Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[Blackhawk748]

The better question is, why isn't it 2nd Company?

[Wraith]

Imperial Fists haven't had silver or black Aquilas for a long time. I'm almost certain that that's a 3rd Ed. thing, back when GW's stock models were 5th Company?

Apparently I was thinking of really old Imperial Fists, or I should have said Blood Angels.

Same principal, and as you said, red-on-yellow doesn't look right. Whatever.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Since every model is assumed to be equipped with a "close combat weapon", does this count as a weapon for rules that affect melee weapons?

Does it gain +1 Damage when using the White Scars Devastating Charge? A squad of regular tactical marines with Damage 2 knives might do a bit of damage.

[LeSwordfish]

It does, yes... and alas, they don't really. Anything with two wounds usually also has a good save.

[hamishspence]

Apparently I was thinking of really old Imperial Fists, or I should have said Blood Angels.

Same principal, and as you said, red-on-yellow doesn't look right. Whatever.

I notice the Aquilas on the Imperial Fists are much less vividly-red than the Sergeant helmets are - more like maroon than scarlet.

[Avaris]

New rules update to coherency, designed to get rid of chaining.

Basically, in a unit of 6 or more models, each model needs to be within 2” of at least 2 other models in the same unit. Then, as part of the morale phase, you remove models not in coherency until only a single group of models remain.

So even if you form a chain with a group of 3 in a triangle at each end (as the models in a chain are still in coherency with two others), as soon as you lose one model you have to remove the entire chain.

[Fable Wright]

New rules update to coherency, designed to get rid of chaining.

Basically, in a unit of 6 or more models, each model needs to be within 2” of at least 2 other models in the same unit. Then, as part of the morale phase, you remove models not in coherency until only a single group of models remain.

So even if you form a chain with a group of 3 in a triangle at each end (as the models in a chain are still in coherency with two others), as soon as you lose one model you have to remove the entire chain.

Well that's a kick in the horde. Now it takes twice as many models to form a chain, and you have to lose about twice as many models to retreat out of lines of fire. This is a real kick in the teeth for non-MSU units.

[Squark]

In principal, I think the change is merited, as the enormous conga lines are time consuming and very... game-y. However, I'm not crazy about the coherency casualties. It feels like a very frustrating mechanic, especially if one player is really good at positioning line of sight such that they can cut a unit in half.

[LeSwordfish]

Have the rules for allocating casualties changed? Does the owning player still not choose how to assign the wounds, so you can just not break your chain?

[JNAProductions]

Have the rules for allocating casualties changed? Does the owning player still not choose how to assign the wounds, so you can just not break your chain?

We don't know yet-but I would guess that they are unchanged.

[Requizen]

New rules update to coherency, designed to get rid of chaining.

Basically, in a unit of 6 or more models, each model needs to be within 2” of at least 2 other models in the same unit.

That's pretty interesting. You can still make chains and bubble wraps, but you'll lose efficiency and need more to do so. Neat.

Then, as part of the morale phase, you remove models not in coherency until only a single group of models remain.

So even if you form a chain with a group of 3 in a triangle at each end (as the models in a chain are still in coherency with two others), as soon as you lose one model you have to remove the entire chain.

So exactly how it works in AoS. It works out well because you really have to plan removals for your blob units ahead of time, which is interesting tactically.

Are there any abilities where player A can pick a specific model to remove from player B? If so, they'll be a premium for breaking coherency.

[JNAProductions]

Are there any abilities where player A can pick a specific model to remove from player B? If so, they'll be a premium for breaking coherency.

Death Jesters. If they shoot a unit, you can choose which Morale casualties flee.

[Forum Explorer]

In principal, I think the change is merited, as the enormous conga lines are time consuming and very... game-y. However, I'm not crazy about the coherency casualties. It feels like a very frustrating mechanic, especially if one player is really good at positioning line of sight such that they can cut a unit in half.

What do you mean? They player controlling their unit decides which models are removed, so the only way to break coherency is if you do it deliberately.

Anyways, I'm glad for the unit coherency changes. Throughout 8th there had been some really stupid cases of breaking coherency and it not really mattering. And the long conga lines are annoying.

Also this is a buff to melee, it makes it harder for screens to operate when they have to be bunched up. Basically your screens can only cover half the space that they used to (it's actually more than half, but I'm not sure what the actual number would be. It's less whatever it is.)

[Avaris]

What do you mean? They player controlling their unit decides which models are removed, so the only way to break coherency is if you do it deliberately.

