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.

tneva82 wrote:
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.

Not the entire board of course, but 10 dudes hand to hand could draw a long line. With the new rules it'll be 40-50% shorter.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Why do you think so?

These rules seem to be quite effective at reducing the area that can be covered by a single unit.

Yes, you can technically still cover almost the same area as 8th, but in doing so you suicide the unit. Sometimes it could be a worthy sacrifice, but is still a sacrifice.

Players said they wanted more tactical choices. Here, take them.

 Slayer6 wrote:
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

You could do that or your could line up like this:

8 8 o o 8 8

And take models from either end. Once you take the fifth model you'll only have lost the two outermost columns and you'll be down to needing only one other model in coherency.

At 20 models, you could probably line up similar with the same effect. Well, looking at it, no. You could line up

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

and take from the two outer edges. If you lost more than 11 models in a single round of shooting you'd lose more though. I guess at 20 models you would want to give a double file serious consideration.

I don't give a crap about the trying to make people need to be " Gotchaed ! " by reserves. Sure, make reserve hammer a thing, but the time wasted by people taking way too long to worry of unit placement so they don't magically lose models to lack of coherency is awful.

Why can't they just move into coherency when next they move ? I guess it depends when they check for coherency but the idea men just " run oft " because they're close to Fred but far too far away from Bob, is stupid to the extreme.

It turns a good idea to limit gamey formations into a punitive annoyance of wasted time. Which is especially stupid when some of these changes was supposed to be to save time, at least they claim such, like very limited over watch.

Well I guess it is going to save time when other people test out the best set ups and formations for units, and then people will just have to memorise them. Could have movment for whole turns locked in, and then the game is going to go faster.

I can only imagine play of warhammer is very different there Karol, as most everyone I play with won't memorize formations and just check and re check set ups forever. This won't save me any time and in fact be a net loss all because they want to pack in a punishment mechanic to coherency checks.

Much like how taking loses from the closest models didn't really save time and instead led to much time spent in concern of who would die first ( back a couple editions ).

This is just that, but in troop placement to make something that was a relatively simple act need to be double checked unless the net goal is just to have armies be blobs kinda moving around the board which really isn't any better looking than conga lines imo of course.

Also this here might be possible for a 30 man unit:

o8ooo8oooooo8oooooo8ooo8o
=> loose 1-5 models: remove the single dudes at the end and the 8ths in the middle
=> loose 6 models: remove one end of the chain
=> loose 7-9 models: remove one end of the chain + the 8ths in the middle and/or the single dude at the other end of the chain
=> loose 10-12 models: remove both ends of the chain
=> loose 13: remove both ends + the 8 in the middle
=> loose 14-15: remove two "Segments" on one end of the chain
etc

This way you will have to experience serious losses before you really get in trouble removing models without breaking coherency. And the chain is only 5 dudes shorter than a conventional daisychain.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I can only imagine play of warhammer is very different there Karol, as most everyone I play with won't memorize formations and just check and re check set ups forever. This won't save me any time and in fact be a net loss all because they want to pack in a punishment mechanic to coherency checks.

Much like how taking loses from the closest models didn't really save time and instead led to much time spent in concern of who would die first ( back a couple editions ).

This is just that, but in troop placement to make something that was a relatively simple act need to be double checked unless the net goal is just to have armies be blobs kinda moving around the board which really isn't any better looking than conga lines imo of course.

So, didn't your fellow players check whether they were at 2" coherency in 8th?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I can only imagine play of warhammer is very different there Karol, as most everyone I play with won't memorize formations and just check and re check set ups forever. This won't save me any time and in fact be a net loss all because they want to pack in a punishment mechanic to coherency checks.

Much like how taking loses from the closest models didn't really save time and instead led to much time spent in concern of who would die first ( back a couple editions ).

This is just that, but in troop placement to make something that was a relatively simple act need to be double checked unless the net goal is just to have armies be blobs kinda moving around the board which really isn't any better looking than conga lines imo of course.

Or they just form a circle/ovoid and it takes the same time as before?

Maybe wait until you've played a bunch of games before declaring the end of all things. I think this is a great change that will open up the table to more dynamic movement and reserves, it'll be harder to screen which is going to hurt my armies for sure but better for the game overall. I could easily screen out a Bloodletter bomb with strings of skitarii, this is going to make it significantly harder.

For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I can only imagine play of warhammer is very different there Karol, as most everyone I play with won't memorize formations and just check and re check set ups forever. This won't save me any time and in fact be a net loss all because they want to pack in a punishment mechanic to coherency checks.

Much like how taking loses from the closest models didn't really save time and instead led to much time spent in concern of who would die first ( back a couple editions ).

This is just that, but in troop placement to make something that was a relatively simple act need to be double checked unless the net goal is just to have armies be blobs kinda moving around the board which really isn't any better looking than conga lines imo of course.

