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.

BRB wrote:
UNIT COHERENCY

When you are moving a unit, its individual models can each move up to their maximum movement distance. However, units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.

BRB wrote: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 whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board. Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed. Crunch!

Since maintaining unit coherency requires to have all models within the unit forming an imaginary chain where no link is more than 2" horizontally and 6" horizontally, if by some cleverly crafted tank shock an already spread out unit were to have two of its members ran over, those members would be deleted as they simply can't form a chain around the tank anymore.

Anyone got something against this ?

From my understanding of the rules, those two models that you run over could join the remaining 4 units, to either side of the tank. The models that aren't under the tank are allowed to fall out of coherency (temporarily), as the rules don't mention models that the tank wouldn't touch. The two that would be touched can fall into coherency with either of the other groups.

The only time that units will be outright killed by a tank shock is when they can't stay in coherency with ANY of the models that aren't being hit by the tank. It's a very rare scenario unless you're using multiple tanks or in very tight terrain. An example would be if 4 models were on a tower, and 2 were at the base. If you run over the two at the base, and there's no room for them to move onto the tower (this being the only way to reach coherency), then they die.

I'm not entirely sure if that's how it was intended to be played, but it meets all the criteria listed in the rules as far as we can tell and it's how we've always played it.

That is a section of the rules that has always confused me thoroughly as it lacks specifics on how a unit can move, that is how far the unit can move to maintain coherency and not get crushed.

To solve this my friends and I have played it along the lines of "the unit may only move up to 6" to avoid getting crushed", any model that cannot get out of the way and maintain coherency (that is, keeping the unit as one group all within 2" of each other) is crushed. I know the whole "unit may only move 6" " thing is not written anywhere in the rulebook, but the rulebook fails to even hint at the distance the model is allowed to move to get out of the way.

Just an alternate solution.

This particular part of the rulebook has always confused the crap out of me.

 kingbobbito wrote:
From my understanding of the rules, those two models that you run over could join the remaining 4 units, to either side of the tank. The models that aren't under the tank are allowed to fall out of coherency (temporarily), as the rules don't mention models that the tank wouldn't touch. The two that would be touched can fall into coherency with either of the other groups.

The only time that units will be outright killed by a tank shock is when they can't stay in coherency with ANY of the models that aren't being hit by the tank. It's a very rare scenario unless you're using multiple tanks or in very tight terrain. An example would be if 4 models were on a tower, and 2 were at the base. If you run over the two at the base, and there's no room for them to move onto the tower (this being the only way to reach coherency), then they die.

I'm not entirely sure if that's how it was intended to be played, but it meets all the criteria listed in the rules as far as we can tell and it's how we've always played it.

Except that unit coherency is defined as such:

the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.

Which says that it concerns all of the models in the unit.

Many players talk about coherency between models, but that does not exist in the BRB, the only thing it talks about is "unit coherency" which is a binary state, positive when all models form a chain with 2" links max, negative otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ultimentra wrote:
This particular part of the rulebook has always confused the crap out of me.

It has always been one of the trickiest parts of the rules . and one of my favorites.

From the pic it looks like 4 models need to move as the 2 not under the tank either side look like they are within an inch. This means that the unit can probably wrap around the front (or potentially rear) of the tank whilst maintaining coherency. So hypothetically yes you can kill those 2 models practically speaking this is rarely the case unless models are at maximum spread already in which case yes people gonna get runned down!

morgoth wrote:
Except that unit coherency is defined as such:

the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.

Which says that it concerns all of the models in the unit.

Many players talk about coherency between models, but that does not exist in the BRB, the only thing it talks about is "unit coherency" which is a binary state, positive when all models form a chain with 2" links max, negative otherwise.

Sadly, the issue you'll run into though is what classifies as "the unit"? If a squad is cut in half, which half of it must all the units try to form coherency with? If there's a squad of 30 models in a horizontal line and I run over the middle 2, does that mean, that 15 models to the left side of my tank should all count as run over since they're "split from the unit"?

The reason that we allow a unit to be temporarily split is A) so the scenario I just described wouldn't happen, and B) because in other situations where a unit is forced apart (perhaps a barrage kills everyone in the middle), the unit gets a turn to get back into coherency.

 kingbobbito wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Except that unit coherency is defined as such:

the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.

Which says that it concerns all of the models in the unit.

Many players talk about coherency between models, but that does not exist in the BRB, the only thing it talks about is "unit coherency" which is a binary state, positive when all models form a chain with 2" links max, negative otherwise.

Sadly, the issue you'll run into though is what classifies as "the unit"? If a squad is cut in half, which half of it must all the units try to form coherency with? If there's a squad of 30 models in a horizontal line and I run over the middle 2, does that mean, that 15 models to the left side of my tank should all count as run over since they're "split from the unit"?

