Rule query: Unit coherency.

[Charly]

what does everybody think on this.. should unit coherency be messured from the edge of the base to the edge ot the next (or nearest point) or should it be measured from the centre of the model. this makes a big difference in many ways, a squad with 2" between the edges of them could be caught under a 2" blast and only take one hit, a squad with it measured from the centre will take a minimum of 3 hits. the other big difference is with vehicle squadrons, 6" between a tank is a long way. for example with imperial guard you could have 3 leman russ in a squadron with 6" between them measured from sponson to sponson, that unit can span nearly 30" and still keep coherency. wheras if its measured from centre to centre they appear very close, but therein is the disadvantage of taking vehicles in squadrons. the only problem would come if you were to take say 2 land raiders or other such large vehicles. 6" coherency from centre to centre would probably have them scaping against eachother. just want to gather some opinions then we can put it to a pole.

[bot]

in other words you're saying to reduce the coherency to 1" (measured from the slotta base edges). pros? well, you save A LOT of space on the table. i'd say the table would look nicer, filled with neat patches of squads. then frag grenades become way more useful and all blast markers weapons should generaly gain some extra points.
cons? i can't think of any
hm. i'd give it a try.

[Adoni-Zedek]

Everything I've read specifies coherancy as being measured base-to-base. So that if you're careful, a frag missile will only hit one model. Of course, it's hard to stay in cover while maintaining maximum coherancy distance. In Dark Millenium, I'm pretty sure it shows measuring the coherancy between bikes being measured from the edge of the model. I think base-to-base is the system most people use.

[Charly]

the main issue was with vehicle squadrons really, i think the troops coherancy is fine at 2" base to base. bikes etc need the 4" to manover really. its just the 6" distance for tanks etc in squadrons. its too much. would just using 4" base to base work for tanks ok?

[El Capitan]

This is one of those things that has come to issue from people exploiting things. Theres no problems with the squad coherency, its vehicles. I've been putting Leman Russ' into big squads and then spreading them out giving very little disadvantge. Maybe reducing vehicle coherency to 4" will work?

[Charly]

so keeping the measurements made from base to base / edge to edge. change the vehicle coherency to 4". i think thats fine. anybody object?

[tturen]

On the congested battlefields we play on you need 6". In fact my IG forces almost never came in squadrons for this reason alone. I always realized it saved VP's to put units in squadrons but it played havoc with target aquisition and cover. So with the IG I went offensive and pretty much ignored points counting the unit.

With units like the Tau battlesuits I find the 6" is a must just to make the units effective with their short range weapons and huge size. Most othe armies I've played would be unchanged by a 4" rule but I still would not opt for the change. I'd change the squadron rules points issues instead.

Funny but now that I think about it I've always pointed the Tau suit squads as squads anyway and not squadrons.

[James 40K Champ ***]

2" is defo right for troops. Everything is measured from thier base, or else delpoyment zones would actually be another half inch appart causing all sorts of trouble. Its also hard to measure from the centre.

Blast markers arnt affected at all eitherway, because they are always 2", and are from the centre anyway (place marker over centre of model).

I think vehicles should be from the edge of the vehicle, but not extremeties like bulldozerblades, heavy bolters, turrets etc.. it should be the main body of the tank (inc the sponson itself). that prevents any silly exploits.

Large vehicles need the big coherancy for manouvering around scenery together.