I'm going to excise a good bit of this to avoid a giant wall of text...

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
There is the first problem: you've assumed "adding to" permits you to place a model anywhere on the table. Seeing as the rules are permissive, what rule are you referring to that allows such placement. Your argument basically boils down to: it doesn't say I can't.

This is frankly quite frustrating. We can go in a circle with this one point. Seeing as the rules are permissive, what rule are you referring to that forces you to place the base in coherency? You're argument basically boils down to, "Even though it doesn't say I have too, I should."

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
I don't think you read my post entirely. As I pointed out, there is some general play that is assumed and a unit must be/remain in coherency is one of those assumptions. Have you ever deployed a unit not in coherency? Ever? I dare say never. In fact, I have NEVER heard of this being done. While, in general, accepted practice is subjective, there are instances where such a global adherence to the practice makes it become a rule. Unit coherency is one example (things that happened at the start of a turn happen prior to movement is another). And you're right, the common practice of units always remain in coherency (or strive to when out of coherency) is subjective since there is no explicit rule dictating it. However, you would be hard pressed to play a game that way. I suggest you attempt such a tactic at a local game and let us know how that works out for you. Better yet, attempt it at a big tourney like Adepticon. To flat out disregard such a widely accepted practice, however right you might be, will make you an outcast.

No, there are three Phases in a Turn that constitutes 'general play'. Movement, Shooting, Assault. Coherency only applies to Movement. Period full stop. I rarely measure my units as I deploy them. I simply eyeball the distance. When I Move said unit I always check to be sure that I'm in Coherency because the rules REQUIRE me to be. It is entirely possible that at some point I've deployed a unit that was not in coherency.

And that's an interesting observation about how closed minded you assume most people to be. Thankfully I don't play against the Amish so I'm pretty sure I won't end up as an outcast (i.e., Shunned)

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
No. That's not what I said. I said there is no rule specifically stating the model is required to be placed in unit coherency NOR is there a rule specifically permitting you place a model anywhere on the table. Common practice dictates the models in a unit must remain in coherency thus the model is added in unit coherency. That's what I said.

Oof, models in a unit must move to be in Coherency. They do not have to remain in Coherency. It really is high time you accept that. Once you can accept that a unit can be purposefully made to be out of coherency, you're a step closer to understanding that models can be deployed out of coherency. You're 'common practice' isn't worth the paper it's written on.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
I haven't created any such norm. Again, when is the last time you deployed a unit not in coherency. I'm betting in all the games you have placed you have never deployed a unit out of coherency and that has been a LONG LONG time prior to the "norm that is wholly created by [me]."

While you continue to argue nos and I are wrong, you still haven't provided any proof you can place a newly create Scarab anywhere on the table. You haven't provided a rule definition of "...add one base to...". No page number has been sited. Hell, you haven't even provided a hint of a suggestion of a whim of a precedence.

Asked and answered. You'd likely lose that bet. I'm curious how you can hold two contradictory notions in your head at the same time and believe each to be equally true. Namely that you think I haven't provided a rule definition of "...add one base to..." while freely admitting no such definition exists. Yet it is the lack of such a definition that allows you create a new game mechanic to deal with increasing a unit's model count.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm, I don't think I was too successful in reducing the wall 'o' text

Not too successful in doing anything to prove your points either.

I weep for the hobby...

mikhaila wrote:Not too successful in doing anything to prove your points either.

This is how you choose to contribute? Ignore.

-Yad

Config2 wrote:

Config2 wrote:In 40k, it is important to remember (especially in our day and age) that if there is no rule explicitly saying something is NOT allowed, than it is.

Actually it's the inverse. If you can't find a rule allowing it, it is not allowed.

Therein lies the true nature of the argument. However, since no one from GW or any other official source has said it goes either way, it is up to us, the poor, poor, players to figure it out for ourselves.

So since there is no rule in my Eldar codex (or the BGB for that matter) that does not say I can't take a nuclear warhead that has a blast the size of the table, only hits my enemies, and is a Str D, AP 1 blast, I can use it. Sweet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld, if you want to use it as well you can. No rules says you can't.