Anyways, I'm glad for the unit coherency changes. Throughout 8th there had been some really stupid cases of breaking coherency and it not really mattering. And the long conga lines are annoying.

Also this is a buff to melee, it makes it harder for screens to operate when they have to be bunched up. Basically your screens can only cover half the space that they used to (it's actually more than half, but I'm not sure what the actual number would be. It's less whatever it is.)

I’ve seen elsewhere someone saying that a 1 2 1 2 formation would cover 2/3s the distance. A single line is possible with 25 mm bases if they’re in base to base contact, but that is still a significant reduction in the chain, and also only works until you’ve lost half the unit.

One othr thing it limits is the ability to wrap around an enemy unit in melee, as you need two rows of models rather than a single row in a circle.

[LansXero]

What do you mean? They player controlling their unit decides which models are removed, so the only way to break coherency is if you do it deliberately.

Depends on the exact wording of removing models during the morale phase. If its 'until all models are in coherence' or similar, taking a model from anywhere ends up triggering a chain reaction unless you make it redundant at which point your spread is affected.

[LeSwordfish]

Depends on the exact wording of removing models during the morale phase. If its 'until all models are in coherence' or similar, taking a model from anywhere ends up triggering a chain reaction unless you make it redundant at which point your spread is affected.

Remove models until you're in coherency - so yes, removing models can lead to removing more models, and a clever chain runs the risk of the whole unit being destroyed.

[Forum Explorer]

Depends on the exact wording of removing models during the morale phase. If its 'until all models are in coherence' or similar, taking a model from anywhere ends up triggering a chain reaction unless you make it redundant at which point your spread is affected.

My confusion comes from the 'especially if one player is really good at positioning line of sight that they can cut a unit in half.'

You don't have to remove models from line of sight.


Also not necessarily. If you always take from the end of the unit, you should never break coherency as you remove the models.

[LansXero]

My confusion comes from the 'especially if one player is really good at positioning line of sight that they can cut a unit in half.'

You don't have to remove models from line of sight.


Also not necessarily. If you always take from the end of the unit, you should never break coherency as you remove the models.

the problem is that the last mini in the line is only 2" away from 1 mini, not from 2. Its not AoS coherency; the "2 models minimum" bit means it screws over any because once the triangle at the end dies then it falls apart until the other end of the chain.

[LeSwordfish]

the problem is that the last mini in the line is only 2" away from 1 mini, not from 2. Its not AoS coherency; the "2 models minimum" bit means it screws over any because once the triangle at the end dies then it falls apart until the other end of the chain.

Yeah, exactly. Gotta place your models like a squad, not a conga line.

[Forum Explorer]

the problem is that the last mini in the line is only 2" away from 1 mini, not from 2. Its not AoS coherency; the "2 models minimum" bit means it screws over any because once the triangle at the end dies then it falls apart until the other end of the chain.

Well let's see. If you do a squad of ten in a line like so: 1-2-1-2-1-2-1, with the 2's being two models vertically aligned in relation to the squad. That means each interior model is in coherency with 3 models, with only the ends being coherent to only 2 models.

As you take casualties you remove from the ends.

Like so: 1-2-1-2-1-2 after 1 loss.

Which can become: 1-2-1-2-1 after two more losses.

It isn't perfect, and there is a sequence of losses that can break the chain, but it's decently robust. It'd be pretty difficult to hit that sequence to break the chain. (Specifically, I think it's 2 casualties, followed by taking only 1 casualty).

[LansXero]

Well let's see. If you do a squad of ten in a line like so: 1-2-1-2-1-2-1, with the 2's being two models vertically aligned in relation to the squad. That means each interior model is in coherency with 3 models, with only the ends being coherent to only 2 models.

As you take casualties you remove from the ends.

Like so: 1-2-1-2-1-2 after 1 loss.

Which can become: 1-2-1-2-1 after two more losses.

It isn't perfect, and there is a sequence of losses that can break the chain, but it's decently robust. It'd be pretty difficult to hit that sequence to break the chain. (Specifically, I think it's 2 casualties, followed by taking only 1 casualty).

However, that is a much shorter chain and potentially it cant hold 2 objectives at once, which is what the old lines sought to accomplish, therefore it does change how you position your models.

Obviously, players not being idiots, no models should actually die to broken coherence unless there is some tradeoff for the player losing said models; however it does alter how you move and position.

While I hated conga lines, this, the anti-wrap strat and the new anti-transport-wrap strat seem a lot like protecting the bad players who think there are "unfair" moves and dont want to suffer them.

