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.

I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.

All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.

Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.

Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.

 Red Corsair wrote:
@ (Broken)Clockworkrecords

Your claiming that he is a broken record?

Mate you said Gaunt Carpet a few posts ago, playing it straight, as if gaunts needed to be reigned in lol

He's using skyweavers to demonstrate his point. It also applies to a ton of other units. Heck, just look at admech.

2 troops, the 2 new cav, the new jump troops, the 2 strider chickens and the 50's bots. Thats a ton of crap that gets punished for taking that 6th guy or more. That's one book lol.

Leave the memery on 4chan.

And gaunt carpet was an example of the specific problem, not a claim that it was lighting the meta on fire (at least outside of Australia).

Applying it to mid sized units means that people can't substitute them for hordes to try and play the same daisychain game on a smaller level. 2" between models is amlot of ground, and would allow a 10 model unit using 25mm bases to cover over 30" of space. It'd allow a 32mm one to cover nearly 40" of space.

Honestly I feel coherency should have been taken down to 1" instead, but maybe they went back and forth on this and decided 2" was better (maybe it was for maximum melee pile in for small units, I don't know).

I won't claim the rule is great, but it's not another nail into any coffin either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't agree that it's a punishment unleas your army hinged on very specific builds and uses of screens.

It's punishing because it exists. Because you remove one casualty and suddenly half your unit dies because you didn't obsessively measure out 2" on all your units last turn like some TFG back when we still used blast markers.

And you can't just run them in two ranks of 5, or a small blob, or a shorter line why exactly? Like I get it punishes you for going maximum daisy chain, but why is that the only way you want to run the unit exactly? You can't cap more than one objective at a time, multi-charging has a less massed line approach now and outside of trying to fill up board space with a single horde I am not seeing exactly why the line formation is the only formation worth using.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.

All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.

Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.

Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.

Because needing to crowd all my models under a paper cutout sounds equally dumb?

Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.

If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.

For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And you can't just run them in two ranks of 5, or a small blob, or a shorter line why exactly?

Because you shouldn't have to! The game shouldn't force you into specific formations, especially for the most basic unit size in the game (10-man units).

As before, if the problem was conga lines, then they need to fix conga lines. Screwing over the base unit size with an awful unscalable auto-casualty rule makes things worse. As always GW are using a mattock when they should be using a scalpel. GW aren't fixing the problem, they're fixing it by creating new problems.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And you can't just run them in two ranks of 5, or a small blob, or a shorter line why exactly?

Because you shouldn't have to! The game shouldn't force you into specific formations, especially for the most basic unit size in the game (10-man units).

As before, if the problem was conga lines, then they need to fix conga lines. Screwing over the base unit size with an awful unscalable auto-casualty rule makes things worse. As always GW are using a mattock when they should be using a scalpel. GW aren't fixing the problem, they're fixing it by creating new problems.

Why shouldn’t you have too? Why shouldn’t the game favor some model formations while making others less tenable? Who are you and why should I care about what you say?

 Castozor wrote:
You mean the combat potential of a super shooty squad that shouldn't by rights have any melee to begin with? Primaris are ridiculous generalist that outshoot most other specialist shooty elites of other Codexes while still f'ing up most other non-melee units and quite a few melee specialist units of other races for no reason. Their statline should not exist to begin with.

YEAH they don't have melee. They're 10 points per S4 AP- attack for crying out loud.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
You mean the combat potential of a super shooty squad that shouldn't by rights have any melee to begin with? Primaris are ridiculous generalist that outshoot most other specialist shooty elites of other Codexes while still f'ing up most other non-melee units and quite a few melee specialist units of other races for no reason. Their statline should not exist to begin with.

YEAH they don't have melee. They're 10 points per S4 AP- attack for crying out loud.

They've got better melee than most comparable units.

A Devildog, Fire Dragons, SoB Retributors... All with worse melee.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.

If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.

For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?

Isn't the real issue that characters can no longer join units, and possess aura buffs? Why not just bring back IC and make buffs applicable only to the character's own unit? Or find other ways to make leaders interesting, that isn't "make X unit(s) more betterer at what they already do?"