Yad - wrong, actually, coherency applies in every phase. Check your rulebook FAQ on being out of coherency in the Shooting phase, for example, or still being out of coherency in the Assault phase. So, that would be every single phase of the game then

Find a rule saying "add to" means "add to anywhere on the table", despite every rule MIDGAME (seen that Devian? I've specified that many times now, you keep missing it and bringing up list building, as if it matters a damn) in any codex ANYWHERE only letting you place in coherency.

Deployment is not adding to a unit, so is irrelevant. List building isnt midgame, so is still irrelevant. Find a rule, anywhere, in any book, where adding to / joining with / with a unit midgame is allowed to be out of coherency.

GIven no such occasion ever occurs, by definition the claim you can do so is extraordinary and requires permission. Permission is lacking, so guess what - its not happening.

Happyjew wrote:rigeld, if you want to use it as well you can. No rules says you can't.

Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

This has become quite amusing.

People denying that coherency point to there being no definition of, "adding to" in the BRB, then ignore there own argument when trying place the base. You can't have it both ways.

Either you have to accept the context of "adding to" a unit as following all the rules for units including coherency or you do absolutely nothing because as you continue to argue, "add to" is not defined in the BRB.

rigeld2 wrote:
Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

I think Bob, the lowly Guardsman has that special ability. Either that it's seized on a 3+

Gotta love when people argue the rules without actually knowing a lick of them themselves. Where is Gwar when you need him to just talk down the misinformed to the point where they can only stare at their screen in gaunting uncertainty?

Kurgash wrote:Gotta love when people argue the rules without actually knowing a lick of them themselves. Where is Gwar when you need him to just talk down the misinformed to the point where they can only stare at their screen in gaunting uncertainty?

He is probably staring at his screen in login fail.

Ah he was banned? Well that explains things being...still remotely chaotic on YMDC.

Kurgash wrote:Ah he was banned? Well that explains things being...still remotely chaotic on YMDC.

Gwar got banned so hard, he woke up playing Squats in Rogue Trader!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was for his rather abrasive methods of talking to the folks here on YMDC?

Happyjew wrote: rigeld, if you want to use it as well you can. No rules says you can't.

Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

Actually, there is a rule that says you can't do this. You can only take units in your codex in a list. In your example case there is a rule that says that if there isn't an option to take something, you can't. For the purpose of the real topic in the tread, there is no rule saying that >if there is no rule that says you can do this then you cannot< so you can because the rule of the >game< is that you can do something as long as the rules say you can't.

So... you are wrong.

Also...

No, I can be fun to play against. Just not when I am mad at you.

Config2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote: rigeld, if you want to use it as well you can. No rules says you can't.

Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

Actually, there is a rule that says you can't do this. You can only take units in your codex in a list. In your example case there is a rule that says that if there isn't an option to take something, you can't. For the purpose of the real topic in the tread, there is no rule saying that >if there is no rule that says you can do this then you cannot< so you can because the rule of the >game< is that you can do something as long as the rules say you can't.

So... you are wrong.

Also...

No, I can be fun to play against. Just not when I am mad at you.

The concept of sarcasm was lost on you here I take it.

No it was not. But it seems to not have been followed by you.

The first statement:

So since there is no rule in my Eldar codex (or the BGB for that matter) that does not say I can't take a nuclear warhead that has a blast the size of the table, only hits my enemies, and is a Str D, AP 1 blast, I can use it. Sweet.

was sarcastic. It was that was to refute my point.

The second statement:

Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

was also sarcastic, but was really just a repeat of the first statement.

So yes, they were using sarcasm to refute the point I made. SO... without resorting to sarcasm, I offered my rebuttal.

See another good example is the fact that I ignored the sarcasm in your statement, because I don't need to consider it as it is only used to taunt me.


So... you are wrong.

Find a rule saying "add to" means "add to anywhere on the table", despite every rule MIDGAME (seen that Devian? I've specified that many times now, you keep missing it and bringing up list building, as if it matters a damn) in any codex ANYWHERE only letting you place in coherency

Nos, Nos, Nos... why must you apply 'add to' in the same conotation as 'place.' Adding a model to a unit is a simple thing, done lots of times. Saying that 'add to' changes defination "midgame" undermines your argument, as we both agree that 'add to' has no rule defination. The simple fact that the rulebook even USES 'add to' in areas other than MIDGAME as you put it, means that your conception of 'add to' is not completely accurate.

