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.

They most likely are also changing how being out of coherency works to tho. You might have to remove models until you are back in coherency.

If you do try to conga line with the bookends doubled up, doesn't it mean that the loss of a single model breaks your unit coherency?

Sterling191 wrote:

 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.

That is true. I had missed that on an initial read. I still believe in the larger state that is on the table the conga-line will be less viable since if the unit should move it now has to reform that coherency.

The rule doesnt say anything about the psychic phase. What happens when you warptime a unit ? Can they be scattered all over the battlefield ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentineil wrote:
If you do try to conga line with the bookends doubled up, doesn't it mean that the loss of a single model breaks your unit coherency?

Removing losses is irrelevant, your models can be more than 2" away form each other. When you move, you must move in a way that the unit ends up in coherency, if you cant do that, you cant move. That how it is in 8th.

 Sentineil wrote:
If you do try to conga line with the bookends doubled up, doesn't it mean that the loss of a single model breaks your unit coherency?

Same as it does now, if you pick a model from the daisy chain in the middle. Sure.

 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt say anything about the psychic phase. What happens when you warptime a unit ? Can they be scattered all over the battlefield ?

Presumably covered by 'any sort of move'

Really, it does virtually nothing to units of 40 Cultists or 30 Gaunts.


However, it is a major Pain in the Neck for 6 Centurions, 6 Skyweavers, 6 Ironstrider Ballistari, etc.. that sort of thing.

Im not a native english speaker, but shouldnt the rule say "within 2" horizontally and within 5" vertically" ? How am supposed to place my models on the battlefield when there is no terrain that has 5" height ?

No, they are really dead. You die out of coherency.

From the Genestealer Article, we have more info about Unit Coherency.

This seems like it DOES kill the conga line as we know it.

 p5freak wrote:
The rule doesnt say anything about the psychic phase. What happens when you warptime a unit ? Can they be scattered all over the battlefield ?

Note the rule says the coherency applies when the unit is set up, with warptime (and similar) you remove the unit, then set it up again - so coherency applies during the set up (again). It also says it applies after any sort of move, warptime might be considered a 'sort of move'.

Called it

Scratch that - just saw coherency check.

I dig it. Hordes and screens are going to have a much harder time covering large areas of the board. No more conga-lining Infantry Squads to block chargers.

This counts as 1 point on my scale of "9th edition changes that help melee armies".

I wonder what the order of operations is, because if you remove a model that is not in coherency and that causes a different model to no longer be in coherency, do you remove that model as well? Could you unzip a thirty man unit down to five models if you set them up stupidly?

If so This seems like the true death of three pointing, because a long thin wrap can get the whole unit unzipped out of coherency.

 catbarf wrote:
I dig it. Hordes and screens are going to have a much harder time covering large areas of the board. No more conga-lining Infantry Squads to block chargers.

Still definitely possible, but like for my Orky boys, I'll need a lot of 10 man grot squads or big ones to actually do it.

I 100% agree, though. Conga lines are really dumb. They'll have to change some rules I think (some auras make no sense without the conga line concept), but I can't complain, because it makes the rules better.

I absolutely love this rule for the aesthetics as much as anything else. Games will be much more interesting to look at because you won't have to actively maintain your suspension of disbelief when the daemon worshipping cultists form a single file line across the whole battlefield so one guy can hear the Dark Apostles' sermon and whisper to the rest like the most violent game of broken telephone.

Have to say, I like the new coherency rules and coherency check. Units will have to move and act like a coherent unit rather than stretching out all across the battlefield or risk serious repercussions.

Whether it leads to weird interactions remains to be seen, but this seems like a good change to me.

Edit: it also addresses the concerns some had with how blast weapons might be “unrealistic” because large units are likely to be spread out in a line.

How many chickens are going to hatch again?

 Grimgold wrote:
I wonder what the order of operations is, because if you remove a model that is not in coherency and that causes a different model to no longer be in coherency, do you remove that model as well? Could you unzip a thirty man unit down to five models if you set them up stupidly?

If so This seems like the true death of three pointing, because a long thin wrap can get the whole unit unzipped out of coherency.

It chains.

The rule is clear, you remove models until the remaining ones are in coherency.

In AoS it has devastating effects at times.

This rule might be the single biggest thing to make movement, manoeuvring and positioning an important tactical part of the game again.

Grimgold wrote:I wonder what the order of operations is, because if you remove a model that is not in coherency and that causes a different model to no longer be in coherency, do you remove that model as well? Could you unzip a thirty man unit down to five models if you set them up stupidly?

It would seem so. If, say, in all the previous examples of 8oooooooooooooo8 conga lines being posted, if one of the models on the end of the conga line died, the entire chain would fall apart until it reached like 5 models on the other end.

Ah yeah, love it.

Deleted.

Risk with the “8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8” deployment?

Shooting casualties. With that one, even a single casualty is immediately breaking your unit coherency.

Deleted.

 Elbows wrote:
What a poorly written and integrated rule. Absolute gak. I can see it being the first rule ignored by casual players.

I don't know, we've lived with most parts of this rule very well in Age of Sigmar. It's a rule that requires you to positiion your troops and be smart about it.

On another note this rule does make the GW movement trays more handy.

 Elbows wrote:
What a poorly written and integrated rule. Absolute gak. I can see it being the first rule ignored by casual players.

Compared to the terrain rules? It's not that badly written, and the integration isn't so bad.

The main thing I'd just say to new players/casual players regarding this rules would just be "bunch up your models".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Risk with the “8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8” deployment?

Shooting casualties. With that one, even a single casualty is immediately breaking your unit coherency.

Only rules which allow the shooting/attacking unit to "pick" the exact model - something a few psychic powers could use. Beyond that, the targeted player simply picks a model at the end of its row. If you "push" models slightly closer together, they're still in 2" coherency.

Even if you pick someone at the end of the row, then you've now got a model on the end of the row with only one model in coherency? You've just swapped out 8oooooooooooo8 for ooooooooooooo8 - and that means the lone model at the left end is outside of coherency, and then the model after, and then after them, and then after them, and so on.

Unless you do something like 8888888, you're going to be at risk

Deleted.