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.

As clearly shown on the picture the guard unit is now out of unit coherency. The BRB tells us that "if this happens, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next movement phase". But clearly the unit can't move far enough with a move of only 6". Does this mean the you just move them far enough, and if so couldnt you in theory move them as far as you wanted then? Or are they simply destroyed like every other situation in the game where a unit is unable to peform a compulsory move?

You'd break the game.
There are some things in 40k that have no answers.

Another example of "breaking the game" includes lining an entire short table edge with your friendly units so your enemy cannot outflank.
If they can't stay more than 1" away from the enemy models, they can't enter the game. Creating a problem with no answer written in the BRB

*Outflank

Nightwatch wrote:*Outflank

*Noodles

Your point?

Meh. I dunno. I had nothing to contribute, so I thought I'd point out an insignificant error to make me feel better about myself.

First of all, models that have to be moved out of the way because of a tank shock must be done so in order to maintain unit coherency.

In your 2nd image (perhaps the first even) this rule hasn't been maintained.

Now, I do concede that it is entirely possible that a situation can be created where the models which would end up underneath a tank shocking tank cannot be moved in a way in order to maintain unit coherency, but that is the goal you are supposed to try to follow.


Second you state:

Or are they simply destroyed like every other situation in the game where a unit is unable to peform a compulsory move?

I'm not sure where you got that notion from. While the Fall Back rules have the 'Trapped' rule, that is a particular rule for that situation.


Finally, the last sentence in the unit coherency rule I think gives us the best idea of what to do in a situation where a unit cannot restore coherency in a single movement phase:

"If the unit cannot move for some reason in its next turn (because they are pinned down by a barrage or sniper fire, for example), then they move move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity."


While this rule clearly is written for an out of coherency unit that is *unable* to move, given that we don't have any rules for what happens if a unit is unable to restore unit coherency in a single move, this seems by far like the most reasonable solution IMHO.

In other words, a unit that is unable to restore unit coherency in a single move must simply attempt to do so as soon as it can.

yakface wrote:


In other words, a unit that is unable to restore unit coherency in a single move must simply attempt to do so as soon as it can.

That seems reasonable.
If my opponent came to that resolution during a game, with no rules to back it up, I would accept it

Wow, I just posted my own thread on this. It happened in a game of mine with Nob bikes

So you are saying that the troops would have to move to be as close to the tanks as legally possible? Thus lining them up perfectly for flamers or Jaws of the World Wolf or any other such weapon . . . That's interesting, and possibly a very interesting tactic indeed =p

Oshova

Well my take is that there is no way to properly handle this situation. There is no stipulation that they have to move as close to each other as possible if they cannot reform coherency. SO this just seems like a game breaking situation

So leave a gap for them to fill. Instead of them being on two nice lines, they'll be in a nice clump . . . I'm not complaining =D

Oshova

Alright assuming we came to the conclusion that the unit must move to optain unit coherency as soon as possible. This just leads to another question, what excatcly can a unit out of coherency do? Can they shoot, can they assault?

Sharik wrote:Alright assuming we came to the conclusion that the unit must move to optain unit coherency as soon as possible. This just leads to another question, what excatcly can a unit out of coherency do? Can they shoot, can they assault?

There is no penalty for being out of unit coherency except that the unit must return to unit coherency as soon as possible.

Also as Yak pointed out, they have to remain in coherency after every one of those movements. Your pictures don't seem to
depict what really happens.

1. Your tank declares its movement.
a) pivot in spot (p 68)
b) declare how many inches you will move (p 68)
2. Your tank moves up to base contact with an enemy unit.
3. Your opponent chooses to either avoid or death or glory. (p 67) Yours doesn't in this case.
4. He passes his morale test.
5. He technically doesn't even move a model unless you would end up on top or within an inch of any model in that unit after the predesignated distance is travelled.
a) in your second picture I'm not sure if those guys were in coherence but let's say they are.
6. The second tank and subsequent tanks would actually have to declare its movement in inches again starting the process over.
7. If those tanks come into contact with your vehicle they stop. Within 1" of an enemy vehicle, they stop.
8. In the above case, all 3 of those tanks would likely have to be lined up that way to begin with in order to get the angles as you put them.
9. In each case if the morale test is passed, those models that would be in the way of the vehicle would move into coherency in any way they can.
10. All vehicles must move at least combat speed.

