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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I mentioned it may be because of small units in melee, but that was just a guess.

You’re probably right, but that should have been the alarm bell to step back and rethink the rule, not double down.

yukishiro1 wrote:
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 optimally.

No we don't. You're just arguing that since you can't decide what is the best way to setup your unit, there must be another one that is better.
It's ridiculous.

Are you sure you're moving your units around the board the most optimal way ? Or chosing your targets ?
Are you sure the list you're using is the most optimal you could build ?

Do you really think moving your army around the board in the best way possible is easier than putting a model 2" from 2 other models in the most optimal way ?
You probably are, otherwise your argument would end there, so let say I think it isn't. Should we change the whole game because I think there is a better way for me to move my army on a particular board (because yeah, they change between games, it hurts my brain) but can't find it ? Or should I just suck it up ?


Also, you can perfectly set up your unit as a 'X' as long as there are 2 inches between the bases at each ends of the "branches". Its width is probably close to the line shown before, so there must be some kind of underlying intent at work there. Dunno.

MaxT wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I mentioned it may be because of small units in melee, but that was just a guess.

You’re probably right, but that should have been the alarm bell to step back and rethink the rule, not double down.

I think the idea is sound, but it likely ended up wonky as they didn't want to restrict unit size or shape.

I feel like they should just adopt movement trays like Apoc has and we can all move on with life.

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
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 optimally.

No we don't. You're just arguing that since you can't decide what is the best way to setup your unit, there must be another one that is better.
It's ridiculous.

This whole discussion started because you asked why it was more complicated and time-consuming to move a horde in 9th while maximizing board space than it was in 8th, and then made a statement that made it clear you didn't think it was.

I pointed out why this is not true as a matter of geometry - that it is in fact much more complex when you have to measure to 2 models than to 1 model - which prompted you to start coming up with straw men about complexity being bad. But that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was whether it's more complex or not.

I'm just glad we now both agree that I was right and that it is much more complicated to move your horde unit while maximizing the space it takes up under the 9th edition 2" to 2 models rule than under the 8th edition 2" to 1 model rule.

 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.

well they can stand in a line just not as long as before and you have to remove models from the ends

NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”

 Latro_ wrote:

 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.

well they can stand in a line just not as long as before and you have to remove models from the ends

Actually a fair point there. Still lets you make a straight line, just half as long.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.

Step 1 : Dakka complains about melee not being good and screens getting in the way.

Step 2 : Screens have a harder time screening

Step 3 : This rule is stupid.

Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.

yukishiro1 wrote:

I pointed out why this is not true as a matter of geometry - that it is in fact much more complex when you have to measure to 2 models than to 1 model - which prompted you to start coming up with straw men about complexity being bad. But that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was whether it's more complex or not.

I'm just glad we now both agree that I was right and that it is much more complicated to move your horde unit while maximizing the space it takes up under the 9th edition 2" to 2 models rule than under the 8th edition 2" to 1 model rule.

The issue is you've proven nothing, just told that hypothetically, since you couldn't find one, there should be a far optimal way to do stuff. And that since it's too hard to find, it's bad.
This isn't an argument. But I'm sure you can tell.

If the only way to do it you can come up with is easy, maybe, you know, it's easy.

But sure, I'll humor you : yes, it's more complex than moving your units before.

Still way easier than moving your army around the board, but hey, seems like all the brain power went there !

MaxT wrote:
NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”

Newplayer2: "Why? They're both lines."
Store Manager: "GW doesn't like conga lines. Except when they're 5 models. Then they're ok."
Newplayer2: "Uh...Ok, I'll set up my 10 guys in X formation instead. That's cool and stuff. And it's basically a big square in terms of the footprint, so surely that's not a problem?"
Store Manager: "Nope, that X formation is an impermissible conga line too, so you're going to lose 4 of them. Sorry, shoulda just played marines so you could deploy them in a straight 14" conga line, because that isn't an impermissible conga line the way your X formation is."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:


But sure, I'll humor you : yes, it's more complex than moving your units before.

Ok, great. I accept your apology and admission I was right. Glad we cleared that up.

This doesn't seem that complex to work out. Two offset lines with 2" coherency each and you're good (1.7" back if depth matters and you're working on maxing out their ability to block a side off, extend to two objectives, etc.). As the curve in your line increases, you will eventually approach a blob, but by then you aren't maximizing spread and are back to just pushing things forward.

