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.

This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

Was looking forward to the GSC article since they're the next army I'm working on. Instead the only compelling piece of new information is that GW want to slap hordes with the nerf bat even harder and nerf the one thing my Guardsmen for AM were still useful at.

This doesn't save time, now as a horde player you have to think mathematically and sequencially about individual model positions and how you remove your models all the time, which is absurd. I can just tell that this is going to cause me headaches.

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

At the very least, daisy chaining was ugly, and it let basically every unit in your army benefit from 6" auras (I know because I play DA, and every unit I cared about had full rerolls, even if only a fraction of those benefited from the 4++), which was patently not their intention. Also moving towards more objective based play large units could cap two objectives, removing causalities from the middle.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

At the very least, daisy chaining was ugly, and it let basically every unit in your army benefit from 6" auras (I know because I play DA, and every unit I cared about had full rerolls, even if only a fraction of those benefited from the 4++), which was patently not their intention. Also moving towards more objective based play large units could cap two objectives, removing causalities from the middle.

While I can agree to this somewhat, between all the other gamey mechanics daisy chaining was never the worst offender for me, and this is yet another needless nerf for horde style units. Maybe next time GW can use play testers that aren't so overly hostile to horde style units.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

At the very least, daisy chaining was ugly, and it let basically every unit in your army benefit from 6" auras (I know because I play DA, and every unit I cared about had full rerolls, even if only a fraction of those benefited from the 4++), which was patently not their intention. Also moving towards more objective based play large units could cap two objectives, removing causalities from the middle.

The objective holding thing is easy, just make it so a squad can hold only a single objective. No problem. Also, it's a rule they had in the past, possibly 6th or 7th edition.

As for being ugly, I think that's less important than the idea that a squad somehow can't string out to present a dispersed formation and a wide front, which I think is fairly common. Being forced to clump up breaks immersion for me, personally.

And Auras. . . well. . . I guess I'd just rather there be less of those.

If they wanted to get rid of conga lines, there was an obvious and extremely easy solution:

All models in a unit must be within X" of all other models. This is super easy to apply, because all you have to do is create a paper cutout of X" diameter and lay it over a unit to make sure no bases are sticking out.

If they want to allow units to spread out the same as a 5-man 32mm base unit can currently do under the rule they have, they would set X" at 14". If they wanted to allow greater spread, they could set this higher. The normal 2" coherency within the bubble would still obviously apply.

This does a far better job of stopping daisy-chaining - under the 9th edition rule, a 30 man unit can still daisy chain off the entire short board edge - while also being vastly easier to apply.

I, for one, never really liked thin lines of troops. I much preferred bunched up blobs of units and models sticking closer together - so tight phalanxes and close order drills appeal to me far more aesthetically than what I perceived as the gaminess of a super dispersed and sparse screen meant to maximise space efficiency.

But then, I'm not really an efficient player.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I, for one, never really liked thin lines of troops. I much preferred bunched up blobs of units and models sticking closer together - so tight phalanxes and close order drills appeal to me far more aesthetically than what I perceived as the gaminess of a super dispersed and sparse screen meant to maximise space efficiency.

But then, I'm not really an efficient player.

But the new rule doesn't even prevent that, it just means each dude has to be holding hands with a buddy.

A 30 man unit of grots can still screen off the entire 44" short board edge under the new 9th edition rules.

So they've managed to do something that doesn't really even cure the problem, while adding a significant amount of complexity, and leading to patently absurd situations like the 6-model unit that has to huddle up much closer than the 5-man unit that can spread out.

Meanwhile they had a super simple solution that would have stopped units from spreading out in the "every model has to be within X" of every other model" rule that some other games use.

It's just a really weird choice to address conga-lines in this particular way.

One of the things I liked about the removal of blast markers was that That Guy™ players would stop spending every movement phase checking the measurements of all their individual models to reduce the damage your blasts could cause.

Now we all have to do it to make sure that our units don't auto-delete themselves.

This adds nothing to the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
One of the things I liked about the removal of blast markers was that That Guy™ players would stop spending every movement phase checking the measurements of all their individual models to reduce the damage your blasts could cause.

Now we all have to do it to make sure that our units don't auto-delete themselves.

This adds nothing to the game.

Yeah, it is almost exactly like bringing back blast weapons. Really hard to understand why they chose this particular method if what they were trying to do was stop the conga line - which it doesn't even do.

Just a quick thought but it should have stayed the same for units 10 and under, then units 11+ have to be within X and 3 models sounds better than 2 right now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I feel like this was a total missed opportunity for the GW rules writers. If the rules writers think this is going to change much, it shows they really don't play the game the same way as most of their players.

I feel a better change would have been:

"Models must stay within 2" of each other, and within Ld range of the unit leader"

Would have made it so units can't conga line, and abilities that increase the Ld of a squad matter for more than just morale rolls, it would allow squads to spread out a bit more.

*Looks at 30 model units with LD4/5 and no access to LD increase*
*shakes head*

Hah, that is fair. I forget about some of the units like that since I never see them.