As for your pics, I think in the second instance they would have moved around as far as they could (shortest distance) to maintain coherency and then when the third tank was placed there
they would have to spend their entire next turn moving into coherency. I would say the interesting part is if they are not in coherency, do they have to run to get into it or can they shoot
while not in coherency? That doesn't seem covered in the BRB. It seems what you have done here is less break the game, more cause a question about what you can't do while out of coherency.
In my opinion the rulebook would just dictate during every move they do make that they attempt to get back into it by the most expedient means.

I don't see where you are getting the unit to be destroyed from. It just says that they have to move to coherency as soon as they can. There is no "or they are destroyed" or anything suggesting that. If they can't return to coherency after 1 phase, they do so in the next and so on.

They can still fire or whatever they want in their own phases. They just have to move towards coherency in their movement phase whenever possible. That's the only stipulation it gives you.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up or not, but dont you resolve each tank movement separately?

i.e. the first tank resolves his shock, then the troop moves to remain in coherency. The second tank would then have to shock too, after the second tank shock the unit attempts to move into coherency, and the third one would have to shock. Isn't this how it works?

P. 68

If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up
underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position
(it makes no difference whether the unit is falling back
or not), these models must be moved out of the way
by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between
them and the vehicle and maintaining unit coherency.

This is how it appears to me, the first tank moves, the unit of troops moves to maintain 1 inch from the tank while being in coherency, the second tank moves, the troop moves to maintain distances, the third tank moves and the troop again moves to maintain coherency. At each step, it seems like the rules would require a movement at each step by the unit to maintain coherency.

I think it would result in th is situation...


IIRC, as visavis points out, at each step the tankshocked unit moves the minimum distance to A: avoid the tank and B: stay in coherency.

Demogerg wrote:I think it would result in th is situation...


IIRC, as visavis points out, at each step the tankshocked unit moves the minimum distance to A: avoid the tank and B: stay in coherency.

Yes.

In fact, it's pretty much impossible for a unit to not have anywhere to move to. It must simply move the minimum distance which means it will end up 1" away from something and at most 2" away from something in its unit...

But surely the minimum distance for those criteria to happen would be for half the unit to move all the way around the tank, or for both halves to move half way around the tank. In both cases leaving the unit completely in coherency.

Oshova

Oshova wrote:But surely the minimum distance for those criteria to happen would be for half the unit to move all the way around the tank, or for both halves to move half way around the tank. In both cases leaving the unit completely in coherency.

Oshova

My understanding is that you only move the models necessary to remain in coherency. If some models dont have to move, then they dont; only the ones that do have to move do so. It isn't volitional movement (as in, just move one half of the troops to the other side), its compulsory to move the fewest models possible to just remain in coherency.

I don't have the BRB on me as I'm at work, but when I posted above I was basically outlining the procedure I read from the book. I believe I remember it saying you move the models involved in the tank shock that had to move out of coherency and I'm not sure (during the tank shocks resolving one at a time) that the black/white diagrams above are what would happen. In this very rare case I think that's a point worth making clear whether the 'unit' or 'the models being tank shocked' are treated separately in the RaW.

One other question. Due to tank shock wording, I was under the impression that during the tank shock you pivot before you begin and only go one direction for a dictated amount of inches stopping at the prescribed occasions (friendly models, etc) Would all these tanks have had to be lined up as is at least 6" before they all moved? Or can they pivot, move, pivot, move.. ad nauseum.

Gwar! or anyone have a BRB handy to answer that?

Zain60 wrote:One other question. Due to tank shock wording, I was under the impression that during the tank shock you pivot before you begin and only go one direction for a dictated amount of inches stopping at the prescribed occasions (friendly models, etc) Would all these tanks have had to be lined up as is at least 6" before they all moved? Or can they pivot, move, pivot, move.. ad nauseum.

Gwar! or anyone have a BRB handy to answer that?

You pivot, then move. End. You cannot Move, Pivot, Tankshock.

Thought so, thanks Gwar!

So to get that set up of 3 tanks in a row would be hard for your opponent not to recognise or avoid . . . But I suppose it could still happen.

Oshova

I hate to do this but I was wrong, if the unit gets split up, they just wait until their next movement phase to move back into coherency, I thought there was some odd interaction because of the segmented movements of the tank shocks and how tank shock rules read, however, as the OP said: Page 12:

During the course of a game, it’s possible a unit will get
broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it
takes casualties. If this happens, the models in the unit
must be moved in such a way that they restore
coherency in their next Movement phase. If the unit
cannot move for some reason in its next turn (because
they are pinned down by a barrage or sniper fire, for
example), then they must move to restore unit
coherency as soon as they have the opportunity.