You're obviously going to be taking casualties from the edges to avoid zippering, but that seems to be intentional as a way of preventing you from leaving large distances between models that are ostensibly in the same unit. If you want the freedom to remove from the center (to lengthen a charge, for example), you'll need to go with a third+ ranks or be deployed in a mobile square, but that's not really different (as a single rank 8th edition squad couldn't take from the middle and still have a presence there).

I would have preferred something more akin to "stay within X" of the leader" (which would require denoting squad leaders in some factions) or "can't be farther than X" from any other member of the unit", but it's not that bad.

The only really weird thing is the exception for three, four, and five man squads.

MaxT wrote:NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”

Maybe someone should explain the rules better to Player 2? He seems to have missed this page. You disliking a rule doesn't mean it stops existing.

Castozor wrote:Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.

Literally every edition change requires players to adapt their strategy. Why is lining your Terminators up like they're playing Red Rover your only option?

yukishiro1 wrote:

MaxT wrote:
NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”

Newplayer2: "Why? They're both lines."
Store Manager: "GW doesn't like conga lines. Except when they're 5 models. Then they're ok."
Newplayer2: "Uh...Ok, I'll set up my 10 guys in X formation instead. That's cool and stuff. And it's basically a big square in terms of the footprint, so surely that's not a problem?"
Store Manager: "Nope, that X formation is an impermissible conga line too, so you're going to lose 4 of them. Sorry, shoulda just played marines so you could deploy them in a straight 14" conga line, because that isn't an impermissible conga line the way your X formation is."

It's funny because it's false. Is that the new meme ?
Marine bases being 32mm wide and each marine having to be, at worse, 50mm form 2 buddies, you can deploy them in a line. You just can't space them as much. Edit : I confused Marines & 'crons.
It has been shown graphically just a few message sooner by another user.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:


But sure, I'll humor you : yes, it's more complex than moving your units before.

Ok, great. I accept your apology and admission I was right. Glad we cleared that up.

No problemo, looks like it mattered a lot to you. Glad you'll be able to sleep knowing you were right on the internet ! Prepare the medicine for the headaches during these coming movement phases tho.
Anyway, have fun with this, I'm done.

 Trimarius wrote:
This doesn't seem that complex to work out. Two offset lines with 2" coherency each and you're good (1.7" back if depth matters and you're working on maxing out their ability to block a side off, extend to two objectives, etc.). As the curve in your line increases, you will eventually approach a blob, but by then you aren't maximizing spread and are back to just pushing things forward.

It's not very complex to try to take up the most space in a straight line you can, I agree.

If you are trying to take up area on the board though (e.g. to screen out deep strikers, or move-block units) it becomes extremely geometrically complex to determine the biggest blob your unit can safely stretch out to, especially if you want to be able to choose to take casualties from more than one direction. I.e. if you have a point in the middle you're trying to protect, and you want to screen out the maximum area from that point, and be able to pull casualties from all the edges of the blob rather than unidirectionally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

MaxT wrote:
NewPlayer1: “OK I have 5 Marines, I’ll set them up in a line to shoot you“
NewPlayer2: “OK I’ll do the same with my 10 Necron Warriors”
Store Manager: “I’m sorry NewPlayer2, half your models immediately die”

Newplayer2: "Why? They're both lines."
Store Manager: "GW doesn't like conga lines. Except when they're 5 models. Then they're ok."
Newplayer2: "Uh...Ok, I'll set up my 10 guys in X formation instead. That's cool and stuff. And it's basically a big square in terms of the footprint, so surely that's not a problem?"
Store Manager: "Nope, that X formation is an impermissible conga line too, so you're going to lose 4 of them. Sorry, shoulda just played marines so you could deploy them in a straight 14" conga line, because that isn't an impermissible conga line the way your X formation is."

It's funny because it's false. Is that the new meme ?
Marine bases being 32mm wide and each marine having to be, at worse, 50mm form 2 buddies, you can deploy them in a line. You just can't space them as much.
It has been shown graphically just a few message sooner by another user.

Uh obviously we are talking about deploying them at 1" or greater from each other. You can tell because I referenced how the space marine player can create a 14" line with his models. The person who first pointed out you can deploy in a line as long as it's a tight line was none other than me.

