Switch Theme:

New Coherency Rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in be
Mysterious Techpriest





Belgium

Hey everyone,

So with the new edition of Age of Sigmar came new unit coherency rules, imported from the Warhammer 40,000 ruleset. These rules are as follow:
Spoiler:
Units must be set up and finish every move as a single coherent group. A
unit with 2 to 5 models is coherent if each model in the unit is within 1"
horizontally and 6" vertically of at least 1 other model in the unit. A unit
with more than 5 models is coherent if each model in the unit is within
1" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least 2 other models in the unit. If
a friendly unit is not coherent at the end of a turn or after you set it up,
you must remove models in the unit from play, one at a time, until it
is coherent.

Here's an image for the example:
Spoiler:

While this rule works well to counter "Conga Lines", where units of 30 models are spread all over the board as a single file to capture objectives, while receiving various buffs, it severely limits the offensive capabilities of units on large bases.

The reason it works in 40,000 is that models don't have melee weapon ranges, they just have to be within 1" of an enemy unit to hit them, and the friendly models from their own unit must be within 1" of said model to hit too. This allows to fight on two ranks, whatever the base size.

In Age of Sigmar this can't work, because the average weapon range is 1", which is 25mm. This means two models in base contact with each other can hit an enemy model in base contact with one of them. However, when using models on 32mm bases or more, this is impossible, and so only the first rank in a unit of 6+ can fight, excepted if the enemy unit comes closer at their turn.

A great number of units are on 32mm bases and can be taken in units of 6+, which means this problem touches almost every army. For example, with my Nighthaunt army, I could charge with a unit of 10 Bladegheists (32mm) into a unit and get at least 8-9 in range depending on the enemy unit. Now I can only ever get 5. And as this unit gets +1A on the charge, you can see how wasted this ability, and thus their point cost, is.

This also means that when charging into a horde, the advantage is to the opponent as he can flow his models around yours in the pile-in phase.

Which leads to another problem, it's large models in units of 3. If you reinforce them they're 6 in the unit, and encounter the same problem. An option is to use it at "understrength" and play them at 5 models while paying for 6, so as to counter the mechanic and fight with 5 models. You can see how inelegant this solution is, and players shouldn't have to find ways to counter base game mechanics because they're unwieldy.

The only solution I see is to remove melee weapon ranges, and adapt units to be able to fight on two ranks with current 1" weapons and on three with 2" weapons and more.

What's your opinion on this matter ? How does your army handle it ? I have yet to play a game, but I'm rather gloomy with this rule, and as Nighthaunt isn't in a very good position right now, it's even more discouraging, considering magic and shooting is already hugely advantaged in this game. This rule just puts the nail in the coffing for me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 15:21:34


40K: Adeptus Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






There are formations you can adopt to get all of your 32mm/40mm/cavalry bases within 1" of an enemy unit (assuming the enemy unit is wide enough to oblige).

However, I personally cannot be bothered to muster the care to maximize my attacks and so will either operate in 5 man units or rigid blocks a la Fantasy, and lose every game if I have to.

I'm also willing to invite my opponents to just keep formation and attack with their entire unit of 32/40/cavalry bases if I "know" it'll work out to save us roughly 3 hours of precise positioning. Wobbly Model Syndrome to the extreme.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Sheridan, WY

Here ya go.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/07/06/unit-coherency-in-9th-edition/
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Which isn't all that relevant since melee works differently in 40k and aos.

Just because rule is same doesn't mean effect is same. This why for example objective scoring in 40k makes primary objectives still matter and same hold 1/2/more turns aos primary objectives virtually irrelevant.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

I imagine that my regular opponents & I will just continue to technically play "Open", opting to conveniently use about 98% of matched play rules.
I mean, the moment we discard the Double Turn....
Besdes we already ignore this stupid coherency rule in 40k...... Ignoring it now in Sigmar won't be any big deal.
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon




USA

Watch here: https://youtu.be/ZD0LFhxjhMc
Starts around 8:30 or so. Vince gives an amazing breakdown of the new rules with what works and what doesn’t.

We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




What if the state of coherency is only checked once, at the start of that step and doesn’t cascade? Meaning you only remove models out of coherency at the time of inspection and not the newly created off-coherencies. Also, maybe would be good if coherency was simply 1” to one model when engaged in combat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 04:46:07


 
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon




USA

The rules are pretty clear in how this all works.

1.3.3 UNIT COHERENCY
Units must be set up and finish every move as a single coherent group. A unit with 2 to 5 models is coherent if each model in the unit is w7ithin 1" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least 1 other model in the unit. A unit with more than 5 models is coherent if each model in the unit is within 1" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least 2 other models in the unit. If a friendly unit is not coherent at the end of a turn or after you set it up, you must remove models in the unit from play, one at a time, until it is coherent.

9.1 UNIT COHERENCY
After you have moved all of the models in a unit, it must be coherent (see 1.3.3). If it is impossible for a unit to be coherent after it has moved, you cannot move that unit.