Perhaps you should divorce 'add to' from model placement for this discussion. The scarab entry first says you 'add to' the scarabs, exceeding the units maximum size. THEN we have a brief snip about placement. Now we have rules for placement, do we not? Namely, models may not be placed on impassable terrain or within 1 inch of the enemy.

Thus, I am not trying to say 'add to' by itself means 'anywhere on the table' I am trying to say all 'add to' does is change the number of bases in the unit... which is all 'add to' ever does. PLACEMENT of said added base, however, has rules which dictate where the models can be placed. Just like DEPLOYMENT has rules where models can be deployed on the table. Both PLACEMENT and DEPLOYMENT, as rules that do not use movement, are likewise not subject to coherency rules brought with movement.

You also bring up an interesting point with coherency out of the movement phase--namely if you are found out of coherency, you must run in the shooting phase and potentially assault in the assault phase to recover coherency. The thing you missed, however, is that you CHECK coherency during that units move, and if you are still not in coherency at the end of the movement phase you sacrifice your shooting phase.

Example. A squad moves, and is legally placed. In that squads shooting phase, before they act, a friendly unit scatters a blast and kills a unit. The unit is now out of coherency. However, that unit does not have to run, because it was in coherency in its movement phase. Now, I dont have the faq handy, so if I misremembered it please let me know.

Also Nos, riddle me this. Using the scarab rules about placement, because the Necron Codex does talk about it, assume the scarabs are completely boxed in, and no base could be placed 'in coherency' as you would like it to be. Can a scarab base still be legally put down? Because it says 'If the base can not be placed,' and with the rules for placing models in the rulebook, we know this means not on impassable or within 1 inch of the enemy. The necron codex does not say 'If the base can not be placed in coherency with the scarab unit.'

Interestingly throughout that wall of text you were not able to cite any way to, "add to" a unit. Guess no created Scarab Swarms being "added to" for you.

Thats because they (as in GW) did a bad job writing the codex. They should have said "place in coherency" but they said "add in" (no established rule: basically a Good Luck Players! from GW)

So again, your TO will not let you do this most likely, but in casual games, Go right ahead.

Interestingly throughout that wall of text you were not able to cite any way to, "add to" a unit. Guess no created Scarab Swarms being "added to" for you.

Actually, I have many times before.

Ramses, I will do it again for you. How many bases do you have? Now, take that number, and... ADD 1 TO IT. Or do you need a rule saying you can add models to squads all of a sudden? Cause apparently you are telling a lot of people they dont know how to add?

And as I pointed out, if you are going to arbitrarily say that, "adding to" is not defined in the BRB and therefore is not bound by the coherency rules then also have to say that, "adding to" is not defined in the BRB and therefore you have no permission to, ".....ADD 1 to it".

You can't exclude it from being bound to the coherency rules by lack of being in the BRB amd then champion it as a defined action when it isn't in the BRB.

DevianID wrote:Ramses, I will do it again for you. How many bases do you have? Now, take that number, and... ADD 1 TO IT. Or do you need a rule saying you can add models to squads all of a sudden? Cause apparently you are telling a lot of people they dont know how to add?

Actually, I have models on bases, not just bases - bases would be proxying. Is this rule forcing me to proxy? Most tournaments don't allow proxying, so does that mean this ability can't be used in tournaments?

then also have to say that, "adding to" is not defined in the BRB and therefore you have no permission to, ".....ADD 1 to it".

You right, you would need something, in a codex perhaps, maybe a special rule or a unit entry, that lets you add to a unit.

This will probably be FAQ'd to work just like placing Necron Warriors who reenter play via a successful Reanimation Protocols roll (i.e. they need to be placed in coherency with a base that existed at the beginning of the turn) and that is how we have been playing it.

Yad wrote:I'm going to excise a good bit of this to avoid a giant wall of text...

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
There is the first problem: you've assumed "adding to" permits you to place a model anywhere on the table. Seeing as the rules are permissive, what rule are you referring to that allows such placement. Your argument basically boils down to: it doesn't say I can't.