They're Primaris. That means they get to be better at everything, with no weaknesses. It's called balance, don't you know?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And you can't just run them in two ranks of 5, or a small blob, or a shorter line why exactly?

Because you shouldn't have to! The game shouldn't force you into specific formations, especially for the most basic unit size in the game (10-man units).

As before, if the problem was conga lines, then they need to fix conga lines. Screwing over the base unit size with an awful unscalable auto-casualty rule makes things worse. As always GW are using a mattock when they should be using a scalpel. GW aren't fixing the problem, they're fixing it by creating new problems.

It's not even forcing you into specific formations, it's merely removing one option from the table: maximized conga lines.

I really don't get your arguement because the only thing it did was removing the opyion of stretching out units as far apart as possible to null out your opponent's movement options across a wider space (even that "X" that keeps getting brought up is guilty of only existing as a means to fill space).

You can still make lines of bodies, they just can't crowd out as much space. I fail to see that being the same as you're claiming.

Blastaar wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.

If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.

For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?

Isn't the real issue that characters can no longer join units, and possess aura buffs? Why not just bring back IC and make buffs applicable only to the character's own unit? Or find other ways to make leaders interesting, that isn't "make X unit(s) more betterer at what they already do?"

Well, not really. People daisy-chain for auras, but they also do it to block off space. This rule seems motivated at least in part by making it harder to screen off space - but it still allows 30 grots to screen off a whole table edge, so who knows what's really going on. The 9th edition rule is just bad - it doesn't cure the problem, and it comes at significant cost.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.

If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.

For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?

Isn't the real issue that characters can no longer join units, and possess aura buffs? Why not just bring back IC and make buffs applicable only to the character's own unit? Or find other ways to make leaders interesting, that isn't "make X unit(s) more betterer at what they already do?"

Well, not really. People daisy-chain for auras, but they also do it to block off space. This rule seems motivated at least in part by making it harder to screen off space - but it still allows 30 grots to screen off a whole table edge, so who knows what's really going on. The 9th edition rule is just bad - it doesn't cure the problem, and it comes at significant cost.

I wonder if the intent was to force people to commit more bodies to do it. Bigger units, shorter chains, that.sort of thing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
You mean the combat potential of a super shooty squad that shouldn't by rights have any melee to begin with? Primaris are ridiculous generalist that outshoot most other specialist shooty elites of other Codexes while still f'ing up most other non-melee units and quite a few melee specialist units of other races for no reason. Their statline should not exist to begin with.

YEAH they don't have melee. They're 10 points per S4 AP- attack for crying out loud.

They've got better melee than most comparable units.

A Devildog, Fire Dragons, SoB Retributors... All with worse melee.

Ya know, people keep bringing up Fire Dragons as though they were usable to begin with. These new guys being better than a bad unit really doesn't prove a point. Seeing as I don't even know what a Devildog is, it is probably in that same exact category.

I don't know the cost of Retributors nor do I know their rules and Strats so I'd have to get back on that. HOWEVER, I'm 100% sure I can say confidently they're better than Fire Dragons though.

Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.

I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.

One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).

Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Carnikang wrote:
Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.

I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.

One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).

I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.

I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Carnikang wrote:
Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.

I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.

One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).

I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.

I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.

This is the opposite take of what the math says. It's a nerf to the ability to screen off things in a straight line, but it's not a significant nerf to screening out overall board space - though it does make it a lot more complicated to do the math necessary to set up your units to do so.

If you're looking to screen off a board edge, this makes it harder to do so - though you can still screen off the whole short edge with a single 30-man unit. But if you're just looking to take up space on the board, this only diminishes the space you can take up by a very small amount.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Carnikang wrote:
Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.

I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.

One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).

I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.

I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.

This is the opposite take of what the math says. It's a nerf to the ability to screen off things in a straight line, but it's not a significant nerf to screening out overall board space - though it does make it a lot more complicated to do the math necessary to set up your units to do so.