5 models in a 14" straight line: this is not a conga-line according to 9th edition rules.

9 models in an X formation, with a total length of well less than 14" for either of the lines that form the X: this is an impermissible conga-line according to 9th edition rules.

10 Guardsmen standing in a line, each one 2" apart.

Start of morale phase. Not every model is within 2" of another model. Remove the Guardsman at either end of the line. 8 models left.

Now are all models within 2" of two other models? No. Remove the Guardsmen at either end of the line. 6 models left.

Are all models within 2" of two other models? No. Remove one Guardsmen from the end of the line. 5 models left.

Now the unit has 5 models and are only required to be within 2" of one other model.

Your line of Guardsmen just took 50% casualties because they stood in a line. Now change "Guardsmen" to "Terminators" and you'll see how unbelievably slowed this rule is.

One step forward, two steps back for GW. Every damned time. They see a problem - daisy chaining - and they just HURL the fething pendulum as hard as they can without thinking about where it will end up.

If the problem is daisy chaining, then fix daisy chaining. Don't introduce rules that hinder the basic unit size of the majority of infantry units in the game. They even created a mechanic for blasts that affect 11+ units (y'know, the units more likely to daisy chain given that units that can have more than 10 models tend to go much higher than 10 models) and use that mechanic.

Forget the Fall Back rules. This is a dealbreaker...

yukishiro1 wrote:

Uh obviously we are talking about deploying them at 1" or greater from each other. You can tell because I referenced how the space marine player can create a 14" line with his models. The person who first pointed out you can deploy in a line as long as it's a tight line was none other than me.

Great so what you meant is that the guy with 10 dude can actually deploy in a line ?
Glad we could clear that up.

Fething lols

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Step 3 : This rule is stupid.

I don't give a feth about screens. The rule is stupid because it unnecessarily punishes units above 5 models for seemingly no gain.

Again, a unit of 10 Guardsmen cannot even stand in a line anymore without taking auto-casualties.

People love to get hung up on this, I guess?

Good - I'm glad they can't. They're one of the most common screens around. It doesn't make them unable to shoot, or hold objectives, or run, or do actions. Their footprint is now a bit smaller. That's it.

 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.

Nobody is being dramatic. Your trying to paint them that way because your defending a losing position.

It makes a huge difference when you consider specialists. Oh hey I was moving my blob quickly and trying to grab an objective. Only to taker causalities per usual, except now if I am not careful and deliberate in how the unit is shaped if I chose to keep my las canon etc. and it breaks coherency, I now have to remove that expensive specialist anyway. Oh, but it doesn't apply to everyone, only units of 6 or greater for some odd reason.

Imagine how crapy this is for things on large bases btw, like Cataphrons for admech. Sure you can take what is it, up to 12? But your going to be in one massive lump.

Also as others have said, it makes multi assaulting even harder. So now we have higher failure rate for multiple targets, an escape artist strat, and now you have to charge as a lump lol. Making tagging other units harder to boot.

Oh but it just so happens everything primaris happens to be multiple marines merged into one base. 3 bikes but 12 wounds, 19 attacks and 12 shots eh? 3 eradicators with 10 attacks, and 6 shots from multimeltas on crack?

It also creates hilarious scenarios you already failed to "debunk" earlier ITT. Sure 5 models might take less overall volume on the table, but 5 models on 32mm bases will screen a longer stretch then 10 models on 25mm bases... Thats idiotic, it also doesn't stop screening, it simply rearranges the deck chairs because instead of taking 20 guys in one unit, I'll take 4 units of 5 and cheat the core rules in multiple areas.

MaxT wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

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

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

All I have are dice no tokens and they get in the way of the game. The point is this is not a good idea and causes more problems than it would solve if implemented (which if it were it would cause Privateer Press to accuse GW of 'poaching' their rules).

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Uh obviously we are talking about deploying them at 1" or greater from each other. You can tell because I referenced how the space marine player can create a 14" line with his models. The person who first pointed out you can deploy in a line as long as it's a tight line was none other than me.

Great so what you meant is that the guy with 10 dude can actually deploy in a line ?
Glad we could clear that up.

Fething lols

Sure, he can deploy in a line. But not a line like the space marine player did. His line has to be super tightly spaced. And he definitely can't do a symmetrical X, that's right out, even though each line of the X is a lot shorter than the long 14" line the space marine player could deploy it. Because we don't like long straight lines of spaced out models. Oh, bother.