Here's a great example as to why I love having an army comprised fully of 25mm bases - this means if I run a line in base to base contact, and remove every second model, I will still have coherency. See below:

ooooooooooo

o_o_o_o_o_o

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

No, but there is now reserves and reserve blocking is a thing.

And yet you can still (safely, without risking losing the unit) screen out an entire board edge with 30 grots even under the new system.

And your point is what exactly?

We get it. You don't like the rule. Moaning about it constantly in two different thread isn't going to make the rule go away. It off to the printer and coming to a table near you.

If you don't want to discuss the rule, don't discuss the rule. Moaning about someone else allegedly moaning is not only very ironic, but off-topic spam that is not allowed on these forums.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This rule seems weird and unnecessary. Was daisy chaining really that game breaking?

No, but there is now reserves and reserve blocking is a thing.

Reserve blocking is a thing, buuuut you have to block three out of four table edges, and that requires quite a bit of effort. Plus, if reserve blocking is potentially a valid move to use against your deployment/army/etc. you should maybe consider addressing that threat before it catches you out.

Besides, two squads of five scouts will reserve-block more area than a single squad of ten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
And your point is what exactly?

We get it. You don't like the rule. Moaning about it constantly in two different thread isn't going to make the rule go away. It off to the printer and coming to a table near you.

What a helpful post.

With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

Spoletta wrote:
With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

We sure that's actually going to happen?

I don't like this, as it gives me thought process to coherency which believe it or not will slow some players a ton, which sucks if you play them. Added to that, it's beyond immersion breaking to imagine you just lose people because they are out of coherency, where are they going exactly ? Did they slip away for a squash game with the Eradicator ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
One of the things I liked about the removal of blast markers was that That Guy™ players would stop spending every movement phase checking the measurements of all their individual models to reduce the damage your blasts could cause.

Now we all have to do it to make sure that our units don't auto-delete themselves.

This adds nothing to the game.

Yes, I think this is a huge step backwards because of the penalty of the world just eating models to make coherency return people will agonize over this for if the fear is real or imagined they'll check, double and triple check just to be sure. Good thing we saved all that time from over watch, now we can spend it checking and watching people check coherency.

They're blinked out of existence by Thanos.

I guess the play testers should have aimed for the head then, as this sucks.

Martel732 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

We sure that's actually going to happen?

We know perfectly well that the "You can still totally play with 3x2 boards!" is purely PR talk.

The dimensions of the board have too much of an impact on the gameplay to just ignore it as a variable. Events will adopt the 44x60 standard, and in less than an year all stores will have adapted to that.

Doesn't the efficacy of this rule depend entirely on when a unit coherency check is performed?

I mean, if it's only performed at the end of your movement phase, then BooBs are still valid, but if if has to be performed at the end of any other phase, then each BooB is going to be completely demolished until thel last three models.

Ice_can wrote:

Aash wrote:

Karol wrote:
Paladins are run in units fo 10. The fringe models are never close to 2 models. So do termintors suppose to move in a two row phalanx or something?

I’m not super familiar with GKs, didn’t realise they have 10 model terminator units. Can they combat squad? It looks like moving them in 2 ranks would be the best way to deal with the new coherency rules.

GK go all in on paladins, heck I'm sure GK players would take units of 20 or 30 if they could as that way they can stack all the psychic powers and strategums on their paladin deathstar.

Yeah you'll be running them in the stagered line or a triangle or diamon formation from now on.

Well I do run 15 paladins, 10 termintors and 15 strikes. If I could make them troops and run them instead of termintors, I totaly would. being -1 to hit, -1 to wound, ++4 and ignore wounds of 1-3, is a big buff comparing to normal termintors that get nothing. Plus str6 storm bolters with buffed ap rolling a bucket of dice are good offensive unit, specialy when they can shot from behind a building.

Cool, so there is a way to run them. Funny thing though, they are going to look at lot like units from 9th age.

Spoletta wrote:
With smaller tables it was necessary to reduce the area a unit could cover. Makes sense.

If that was intention they managed to do epic spectacular failure. Like the rabbit in japanese folk tale losing race to turtle by taking nap midrace.

yukishiro1 wrote:
And yet you can still (safely, without risking losing the unit) screen out an entire board edge with 30 grots even under the new system.

They're not covering a long board edge, which is 60". That's 18" short based on your example. A considerable distance when previously they covered something like 30" plus 60". Their coverage was cut in half if they're playing it safe.

Which is also prevents this - and no they don't need be that far back to block the back field :

yukishiro1 wrote:
And yet you can still (safely, without risking losing the unit) screen out an entire board edge with 30 grots even under the new system.

But you can't do it with 10, that's the whole point. 30 grots aren't cheap enough just to mess up reserves, and large squads are also affected by the new blast rules. Not to mention that grots are T2 6+ saves.

With the coherency rules those 30 grots should be fielded in two rows, so it's actually 15-18 dudes at most with 25mm bases in the largest row. SM can do the same job with two rhinos, which are not particularly more expensive than 30 grots but extremely resilient in comparison and can maybe cover a wider area. Also Drukhari with 2 raiders, etc...

You couldn't screen entire board edge with 10 in 8th ed either...

Epic failure by GW if screening board edge was what they wanted to prevent.