If you're looking to screen off a board edge, this makes it harder to do so - though you can still screen off the whole short edge with a single 30-man unit. But if you're just looking to take up space on the board, this only diminishes the space you can take up by a very small amount.

Fair point. So if we play on a smaller board does it really hurt the horde then? Sounds like filling up tabke space might still be strong for them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Carnikang wrote:
Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.

I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.

One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).

I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.

I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.

It'll affect all large units though. Hordes are meant to be large presences on the boards, are they not? Their purpose is to control the board, as they project a large area of threat, because they are a large area.

We can disagree about that, and that's fine, but I'm looking at it from a perspective of someone who enjoys horde tactics and drowning my enemy in Gant/Goyle/Acolyte/Stealer/Abby bodies....

Edit: Meaning I dont think this change will make running hordes better for fun, but might actively make it less fun. Because it's another change among many that are not helping them.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.

If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.

For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?

Isn't the real issue that characters can no longer join units, and possess aura buffs? Why not just bring back IC and make buffs applicable only to the character's own unit? Or find other ways to make leaders interesting, that isn't "make X unit(s) more betterer at what they already do?"

Well, not really. People daisy-chain for auras, but they also do it to block off space. This rule seems motivated at least in part by making it harder to screen off space - but it still allows 30 grots to screen off a whole table edge, so who knows what's really going on. The 9th edition rule is just bad - it doesn't cure the problem, and it comes at significant cost.

Yeah, this is another band-aid with many unintended consequences.

stratigo wrote:

This was someone finding a loophole in another player's bs cheese strategy. The white scars player? Was a muppet, and deserved to have someone pull something like this on him.

I dunno if you were actually playing the game at this time, but null deploying your army was awful and gamey. Way worse than going "well my gakky tau kroot (cause they were always REALLY gakky) are gonna show this jerk what's up)"

Yes - he was a muppet. There's more to what made that such a cheese list, but I don't envision the same lists now. If we can't null deploy then unmitigated conga lines would be pretty detrimental to reserves.

What this really nerfs is not the ability of 30-man units to screen or take up space - they already take up so much space that they can generally do so even after the nerf - but the ability of 10ish man units to do the same.

For the 30-man units, the biggest impact of this rule is just annoyance - having to double daisy chain, having to be careful with movement ala editions with blast templates to make sure you don't start a potential chain reaction, etc. You can still do pretty much anything you could do before that you actually wanted to do, it's just more annoying to do so now, and it makes your unit much less effective at doing anything else while taking up space.

So, any new word on a release date or anything for the new box set? I was hoping it would have gone up for pre order by now. Last I heard was just "Maybe July"

dhallnet wrote:

 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.

You're missing the point. In 8th, if you were 1" off, nobody cared because nothing really happened. Bump them back within 1". If someone accidentally got out of coherency, there was very little penalty. In fact, people would remove casualties out of coherency on a regular basis. Now, this has changed dramatically. If someone doesn't measure correctly, or if casualties cause the loss of a number of models that were lynchpins to your daisy chain, you could lose the entire squad to 5 men. That is a huge change. So, yes, I am going to pay attention to coherency more than ever before. That doesn't make me TFG, it makes me someone who is paying attention to the rules.

Granted, in Daedalus' example, I would allow my opponent to move as he intended. But, if he accidentally gets out of coherency by removing models in the casualty resolution, you better believe he is going to be losing more models. Otherwise, why follow the rules at all? There are tournament players at top tables who make a living out of daisy-chaining and then removing models from within the daisy chain, breaking it until they can move again. They can't do this anymore. It will change the way larger armies like Orks, Nids and IG are played.

And if you think no one is going to pay attention to it and no one is going to be measuring their units similar to mitigating blast templates from 5th Edition, then I think you're kidding yourself.

At what point in the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven punch combo do we get to consider light units utterly hosed then?

50% point hikes while elite units get 20% hikes?
Unit coherency+autodeath for being out of coherency dictating casualty removal?
Terrain system that even further advantages high base stats?
No longer generating CP?
Blast weapons getting auto max hits?
Mission setups that benefit msu?
No longer being allowed to for anyone up in melee?

