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.

Beat me to it. Love this. Was always a horrible, immersion-breaking thing to do.

 Nazrak wrote:
Beat me to it. Love this. Was always a horrible, immersion-breaking thing to do.

Though you still can daisy chain....it will just be a lot fatter it seems.

Kinda glad to see this change, let’s small units still have some options but keep large units from just stretching out all over the board it keeping one guy in the back in a long chain to an objective while the rest of the horde assaults something.

Hugeeeee.

I think folks are overestimating how big of an impact this will have. You just need to support the ends, the interior links will still meet the requirements as by definition they'll still be in coherency with two separate models..

Wow, this does more damage to melee than any of the other rules we've seen so far.

ERJAK wrote:
Wow, this does more damage to melee than any of the other rules we've seen so far.

Can you explain? I took this as a benefit to melee, since screens won't be able to deploy in a single extended line.

Edit: Oh yeah, Sterling is right; could just bookend two models at either end of a chain.

You can still daisy chain like this, but the chain gets shorter :

8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8

The "o" is one model, and "8" is two models in base contact.

Full disclaimer - If this was covered on a stream, I didn't catch the stream. Apologies if this was already covered, but for the "horizontal" and "Vertical" requirements - do we think there will now be model facings to help define which is which, or do we think it will be ok as long as you have one side fitting the 2" requirement, and the other side fitting the 5"?

Feel free to throw rocks if I'm over-thinking this.

A 20 model unit of gaunts could still stretch out at least 30 inches. 14 gaunts 2” plus 3 gaunts on each end btb wit each end cap being 2” away still creates a pretty long chain.

Well you can... it just shortens the chain by a bit at each end. They tried though; and I can certainly see it being hard to make a rule that works to not allow daisy chaining.

 p5freak wrote:
You can still daisy chain like this, but the chain gets shorter :

o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o

The "o" is one model, and "8" is two models in base contact.

really all you need is:

8 o o o o o o 8

to meet the requirements (example a 10 man unit).

 p5freak wrote:
You can still daisy chain like this, but the chain gets shorter :

o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o

The "o" is one model, and "8" is two models in base contact.

The chain gets precisely two models shorter. The interior models are in coherency with the model to their left and their right, meaning they are legally observing this rule.

8 o o o o o o o o o 8

This doesn't change much, and everyone is going to forget about this rule.

If they really wanted to stop conga line each model needs to be within x" of unit leader(declare new one when previous one dies). Adjust x based on unit size.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This doesn't change much, and everyone is going to forget about this rule.

If their intent is to actually remove daisy chaining, though, I bet they'll adjust it.

Oh bloody hell, yeah. Should have made it 3 models, huh?

This doesn't change much, and everyone is going to forget about this rule.

It's potentially a lot of hassle for large hordes too. My guess is that, in a practical sense you will end up with two applications. One version where everyone will just bunch everything up as the most expedient way of following the rule, and one where the players will carefully measure out every last inch ...

I like the idea of trying to eliminate the conga lines though, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

If they really wanted to stop conga line each model needs to be within x" of unit leader(declare new one when previous one dies). Adjust x based on unit size.

I like the idea of that suggestion, and it works really well for small squads, but that starts to get pretty tough with any units that can can take 15+ models.

Should have made it 3 other models.

Tycho wrote:


It's potentially a lot of hassle for large hordes too. My guess is that, in a practical sense you will end up with two applications. One version where everyone will just bunch everything up as the most expedient way of following the rule, and one where the players will carefully measure out every last inch ...

I like the idea of trying to eliminate the conga lines though, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

The only extra hassle it gives to hordes is that they have to have one extra model at the ends of the chain, it might as well not have been changed the way it is written now. Hopefully they errata it to 3 models instead of 2, that would actually change things up.

Tycho wrote:

I like the idea of that suggestion, and it works really well for small squads, but that starts to get pretty tough with any units that can can take 15+ models.