This is frankly quite frustrating. We can go in a circle with this one point. Seeing as the rules are permissive, what rule are you referring to that forces you to place the base in coherency? You're argument basically boils down to, "Even though it doesn't say I have too, I should."

As I pointed out in my previous post, there is a general perception a unit must always stay in unit coherency. Yes, this is derived from the rules defined in the Movement phase, but other rulings, including the FAQs, support this perception applies to other phases of the game. I used the idea of deployment as an example of how this general perception applies to all aspects of the game, not just Movement.

What you're saying is since the rule doesn't state the model has be placed in unit coherence it can be place anywhere on the board. Mind you, the rule also doesn't state the model CAN be placed anywhere on the board. Now, general perception dictates the model is placed in coherency with the unit. Yes, I know it's not a rule but, per my previous post, it's a well established perception. Models are deployed in coherency, models move in coherency, models run in coherency, models assault in coherency, models fall back in coherency. Yes, there are times the unit is not in coherency, when models are removed from the table. Given all the precedence surrounding this general perception, it's easy to see how the created Scarab model must be placed in coherency with the unit.

What precedence is there for adding a model to a unit such the added model is not in unit coherency? Is there a general perception permitting this? A common method of play? A BRB example? Codex support? FAQ? A WD battle report? Ever? Beyond this thread (and those derived from this thread), I've never seen it suggested.

When you go against general perception you need to have substantial proof or at least a well accepted precedence to justify the deviation. You haven't provided it. There is no rule permitting you to place a model just anywhere on the table.

Well written Great Avatar. I agree with your point. GW most definitively sees units as a formation of models, and the only time they expect an occurrence of being OOF is from taking casualties. This is the best use of RAI i have seen and is well applied.
I wiill however point out that YAD is by RAW correct. It is a dickish move to abuse this oversite by GW, but legal. That being said, there are a lot of things I could point out that is bad RAW.

The reason I'm posting is I have an interesting hypothetical to raise, brought on by this mess. Lets say I have a largish unit of scarabs spread out really wide. They take some damage and loose all but 2 models, choosing to leave the 2 on the farthest end from each other. They are out of coherency, but that's legal. Now, a Tomb spider 'adds' one scarab. No matter where I place it, it will be out of coherency from part of the unit. Can I add a scarab out of coherency?

I would say it needs to be in coherency with 1 of the 2 remaining scarabs.

Im bored. Saw this thread was still going on. Thought id chime in again. Adding a model is permitted as its a action in the special rules of a codex that takes precedence over those in brb. Also in no definition of add in any language/context (coz i know how much you love context) defines there is a minimum distance for two(or more) objects to be compiled to form a sum sum of total objects. And to stop someone saying but it doesn't say how to place it... It does. It tells you in the spyders rules to place the base

Wrong, specific overrides general is how the rules work. Try again

Config - actually the rules of the game are permissive and not restrictive as you claimed, so your entire argument is null. Otherwise I win on a 2+ on 2D6, because no rule says I dont.

I'm not sure what the current arguement is as I dont want to backtrack and read everyones comments. To OP : Each unit of Spyders creates the scarabs at the same time, being the movement phase, but because you switch to different squads of spyders for creating scarabs, this happens: Squad 1 adds their scarbs in unit coherency, then squad 2 adds their scarabs, also able to use the now created scarabs from squad 1 and squad 3 is able to add theirs to the scarbs created by 1 and 2. This creates a +2" addition of movement with coherency per squad of spyders, not 6" per squad.

When the faq comes out, I wouldnt be surprised if they are considered all created at once, and forcing the created scarabs to use the scarabs in the squad from the previous turn only. Until then, the +6" coheerency rule will stay.

I'm not sure what the last poster said as I don't want to backtrack and read their comments. To last poster: I feel like what you had to say was an uninformed opinion.

I like jaytester's example. It occurs to me that if you were of the belief that you couldn't add bases to a unit of scarabs that would end up being out of coherency with the unit, you would also logically have to conclude that you could not add bases to a unit that had suffered casualties as jaytester described. Is there anyone who can make an argument against said thought experiment? Otherwise, it seems to me that either side will now have "extraordinary" situations that arise from their argumentation.

cluggy89 wrote: It tells you in the spyders rules to place the base

But... a base isn't the same thing as a model of a scarab swarm. Placing a base is a proxy, and proxies aren't allowed in tournaments.