Well there only seem to be those two options, aside for maybe house ruling how the destroy out of cohorancy models. Either you adjust everything single model yourself and then the game takes longer, or you let the w40k community playtest it for you, and then when they did that you just have to learn how best units are run.
I mean maybe, and I am saying this with zero actual knowladge, the squad sizes will change. Maybe the MSU squad of primaris is going to be optimal at 6 dudes , run in two 3 lines, or 7 dudes in a 2-3-2 star like formation. Maybe big units are going to be 10 man, unless other rules will warrent it, but we are going to see old XVII century tertio being used with 3-3-3 formations protected by skimishers on 3 sides to protect the flanks. I feel it could be cool,or at least for me it would feel cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

It is important for charges and getting maximum number of models in to melee. specialy if you want to trip point two units, so only one can escape.

I might be wrong, but depending on when the unit coherency check is made, it might give another tool against tripointing. Imagine a player has caught 3 models of a larger unit and tripointed them. When in 8th he was safe in CC as long as he does not kill all three in the fight phase, now removing one of those three models might put one of the other two out of unit coherence killing it, followed by the other and thus ending the tripointing.

I think there might be some really wonky positioning shananigans possible using that to remove multiple cheap chaff units as soon as just one dies, thus leaving CC units out in the open again.

The initial reveal of this seemed pretty bad but the addition of the check coherency step in the Morale phase actually makes this rule pretty good IMO. I don't think it'll slow things down as people will quickly realise what formations work, and it's probably less time consuming than waiting for someone to carefully space out all their models as much as possible to screen out as much of the board as possible.

I hope this is only part of the solution for conga-lining though as I'd love to see rules that change all auras to only apply to units wholly within an aura's range and a reversion to the old rule that a unit can only control a single objective.

I'm sure it'll create more gamey stuff once the gamey types get their hands on it but at least they're trying.

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

It is important for charges and getting maximum number of models in to melee. specialy if you want to trip point two units, so only one can escape.

Why is it important for charges? If you're wanting the most amount of models in, you just go for something like:
8o
8o
8o
8o
8o
8o
instead (with 2" on every diagonal) - if people are so paranoid, why don't they put their models in base contact or 1" coherency instead, to ensure that they're not out of range?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

It is important for charges and getting maximum number of models in to melee. specialy if you want to trip point two units, so only one can escape.

Why is it important for charges? If you're wanting the most amount of models in, you just go for something like:
8o
8o
8o
8o
8o
8o
instead (with 2" on every diagonal) - if people are so paranoid, why don't they put their models in base contact or 1" coherency instead, to ensure that they're not out of range?

Because if you do that you get 45 min arguments turn 2 which model belongs to which unit, if you move them as a single 60 model blob?

And it is important to charges, because models who don't fly and have big termintors sized bases to trip point have to hook an end of a unit .
Am not sure what the diagram is suppose to be though. If I did that with my paladins then the last group of 3 would be kissing the back end of my deployment zone, and that is generaly bad for units that try to get in to short range or melee.

Discard the idea of tripoint. Between the coherency check for the attacker, the stratagem and the possibility of suiciding with the coherency check of the defender, tripointing is dead.

Spoletta wrote:
Discard the idea of tripoint. Between the coherency check for the attacker, the stratagem and the possibility of suiciding with the coherency check of the defender, tripointing is dead.

100%, I actually suspect that some crazy shenanigans like vehicals and mosters that can shoot into combat with units becoming some nasty screen's rather than the cheapest chaff.
Punisher cannon russ with flamer sponsons anyone?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

if people are so paranoid, why don't they put their models in base contact or 1" coherency instead, to ensure that they're not out of range?

"BeCAUsE It'S nOT oPTiMAl"

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I might be wrong, but depending on when the unit coherency check is made, it might give another tool against tripointing. Imagine a player has caught 3 models of a larger unit and tripointed them. When in 8th he was safe in CC as long as he does not kill all three in the fight phase, now removing one of those three models might put one of the other two out of unit coherence killing it, followed by the other and thus ending the tripointing.

I think there might be some really wonky positioning shananigans possible using that to remove multiple cheap chaff units as soon as just one dies, thus leaving CC units out in the open again.

Or there is no coherency check in melee. There is also currently a consolidation rule - up to 3" towards closest model. Do people REALLY think GW set rules that would force your units to lose models in melee?

Or they could be changing the rules for Pile In and Consolidation to take into account the new rules for coherency. Which do you think is more likely?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For all the people saying about how they're going to need to now check every model's coherency meticulously now - what's wrong with just bunching up all your models into a clump? Why leave anything to chance?

Maybe I'm just playing differently, but what's with the avoidance of just clumping all your models down in a big old blob? Did people really care that much about that perfect 2" spacing?

Maybe because that's (yet another) thing that gaks on large squads of melee units? The fact that if you blob up, you give up the board control that's your only advantage, and you can't use half the models in your unit as anything except bullet sponges?

dhallnet wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

if people are so paranoid, why don't they put their models in base contact or 1" coherency instead, to ensure that they're not out of range?

"BeCAUsE It'S nOT oPTiMAl"

nice attitude.