 EnTyme wrote:

Castozor wrote:Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.

Literally every edition change requires players to adapt their strategy. Why is lining your Terminators up like they're playing Red Rover your only option?

Nice way to miss the bigger point for one. Secondly, my issue is with the rule being nonsensical, as demonstrated in another threat if I take my termies in a squad of 5 they can actually cover a bigger area then when I take 6, how does this make any sense? Again this is GW fixing something that A) wasn't a big issue to begin with, B) hurts other cases/units that didn't need the nerf to begin with. That is my main issue, it's lazy and nonsensical. This is less adapting my strategy and more GW arbitrarily deciding something doesn't work anymore because something unrelated went against their idea of playing the game the "right way".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.

Yep. Then we'd be listening to people whine about hordes. And then we'd have contrived arguments about how 11 man units could suddenly spread out once they lost a model. Sounds awesome.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then we'd be listening to people whine about hordes.

And? At least it would be consistent, something GW has no damned concept of.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And then we'd have contrived arguments about how 11 man units could suddenly spread out once they lost a model. Sounds awesome.

Better than what we have now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.

Yep. Then we'd be listening to people whine about hordes. And then we'd have contrived arguments about how 11 man units could suddenly spread out once they lost a model. Sounds awesome.

Yes...you have figured out that an arbitrary limit on when a unit gets insecure and has to start huddling up leads to absurd results.

Now let's apply that to the rule GW just announced...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
10 Guardsmen standing in a line, each one 2" apart.

Start of morale phase. Not every model is within 2" of another model. Remove the Guardsman at either end of the line. 8 models left.

Now are all models within 2" of two other models? No. Remove the Guardsmen at either end of the line. 6 models left.

Are all models within 2" of two other models? No. Remove one Guardsmen from the end of the line. 5 models left.

Now the unit has 5 models and are only required to be within 2" of one other model.

Your line of Guardsmen just took 50% casualties because they stood in a line. Now change "Guardsmen" to "Terminators" and you'll see how unbelievably slowed this rule is.

One step forward, two steps back for GW. Every damned time. They see a problem - daisy chaining - and they just HURL the fething pendulum as hard as they can without thinking about where it will end up.

If the problem is daisy chaining, then fix daisy chaining. Don't introduce rules that hinder the basic unit size of the majority of infantry units in the game. They even created a mechanic for blasts that affect 11+ units (y'know, the units more likely to daisy chain given that units that can have more than 10 models tend to go much higher than 10 models) and use that mechanic.

Forget the Fall Back rules. This is a dealbreaker...

Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?

That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.

Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).

 bullyboy wrote:
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.

This is a totally fair stance to take, and I sort of agree except for the current trend of GW basically giving units abilities that would be strats in any other earlier codex. I mean, look at the two primaris units they leaked, those are a vanilla AT unit and a vanilla biker unit with a +2 attacks on the charge per biker or shoot twice on the same target that read exactly like a stratagem.

I can't wait to see what borked rule the shield guards have, a free double fight? lol

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?

That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.

Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).

I disagree. The rule works fine for shorter lines and kills some odd builds like the Gaunt Carpet.

Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than leaving the mess we used to have unchecked. Something needed to be done to coherency as it was creating a lot of unfun scenarios.

And now having to check coherency every turn on everything bigger than 5 models to make sure they're within 2" of two other models is less "unfun".

Give me a break.

Rules that don't scale (morale casualties & coherency casualties) are inherently bad as they ignore the base rules (toughness/wounds/saves/etc.) and they could have matched it with the blast rule and made it 11+, fixing the problems with big units daisy chaining. Instead they created a rule that feths over the standard sized unit and forces everyone to waste time measuring coherency for... what? No gain at all. This is a time waster.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?

That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.

Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).

I disagree. The rule works fine for shorter lines and kills some odd builds like the Gaunt Carpet.

Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than leaving the mess we used to have unchecked. Something needed to be done to coherency as it was creating a lot of unfun scenarios.

What mess exactly? So far it seems GW is more intent on killing hordes than actual unfun issues like OP Auras, near infinite rerolls, marines being OP and alpha strikes. Compared to these how exactly did daisy chains feel more unfun/OP?