15.2 SPLIT UNITS
If a friendly unit is not coherent at the end of a turn, you must remove models in the unit from play, one at a time, until it is coherent (see 1.3.3).

We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Sweetcurse wrote:
What if the state of coherency is only checked once, at the start of that step and doesn’t cascade? Meaning you only remove models out of coherency at the time of inspection and not the newly created off-coherencies. Also, maybe would be good if coherency was simply 1” to one model when engaged in combat.


Why ask what if's though? Rules are what they are. Ask rather how to deal with rules as are

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in no
Liche Priest Hierophant





Bergen

How about Spears? Worked for the Roman's. Should work now. Anything with 2" reach really. Or something that can shot. *eyes his Leadbelchers and iron guts*

   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Personally I really hate seeing some of the crazy placement that people are coming up with to try and circumvent this. The cure is worse than the problem if you are just going to have things angled so they can fit or whatever stupid nonsense people are talking about.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





Wayniac wrote:
Personally I really hate seeing some of the crazy placement that people are coming up with to try and circumvent this. The cure is worse than the problem if you are just going to have things angled so they can fit or whatever stupid nonsense people are talking about.


This is my view too. I kind of hate these coherency rules in both games, and it just makes me not want to run units over 5 if I can help it at all just so I don't have to faff about with it.

I'd honestly rather just have a coherency range of base to base contact instead of this if the goal is just to stop screens spreading out as much.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 11:31:06


 
   
Made in no
Liche Priest Hierophant





Bergen

It's not just to keep screen from streching. In 40K genstealers in 8th usualy had a tail so they got +1 to hit.

I like the new coherency rules.

   
Made in be
Mysterious Techpriest





Belgium

 Niiai wrote:
It's not just to keep screen from streching. In 40K genstealers in 8th usualy had a tail so they got +1 to hit.

I like the new coherency rules.

What's the relation ? We're supposed to measure from the base, having a tail has nothing to do with it.

40K: Adeptus Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts 
   
Made in ca
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader






I'm not fussed yet about the coherency rules, I don't really see it effecting me too much, but I'm going to hold judgement until I get in a few games. I've not noticed any difference to how I play 40k when their coherency rules changed.

Wolfspear's 2k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in no
Liche Priest Hierophant





Bergen

 Aaranis wrote:
 Niiai wrote:
It's not just to keep screen from streching. In 40K genstealers in 8th usualy had a tail so they got +1 to hit.

I like the new coherency rules.

What's the relation ? We're supposed to measure from the base, having a tail has nothing to do with it.


Genstealer came in a blob of 20. Usualy with a swarmlord in a kraken tyranid list. End result was they could move across the map. But you would often need a broodlord to bost them. Note that the broodlord does not use the wording wholy within. So you could be in combat with 16 genstealers and having 4 of them be a tail into the aura of the broodlord. They killed almost anything. To make things worse Tyranids had this trick of moving after fighting and piling in and attacking again. Lastly there was also thus thrick in 8th edition where you could wrap around a unit (tripoding it) and prevent it from pulling out of combat.

The 8th edtion rules changes made all of that imposible. All the components are still there. But the base rules of unit coherency and some major changes to charges meant that you could not eat everything in one turn.

The tail was refering to 4 to 6 genstealers daisy chaining into a boosting aura or perhaps even holding an objective while they slaughtered something.

Coherency rules in 40K has made a big difference on tyranids. And also my opponent whenever I blow up their transports and they have to disembark while remaining in coherency. Lastly my warriors have also gotten a problem with coherency and the rules about removing units with the same loadout. Meaning I have to be particular on where I put different wepaons etc. (Not sergants as tyranids do not have sergaants. But my ork opponent has problems with pulling units to keep the nob where he wants.) I am sure different 'problems' will ocur with unit coherency. I love it though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 15:25:49


   
Made in be
Mysterious Techpriest





Belgium

Aaah you meant tail like that, alright. Well I agree with you, the coherency rules in 40k are great. They could be great in AoS too, however the design is flawed and doesn't work as well as in 40k.

40K: Adeptus Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I like the rule, I think the problem is it kicking in at 6+ when it should be 11+. I will hold out hope that a future GHB changes it.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

I'm expecting a 40k style rollout of new reach stats for the worst affected combat units with each tome.

*40k style in that weapons and stat profiles are changing more than usual with each codex right now.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

 Aaranis wrote:
Hey everyone,

So with the new edition of Age of Sigmar came new unit coherency rules, imported from the Warhammer 40,000 ruleset. These rules are as follow:
Spoiler:
Units must be set up and finish every move as a single coherent group. A
unit with 2 to 5 models is coherent if each model in the unit is within 1"
horizontally and 6" vertically of at least 1 other model in the unit. A unit
with more than 5 models is coherent if each model in the unit is within
1" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least 2 other models in the unit. If
a friendly unit is not coherent at the end of a turn or after you set it up,
you must remove models in the unit from play, one at a time, until it
is coherent.