I like how asinine you can take a rule to show how asinine people are being.......hahahahaha!

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
As I pointed out in my previous post, there is a general perception a unit must always stay in unit coherency. Yes, this is derived from the rules defined in the Movement phase, but other rulings, including the FAQs, support this perception applies to other phases of the game. I used the idea of deployment as an example of how this general perception applies to all aspects of the game, not just Movement.

Once again I disagree (no surprise there). There are very specific rules concerning when a unit must remain in coherency. Any 'general perception' you allude to is yours and yours alone (i.e., esoteric in nature, not supported by actual rules). You have created this perception to fill in a gap in the rules that was brought to light by the Scarab Hive rule.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What you're saying is since the rule doesn't state the model has be placed in unit coherence it can be place anywhere on the board. Mind you, the rule also doesn't state the model CAN be placed anywhere on the board. Now, general perception dictates the model is placed in coherency with the unit. Yes, I know it's not a rule but, per my previous post, it's a well established perception. Models are deployed in coherency, models move in coherency, models run in coherency, models assault in coherency, models fall back in coherency. Yes, there are times the unit is not in coherency, when models are removed from the table. Given all the precedence surrounding this general perception, it's easy to see how the created Scarab model must be placed in coherency with the unit.

If the rules don't state you are required to place the model in coherency with the nominated unit, but it does state that you place the model. Where does that leave you? Anywhere on the board. Perception is relative to the observer.

1.) Models have to be deployed in coherency. False It's generally a good idea to do so as you would be forced to move in the subsequent phases, but it's not necessary to do so. I can't stress this enough...it is NOT a necessary condition for deployment to place your unit in coherency.

2.) Models Move in Coherency. True Because they are required to by the rules.

3.) Models assault in Coherency Partially True As I understand it, it may be possible during the course of an assault (I'm thinking multi-assault) that a unit may be 'pulled' apart to fight. I would think that the consolidation move and subsequent Movement would force the unit to get back into coherency.

4.) Models fall back in coherency. [b]Pretty sure that's True too[b]

You understand that you are not referencing a 'perception' in any of these statements, right? These all trace back to actual rules. You are using these statements to create a game mechanic (i.e., rule) to define how you believe 'add to' works. If I've got it right you are in essence saying that, due to the very specific rules regarding the Movement of models within a unit, you must, when increasing the size of a unit, do so in coherency. Even though this has nothing to do with the actual Coherency rules. Even though the coherency rules allow for units to be out of coherency for multiple phases/turns.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What precedence is there for adding a model to a unit such the added model is not in unit coherency? Is there a general perception permitting this? A common method of play? A BRB example? Codex support? FAQ? A WD battle report? Ever? Beyond this thread (and those derived from this thread), I've never seen it suggested.

The rules for Deployment is all the precedence you need.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:When you go against general perception you need to have substantial proof or at least a well accepted precedence to justify the deviation. You haven't provided it. There is no rule permitting you to place a model just anywhere on the table.

We've all been making the same assumptions about how we deploy a unit. Those assumptions though are not grounded in actual rules. We deploy our units in coherency because we know that when the Movement phase begins we will need to end our Move in coherency. That does not mean we are forced to deploy the unit in coherency in the first place. As you so astutely observed, it creates the perception we must but that does not equate to an actual rule.

-Yad

Another wall of text that you fail to show another one of your assumptions, deploying out of coherency, is allowed.

You champion that the rules for deploying/adding to does not include RAW that requires coherency. Yet neither do they include RAW that ALLOWS you to deploy/add to out of coherency.

Do you see where that approach of the rules is wrong?

The rules for removing a model as a casualty does not include RAW that your opponent then gets to smash your model with a hammer. Yet neither does it NOT allow your opponent to smash your models that are removed as casualties.

As has been proven countless times in this forum,

"The rules don't say I can't, so I can!"

Is not a valid argument.

As it stands the argument is as follows;

When deploying units you.....

A. You are required to deploy them in coherency (that has no RAW support)
B. You are allowed to deploy them out of coherency (that has no RAW support)

You place option B as having more pull then option A, and can give no reason other then no RAW support which works exactly against your stance just as effectively.