In 8th, spreading your models for melee is important because it lets you wrap something you didnt kill or consolidate into another unit if you did kill the one you charged.
(All this is assuming the rules are stayign the same for the fight phase)


1 : we have two units, A and B.
AAAAA_ _ _BBBBB


__________CCCCCCCC


2: my unit charges unit B and piles in.

AAAAA_ _ CBBBBBC
_________ CCCCCC


3: If i didnt kill the unit B, i can chose to wrap it

__________C C C
AAAAA_ _ CBBBBBC
__________C C CC

4 :If i killed it, i can chose to pile into unit A


AAAAAC______C
______CCCCCC


That's why spreading your units out is important in 8th.

We still need to wait to see the fight phase rules.

Or you could just play shooty elites, stuff your gray half-assembled starter box primaris marines in a box, upend them on the table and declare yourself deployed. EDIT, sorry, after ensuring that your 68pt chapter master and 50pt lieutenant are deployed in approximately the center of the blob to give everything full rerolls to hit and rerolls of 1 to wound.

Then you don't need to touch your models for the remainder of the game and you can just sit down with 5-6 cubes of chessex dice to roll and reroll and reroll for 4 hours.

You know, the optimal warhammer 40,000 experience that the rules are designed to encourage and enhance.

the_scotsman wrote:
Or you could just play shooty elites, stuff your gray half-assembled starter box primaris marines in a box, upend them on the table and declare yourself deployed. EDIT, sorry, after ensuring that your 68pt chapter master and 50pt lieutenant are deployed in approximately the center of the blob to give everything full rerolls to hit and rerolls of 1 to wound.

Then you don't need to touch your models for the remainder of the game and you can just sit down with 5-6 cubes of chessex dice to roll and reroll and reroll for 4 hours.

You know, the optimal warhammer 40,000 experience that the rules are designed to encourage and enhance.

you jest but it sure does feel a lot like it for now. My demons seem like they'll be pretty bad so far.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Or you could just play shooty elites, stuff your gray half-assembled starter box primaris marines in a box, upend them on the table and declare yourself deployed. EDIT, sorry, after ensuring that your 68pt chapter master and 50pt lieutenant are deployed in approximately the center of the blob to give everything full rerolls to hit and rerolls of 1 to wound.

Then you don't need to touch your models for the remainder of the game and you can just sit down with 5-6 cubes of chessex dice to roll and reroll and reroll for 4 hours.

You know, the optimal warhammer 40,000 experience that the rules are designed to encourage and enhance.

you jest but it sure does feel a lot like it for now. My demons seem like they'll be pretty bad so far.

I mean I don't. Marines got turned into a static gunline more obnoxious than any meta tau build I've ever experienced and suddenly all the marine players were like "participating in only one phase of the game is good actually, my models have the same firepower if they're 2" away and 30" away, this is good game design, pass me the spare dice cube I need to attack with my stormcannons."

I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

This is why I'm not totally sure *its the end of the world* is the right response.
But... yeah. You are going to get weirdly gamey unit deletions to avoid being in combat - which I feel is the wrong direction. (cue *waaa waaa, tripointing is evil, I should be able to just walk away from a guy beating me over the head with a chainaxe")

In theory, yes, just keep everyone in 2" of another model. Is it less flexible than now? Sure, but you'll just have to live with it.
Its *another* nerf to horde units and a sort of implicit buff to small elite ones - but I'm starting to just assume someone important at GW playing Marines got repeatedly destroyed by GSC, Orks and someone running mass plaguebearers+Tzeentch casters, and the resulting 12+ months have just been one long temper tantrum about that.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

AoS and 40k are different games.

The thing is this is yet another rule that targets hordes and by extension melee armies. I'm still waiting to see the full content of 9th but as it stands i feel like even with no innate overwatch, melee hordes (demons, orks, nids, GSC) will be at a disadvantage.

And i feel like the complaints are more that its another mechanic that will slow down gameplay (remeasuring after every movement).
And now that its punishing, the odds of playing against someone that will argue that "that model isnt within 2 of 2" increase and could lead to arguments. compare that to the rules we have now where there is no punishing so a simple misplacement of a model will most likely be resolved by saying "oh wait, that one isnt in coherency, nudges it in place"

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just find it amusing that a punishing rule(losing models out of coherency) is causing so much panic when we've lived with it in AoS quite well without too much hassle. We even use movement trays to make things quicker.

It would even be more amusing if GW would introduce melee reach to weapon profiles in 9th.

In AOS the default playstyle is for movement across the board to actually matter, that's not just some weird thing a couple factions do that can't stand in the deployment zone shuffling slightly back and forth to get LOS on stuff/stay in reroll auras.

I'm guessing instead of melee reach we'll just standardize on 1" reach across, 5" reach up for everybody, and they just drop the "within an inch of a model within an inch" rule entirely. Who needs to fight with more than the front model in melee combat? What's one more rule punishing larger squads on the pile, anyway?