[LeSwordfish]

While I hated conga lines, this, the anti-wrap strat and the new anti-transport-wrap strat seem a lot like protecting the bad players who think there are "unfair" moves and dont want to suffer them.

Sounds like they're trying to make armies look like armies, not school field trips.

[LansXero]

Sounds like they're trying to make armies look like armies, not school field trips.

Actually single-file movement hugging walls is a very common drill; it keeps you from taking fire from windows. Moving in blocks down the middle of a street makes 0 sense if you want things to look like armies. Lets just accept this is a game and stop pretending any of it has any similarity to reality please.

[Forum Explorer]

However, that is a much shorter chain and potentially it cant hold 2 objectives at once, which is what the old lines sought to accomplish, therefore it does change how you position your models.

Obviously, players not being idiots, no models should actually die to broken coherence unless there is some tradeoff for the player losing said models; however it does alter how you move and position.

While I hated conga lines, this, the anti-wrap strat and the new anti-transport-wrap strat seem a lot like protecting the bad players who think there are "unfair" moves and dont want to suffer them.

Very true. Though you haven't been able to hold two objectives for a long time in 8th. Though you could hold 1 and the just circle another so that it couldn't be taken which was kinda the same thing.

Anyways, I view this as more as making coherency matter again. Too many times people would break it without penalty in 8th.

The other two, I agree with. As frustrating as it can be when that happens to you, it's fair play nonetheless. (And I'll totally do it back when I get the chance.)

[Avaris]

While I hated conga lines, this, the anti-wrap strat and the new anti-transport-wrap strat seem a lot like protecting the bad players who think there are "unfair" moves and dont want to suffer them.

What’s interesting with the new strategems is that, while they counter particular types of play, you can only use each once per turn. So if you wrap two things, you still have an advantage, and even just forcing them to spend the command points is a benefit.

So it doesn’t really stop wrapping, it just makes it more interactive, and therefore more satisfying for the wrapped player: rather than a fully feel bad moment when caught out by it, you have to decide how to respond, which gives you agency. Given that the players most likely to fall foul of wrapping are new players, this seems like a good approach to me.

[Forum Explorer]

What’s interesting with the new strategems is that, while they counter particular types of play, you can only use each once per turn. So if you wrap two things, you still have an advantage, and even just forcing them to spend the command points is a benefit.

So it doesn’t really stop wrapping, it just makes it more interactive, and therefore more satisfying for the wrapped player: rather than a fully feel bad moment when caught out by it, you have to decide how to respond, which gives you agency. Given that the players most likely to fall foul of wrapping are new players, this seems like a good approach to me.

Wrapping isn't easy. The reason it typically happens to new players is because it's hard to pull off and relatively easy to defend against. It does very much feel like a gotcha, particularly since it typically involves a more technical reading of piling in, but the point I'm getting at is that it's hard to get 1 unit wrapped. Getting two or more is insanely difficult.

[LansXero]

As mentioned, wrapping isnt particularly trivial, more so when many transports can fly. If you let it happen then you are doing something wrong; having a pocket 'get out from a noob moment' card just feels handholdy, not better. 'making the enemy spend that CP' is a terrible argument as well; if they get enough use out of it to be worthwhile then they will use it, and advance their gameplan proportionately to then negate whatever advantage you got by wrapping; otherwise they wont bother. Of course, newbs that raged about will just overuse it and lose a bunch of models on 1s and 2s so "feel bad" will continue.

[Cheesegear]

Well that's a kick in the horde. Now it takes twice as many models to form a chain, and you have to lose about twice as many models to retreat out of lines of fire. This is a real kick in the teeth for non-MSU units.

That's pretty interesting. You can still make chains and bubble wraps, but you'll lose efficiency and need more to do so.

Horde's dead, Jim.
If there a way that I was even possibly on the fence for hordes being viable in 9th Ed., not being able to conga-line pushes me right off.
Each unit also needs twice as many models as it did before, to have the same effectiveness. Any unit that was doing that, was already at max-size, and now it needs to double? Umm...

[Squark]

My confusion comes from the 'especially if one player is really good at positioning line of sight that they can cut a unit in half.'

You don't have to remove models from line of sight.


Also not necessarily. If you always take from the end of the unit, you should never break coherency as you remove the models.

My mistake. I confused systems, and was operating on the assumption only models the attacker had line of sight to could be removed.

[Renegade Paladin]

If Blast is going to kill hordes, why didn't Punisher cannons and the like kill hordes already? Seems like an overreaction.