That's why i said the distance is different based on squad size. You have bigger squad, you can spread around bit more. Otherwise yeah would suck for hordes

Tycho wrote:

If they really wanted to stop conga line each model needs to be within x" of unit leader(declare new one when previous one dies). Adjust x based on unit size.

I like the idea of that suggestion, and it works really well for small squads, but that starts to get pretty tough with any units that can can take 15+ models.

Or simply, every model must remain within X" of all other models in the unit, where X = number of models in the unit. So you can conga line a bit with big units, but will start to bunch up a bit more as they get smaller.

Sterling191 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You can still daisy chain like this, but the chain gets shorter :

o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o

The "o" is one model, and "8" is two models in base contact.

The chain gets precisely two models shorter. The interior models are in coherency with the model to their left and their right, meaning they are legally observing this rule.

8 o o o o o o o o o 8

Yes, true.

Just make it so that no unit can be bigger than 5 models. That's by far the cleanest solution if you want to avoid congalining.

If aura abilities only benefited "models" and not "units" that would go a long way towards getting rid of these stupid daisy chains.

This rule does nothing other than making you have anchors at the end of the chain. A unit footprint seems to be the only way to kill this stupid strategy. Something like: no model can be further from the commanding model (nominate at beginning of units movement) than 3" for 5 man, 6" for 10-15 man and 9" for 15+.

Large units can still spread 18" (which is a lot of space) but isn't criss-crossing lines of models 20-30" long. Combined with auras/spells only impacting models within x inches (instead of units) abilities like synapse only working if all models in a unit are within x inches (would probably have to extend ranges a couple of inches). That along with the new character protection rules seems like a solid solution, I'm not sure what this rule is supposed to be doing.

AoS has a rule where if you end the turn out of coherency, you remove the models.

We could discover that the same rule is being added here, which would make this change much more impactful when you take casualtes on a conga lined unit.

If you daisy chain with the
8 o o o o o o o o o 8
method described by some then the loss of 2 models breaks cohesion. So you will have to reform it.
If you stagger with the
o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o
it is harder to break the chain but you're still covering less ground. And 3 casualties (assume you take off the ends first in these examples) break cohesion and requires a reform.

You cover less distance, so the wrap is smaller or needs more units. Trailing from an aura point (say a Cpt or equivalent) and chaining 1/3rd of the table is also going to be a liability.

Grand scheme of things - if they'd made this '3' other models instead of '2' other models people would complain more about taking larger than 5-man units (oh you lucky marine players where your minimum size is always something like 5 so you declare a rule dead because you don't have to interact with it) and as the '2' it squishes the conga-line but doesn't remove it entirely.

Need to see this played in game along with any casualty removal rules changes (imagine if it goes back to you had to remove closest first for example) to see what impact this will have overall.

Spoletta wrote:
AoS has a rule where if you end the turn out of coherency, you remove the models.

We could discover that the same rule is being added here, which would make this change much more impactful when you take casualtes on a conga lined unit.

Except then no mention of what happens(can't move) if you can't move to coherency. That would be irrelevant with ao# rule

Also you remove from rear. If going forward 2" lost movement. That's it

 BroodSpawn wrote:

method described by some then the loss of 2 models breaks cohesion. So you will have to reform it.

This rule has no compulsion to make a move, only a compulsion to return to coherency *IF* one moves and is out of coherency.

Very important distinction.

AoS has a rule where if you end the turn out of coherency, you remove the models.

We could discover that the same rule is being added here, which would make this change much more impactful when you take casualtes on a conga lined unit.

That's a good point. Also wonder if this might not tie into other morale based rules or something like that.

EDIT: Ninja'd by several people lol

Also:

Just make it so that no unit can be bigger than 5 models. That's by far the cleanest solution if you want to avoid congalining.

You're not wrong with that, but then what do you do with armies like IG, Orks, Nids, etc ...