The reason that we allow a unit to be temporarily split is A) so the scenario I just described wouldn't happen, and B) because in other situations where a unit is forced apart (perhaps a barrage kills everyone in the middle), the unit gets a turn to get back into coherency.

1. The unit is clearly defined, it's all the models that compose the unit. You don't get to have coherency unless all of the models in that unit are within 2" of each other.
2. The Tank Shock rule tells us that if you can't move those models WHILE maintaining unit coherency, they are removed from play. This applies only to models underneath the tank when it reaches its final tank shock position.

So in effect, nobody cares about other situations, and the unit has a very clear definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
From the pic it looks like 4 models need to move as the 2 not under the tank either side look like they are within an inch. This means that the unit can probably wrap around the front (or potentially rear) of the tank whilst maintaining coherency. So hypothetically yes you can kill those 2 models practically speaking this is rarely the case unless models are at maximum spread already in which case yes people gonna get runned down!

Models within an inch would first step aside, and then models that end up underneath the tank are the only ones allowed to be moved.
EDIT: models within an inch would just stay there and simply be forbidden of ending their next movement phase within 1" of the tank.

Practically speaking, you can use this to destroy units that are in a corner (made of your own units or not) and if it's intentional it's not that rare.

The only condition you're looking for is that most models be under your tank and none of them can be moved while keeping unit coherency.

Imagine a V formed by two Dark Eldar Raiders, and then you tank shock in the middle, overlapping all but one dirty filthy space marine monkeigh, all that are below have to move, but there is no space to do that while maintaining coherency, so boom.

morgoth wrote:
Models within an inch would first step aside, and then models that end up underneath the tank are the only ones allowed to be moved.

Can you give a page quote for this?

Gravmyr wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Models within an inch would first step aside, and then models that end up underneath the tank are the only ones allowed to be moved.

Can you give a page quote for this?

Models within an inch would first step aside: that's bs, it just doesn't happen. They stay there and that allows them to be within less than one inch of the tank, thanks to the Tank Shock removing the restriction of moving within 1" of enemy models (and through them).

Models underneath the tank, part of my OP, you can find all the necessary rules references there, word for word.

In the old rts called Command And Conquer: Generals, vehicles such as a fast moving truck can run over infantry dead.

Why can tanks get HoW or free destroyer blades? I should auto inflict wounds if the models failed an initiative test. adding blaring horns should also make the take a ld check. Popping smoke on them then driving into them should be auto gimp.

 Filch wrote:
In the old rts called Command And Conquer: Generals, vehicles such as a fast moving truck can run over infantry dead.

Why can tanks get HoW or free destroyer blades? I should auto inflict wounds if the models failed an initiative test. adding blaring horns should also make the take a ld check. Popping smoke on them then driving into them should be auto gimp.

I would totally love that.

But this is a rules discussion, so wishlisting is out of the question

morgoth wrote:
EDIT: models within an inch would just stay there and simply be forbidden of ending their next movement phase within 1" of the tank.

Can you give a rule quote for the underlined?

 Filch wrote:
In the old rts called Command And Conquer: Generals, vehicles such as a fast moving truck can run over infantry dead.

They could do that in most of the C&C games. I used to give my ore trucks in Red Alert all the upgrades so they could zip around like homicidal zambonis.

As to this "tactic," I think it's mostly a moot point. In the decade plus that I've been doing this, I've never seen this situation crop up once.

Furthermore, while the one line in the brb mentions a unit, most other references to coherency in other rules imply that the coherency is on a per-model basis.

If you really want to do this, you might bully someone in a friendly game into letting you, but I think it's dubious that a TO would interpret it that way. The rules are filled with examples of rules that literally nobody plays as written, *coughcoughassaultvehiclecough* but as they are intended.

The technique to removing models with tank shock is to form a "U" around an enemy unit with your models, then to a shallow tank shock into the mouth of the "U". The goal is to displace most, but not all, of the enemy models. When done right, the enemy unit is broken into 2-3 groups that are out of coherency with each other, separated by your models.

It's pretty situational, and takes some practice to set up on the fly. But when its done, you get a lots of praise from bystanders while your opponent shoots you dirty looks as he/she re-reads the section on Tank Shock.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The technique to removing models with tank shock is to form a "U" around an enemy unit with your models, then to a shallow tank shock into the mouth of the "U". The goal is to displace most, but not all, of the enemy models. When done right, the enemy unit is broken into 2-3 groups that are out of coherency with each other, separated by your models.

It's pretty situational, and takes some practice to set up on the fly. But when its done, you get a lots of praise from bystanders while your opponent shoots you dirty looks as he/she re-reads the section on Tank Shock.

SJ

Indeed

It's comforting to see that I'm not the only one who reads the rules in detail.