Here's an image for the example:
Spoiler:

While this rule works well to counter "Conga Lines", where units of 30 models are spread all over the board as a single file to capture objectives, while receiving various buffs, it severely limits the offensive capabilities of units on large bases.

The reason it works in 40,000 is that models don't have melee weapon ranges, they just have to be within 1" of an enemy unit to hit them, and the friendly models from their own unit must be within 1" of said model to hit too. This allows to fight on two ranks, whatever the base size.

In Age of Sigmar this can't work, because the average weapon range is 1", which is 25mm. This means two models in base contact with each other can hit an enemy model in base contact with one of them. However, when using models on 32mm bases or more, this is impossible, and so only the first rank in a unit of 6+ can fight, excepted if the enemy unit comes closer at their turn.

A great number of units are on 32mm bases and can be taken in units of 6+, which means this problem touches almost every army. For example, with my Nighthaunt army, I could charge with a unit of 10 Bladegheists (32mm) into a unit and get at least 8-9 in range depending on the enemy unit. Now I can only ever get 5. And as this unit gets +1A on the charge, you can see how wasted this ability, and thus their point cost, is.

This also means that when charging into a horde, the advantage is to the opponent as he can flow his models around yours in the pile-in phase.

Which leads to another problem, it's large models in units of 3. If you reinforce them they're 6 in the unit, and encounter the same problem. An option is to use it at "understrength" and play them at 5 models while paying for 6, so as to counter the mechanic and fight with 5 models. You can see how inelegant this solution is, and players shouldn't have to find ways to counter base game mechanics because they're unwieldy.

The only solution I see is to remove melee weapon ranges, and adapt units to be able to fight on two ranks with current 1" weapons and on three with 2" weapons and more.

What's your opinion on this matter ? How does your army handle it ? I have yet to play a game, but I'm rather gloomy with this rule, and as Nighthaunt isn't in a very good position right now, it's even more discouraging, considering magic and shooting is already hugely advantaged in this game. This rule just puts the nail in the coffing for me.


Playing with my Kruelboyz today after two turns, my opponent and I agreed that this new ruling is terrible and we stopped using it, returning to the top example used with the stormcasts. It severely cripples factions with larger groups of base infantry, and I suspect that we will be house ruling this out of the game in our local group.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I think the new rule is great, just that for some reason there was a typo and they put "6 or more" instead of "11 or more".

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




I too am probably going to petition our local venue to adapt or abandon this unweildy and biased coherency rule.

Armies with larger bases are penalized already with the sheer difficulty of getting your troops into combat, much less those with larger unit size and shorter melee range
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




My opinion on the new coherency rules is that my ogors are now in a better place and the nighthaunt may follow...
   
Made in ca
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot






I feel bad for Khorne Mortals players.

Goregruntaz deserved what they got though.

Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






This doesn't fix congalines. Indeed, you can still do it. 28 mm bases are less than an inch thick. You can line the first 3 on both sides tightly side to side then max distance the rest =B

Good to know they hard nerfed monstrous infantry, calv and elite units while leaving screens largely still fine.
   
Made in us
Nihilistic Necron Lord






 Jaxler wrote:
This doesn't fix congalines. Indeed, you can still do it. 28 mm bases are less than an inch thick. You can line the first 3 on both sides tightly side to side then max distance the rest =B

Good to know they hard nerfed monstrous infantry, calv and elite units while leaving screens largely still fine.


Then you shoot them, kill one model, and watch the rest of the line collapse.

 
   
Made in ca
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot






Screens are worse, as intended. You can stretch them out pretty far still, but not as far as before. But bigger 32mm+ base hordes, cavalry and other elite units, with or without 1" reach weapons all got severely worse.

Generally my clan rats were being placed 2 ranks deep to begin with, since I could cover enough board space with 60 of them, and I didn't want holes opening or model-snipe abilities wiping me in battleshock.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/23 14:27:19


Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 
   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




 Aaranis wrote:
 Niiai wrote:
It's not just to keep screen from streching. In 40K genstealers in 8th usualy had a tail so they got +1 to hit.

I like the new coherency rules.

What's the relation ? We're supposed to measure from the base, having a tail has nothing to do with it.


He means an extention of models that 'tail' backwards to be within aura range.


 
   
Made in be
Mysterious Techpriest





Belgium

ERJAK wrote:
 Aaranis wrote:
 Niiai wrote:
It's not just to keep screen from streching. In 40K genstealers in 8th usualy had a tail so they got +1 to hit.

I like the new coherency rules.

What's the relation ? We're supposed to measure from the base, having a tail has nothing to do with it.


He means an extention of models that 'tail' backwards to be within aura range.

Oh I see then.

40K: Adeptus Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts 
   
Made in us
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Tails don’t even work that well in AoS as most buffs require you to be completely within range.

 
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: