.
2020/06/29 23:05:34
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Uh...that's my point. Figuring out the optimal geometric structure is extremely difficult and context dependent. In other words...it takes a long time to do so, even to do so approximately - doing so precisely is likely impossible without a computer to simulate and then calculate the best deployment. The fact that I can't tell you what it is off the top of my head is precisely why the rule will add so much time to moving a large unit while maximizing the space it takes up.
So rules that forces you to think are bad. Ok.
You should just be ok with the fact that if you can't find it, the one that you found instead must be good enough and move on. It's a "you" problem, not a rule problem. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any choice and the models would move themselves.
alextroy wrote: Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
Give me the ideal geometric shape of a unit of 23 ork boyz to take up maximum space on the table while still being in 2" coherency of 2 other models and while preserving the ability to pull casualties from as many directions as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
If it's simple, this should be a simple answer, right?
The rule is incredibly complex to apply if you are trying to maximize the space your units can safely take up. Almost impossibly so. While still somehow managing to achieve silly results like the bow-tie conga line on the last turn to get two objectives, or the unit of 6 skyweavers that can't be base-to-base in a line.
That isn't a necessary question to ask. The goal is to get boyz into combat. They don't need to be spread out at all.
If you're aiming to safely maximize space then you go two ranks 1" diagonally.
2020/06/29 23:09:40
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Orks, of course, being known for their strict formations...
alextroy wrote: Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.
You literally cannot have 10 guardsmen stand in a line anymore. Worse, if they do start in a line, you instantly lose 5 of them.
The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 23:10:31
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
So which of the nearly identical Necron Warriors is the Leader again? That one? I'm sure that it was that model over there...
5) For units without an obvious leader model, during setup select 1 model from the unit to be the leader* for the entire game
*If you’re called Ghaz, mark the model with a token
2020/06/29 23:13:24
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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."
This seems like the kind of thing they don't want.
Spoiler:
But you can still do that, just move the bow-tie of each to the end. You'd be vulnerable to pulling casualties, but you can still do it.
Also, 5 men deployed at max 2" reach the same distance you've measured out. So if that's ok, what's wrong with tacking a few more on the sides? Why is what you showed illustrates an unacceptable conga line, but 5 guys taking up the same 14" distance is ok?
In other words, why is this an acceptable conga line:
Spoiler:
But this is an unacceptable conga line:
Spoiler:
Surely by anyone's definition, the X is less of a conga line than the straight line, isn't it? Yet the rules permit the straight line, and prohibit the X.
Uh...that's my point. Figuring out the optimal geometric structure is extremely difficult and context dependent. In other words...it takes a long time to do so, even to do so approximately - doing so precisely is likely impossible without a computer to simulate and then calculate the best deployment. The fact that I can't tell you what it is off the top of my head is precisely why the rule will add so much time to moving a large unit while maximizing the space it takes up.
So rules that forces you to think are bad. Ok.
I didn't say that. I said that the rule is hugely complex to find the optimal play for, and that this will slow down moving hordes. You disagreed, saying that it was no slower than the current system. I illustrated why you were wrong, and it is hugely more complex if you want to try to do optimize your movement to screen out the largest area.
I'm just glad we now all agree that moving your horde unit optimally under the new unit coherency rules is in fact so complex that it is virtually impossible to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forget the unit of Kroot stretched across the table.
This rule doesn't even let 10 Guardsmen stand in a line.
To be fair, you can still stand 10 guardsmen in a line, they just have to be close to one another to do so. 25mm bases are slightly less than 1". Therefore, the guy on the end will still be in coherency of two other guys as long as he's close than roughly 1/2" from the second to last guy (and if you want to be safe when pulling casualties, everyone else has to be within about 1/2" of eachother too). You can even put 32mm space marines in a straight line, though they have to be almost touching one another to do it. 60mm bases cannot be put in coherency in a straight line if they're 6 models or more no matter what, because the base itself is greater than 2" in diameter.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/06/29 23:27:25
2020/06/29 23:18:48
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
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.
The fact that the coherency check happens during your turn I’m generally not bothered about. It’s that it also happens during your opponents turn means casualty removal can now be a long decision making moment due to all the permutations of possible occurrences when you potentially next take casualties. Which it really shouldn’t be.
exactly. i guess not many here remember blast weapons of previous editions... IT WAS TEDIOUS... not only do you have to check which model to remove, you can also loose special weapons, leaders etc because they were put in fringe cases and in order to keep the unit in coherency you have to pull them... this is 7th edition bs all over again. were through some kind of positioning you are now able to snipe models.
and again i get it... congo lining is dumb. BUT WHY ON EARTH DOES THE 6+ MODEL UNIT RESITRICTION EXIST?! just make it a rule for everyone.
I mentioned it may be because of small units in melee, but that was just a guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Orks, of course, being known for their strict formations...
You mean Ork yoofs who go through a rebellious period of marching in step, polishing their boots and otherwise acting in an organized and disciplined manner?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 23:24:32
2020/06/29 23:25:15
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
They could'a just make it 11+ and this wouldn't be an issue as it'd only impact the units that were really "daisy chaining" (ie. big horde units). I mean yes, that's yet another 9th Ed "feth you!" to hordes, but at least it would not affect the default size of most units in the entire damned game.
Morons. Every last fething one of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 23:25:46