What the feth does a unit like gretchin, guardsmen, lesser daemons, cultists, gsc etc actually DO now? In what circumstance would you EVER want three cultists for an intercessor? The morale rule is a fething nothingburger, a tiny bonus for a style of play nobody used because making hordes fearless or effectively fearless is cheap as chips or free depending on what faction you play.

Until they preview some thing that actually gives a cheaper infantry unit some role that it can actually perform in game, yeah, its sure as hell looking like this is 40k, Elite Edition 5, Guns Edition 8. Say hi to the new boss, same as the old boss.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

This was someone finding a loophole in another player's bs cheese strategy. The white scars player? Was a muppet, and deserved to have someone pull something like this on him.

I dunno if you were actually playing the game at this time, but null deploying your army was awful and gamey. Way worse than going "well my gakky tau kroot (cause they were always REALLY gakky) are gonna show this jerk what's up)"

Yes - he was a muppet. There's more to what made that such a cheese list, but I don't envision the same lists now. If we can't null deploy then unmitigated conga lines would be pretty detrimental to reserves.

Not only that, but all he had to do was Outflank one single unit of all of those White Scars and he would've been fine.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.

All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.

Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.

Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.

I would really wish to ask playtesters on this one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You keep posting that picture like it means something.

I've posted it in different contexts, so, yea? It's pretty germaine.

 Castozor wrote:
Overall I feel this hurts melee more because inpiling/tri pointing will be even more difficult for what benefit to melee exactly?

We don't know that part yet.

This rule hasn't been addressed:



Are we going to bet that GW will keep the rule in this form which basically ensures additional casualties due to coherency? Or could there actually be more to the puzzle? It could very well be that units in melee don't take coherency tests.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Carnikang wrote:
Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.

I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.

One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).

I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.

I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.

This new rule doesn't prevent the table from being carpeted in the slightest, especially not on the ever shrinking board. If GW wants to deal with massed units buy making them more static they could have done it several other ways, one being not pushing the size of a standard game every fething edition while simultaneously dropping points.

Your arguing that this solved some phantom issue that is hardly an issue anyway. But even if screening were considered a problem (its not, it's called strategy) this introduces more problems then the one it aims to fix. all while hilariously not eliminating the supposed issue.

For one carpeting the table as you put it has nothing to do with conga lining. You can still do that with blobs, just like you can still conga line. This rule is just clunky and silly.

As an aside, for a while now I have pondered the idea of turning hordes of infantry once taken at certain numbers into large swarms. Or, you know, calling them hordes. Just allow for units to be granular up to a max of 10 models and anything larger is billed as a horde of X Y or Z size. Sell larger movement trays or party bases and give the horde a degrading profile like a vehicle or monster. Heck, if the Triumph of Saint Catherine can exist then so can this. Then you eliminate so many of the piddly issues in one move. Coherency, moral, spacing, footprint, engagement range, model removal etc etc. It also would curb the feels bad scenario of 20 GSC acolytes that have been pain painstakingly modeled and painted being peeled off to a stiff fart, at least I get to see my horde of rabble as a horde until it's dead.

 Necros wrote:
So, any new word on a release date or anything for the new box set? I was hoping it would have gone up for pre order by now. Last I heard was just "Maybe July"

GW has confirmed July. Many of us suspect it'll go on pre-order next week.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.

All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.

Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.

Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.

I would really wish to ask playtesters on this one.

Me too, but I doubt they'd have an answer. I don't think GW generally discusses reasoning with playtesters, they just ask for feedback on the rules they give them. So while a playtester might have said "you know, this is clunky, it'd be a lot easier if you just did a 'all models within X' rule instead," I'm not sure that would have led to an explanation for why they chose not to do that. From the way playtesters have talked about it in the past, it seems like it's much more a case of "use this ruleset and tell us if it needs a minor tweak here or there" rather than "help us come up with a totally different way to do this thing."

I would still like to ask them, though.