Brother Ramses wrote:Another wall of text that you fail to show another one of your assumptions, deploying out of coherency, is allowed.

You champion that the rules for deploying/adding to does not include RAW that requires coherency. Yet neither do they include RAW that ALLOWS you to deploy/add to out of coherency.

Do you see where that approach of the rules is wrong?

The rules for removing a model as a casualty does not include RAW that your opponent then gets to smash your model with a hammer. Yet neither does it NOT allow your opponent to smash your models that are removed as casualties.

As has been proven countless times in this forum,

"The rules don't say I can't, so I can!"

Is not a valid argument.

This is nonsense. Your failure to understand leads you to the conclusion that this is the argument I'm making. I've been completely consistent in my assertions that it is the Scarab Hive rule itself, and now since the discussion has turned to Deployment, which allows you to do this.

Brother Ramses wrote:As it stands the argument is as follows;

When deploying units you.....

A. You are required to deploy them in coherency (that has no RAW support)
B. You are allowed to deploy them out of coherency (that has no RAW support)

You place option B as having more pull then option A, and can give no reason other then no RAW support which works exactly against your stance just as effectively.

You are accusing me of putting forth a viewpoint which you yourself are guilty of holding.

A. You are required to deploy them in coherency (that has no RAW support)
B. You are allowed to deploy them out of coherency (that has no RAW support)

You place option A as having more pull then option B, and can give no reason other then no RAW support which works exactly against your stance just as effectively

There is a third option:

C.) Both option A and B are equally valid. As neither breaks the rules for Deployment. Indeed the rules for Deployment support each scenario.

I believe that this is a mistake on GW's part to not include language forcing you to deploy in coherency. The same for the Scarab Hive rule.

-Yad

Actually, I am not guilty of it because I am not basing it on RAW at all but the context given for units in general with regard to coherency. Not that I place context over RAW, but I will over just arbitrarily creating an allowance for deploying/adding to out of coherency which you have been arguing.

Nos did you read your last post? specific beats general. The codex SPECIFICALLY tells you to add a base. And the whole base/proxy rubbish pg3 brb BASES (describing the term bases)
citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game... Hmmm pretty sure this settles that part

cluggy89 wrote:Nos did you read your last post? specific beats general. The codex SPECIFICALLY tells you to add a base. And the whole base/proxy rubbish pg3 brb BASES (describing the term bases)
citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game... Hmmm pretty sure this settles that part

... Not at all. That specifies that you must use a base supplied with the model you're using. It does not say that a base refers to a model.

Also the rules tell you how you can win games so the whole i win if i roll a six thing doesn't work... Unless your playing with custom rules of course


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rule i quoted says that the model has to be glued onto the base already so it kinda does

cluggy89 wrote:Also the rules tell you how you can win games so the whole i win if i roll a six thing doesn't work... Unless your playing with custom rules of course


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rule i quoted says that the model has to be glued onto the base already so it kinda does

Custom rules? You mean deployoying or adding to a unit out of coherency? Nice to see you finally come around.

If you say you have to deploy in coherency or add a base in coherency when none of the rules tell you it is required that is YOU customising the rules. You want me to spell it out for you, ok, the requirements for aadding a base to the unit are clearly defined in the spyders rules. You saying oh but they have to be in coherency is ridiculous. So what if some people think its broken or unfair it is the rules. Its not like gw ever mess up and make something way too powerful now is it?

WOW. More people making up their own rules.

1. I don't see anyone knowing the rules that will allow you to add bases outside coherency.

2. I don't see anyone running a tourney that is going to let you conga line scarabs.

3. The rules not saying you can do something does not allow you to do what you want.

Adding to means to add. A unit on the table must be in coherency when it moves. You are making Scarabs before you move and it should be common sense that the rules are set up this way so you can add scarabs and them move them. They are not saying that you can put a scarab across the table 40 inches away from the unit. You have to see a rule in BLACK AND WHITE that says you can add bases outside of coherency. You do not get to make up your own rules.

Start of the Movement Phase. Once you stop rolling for scarabs you are done. There is no going back. The Start is what it is. THE START. If you make 3 and then place them you are done. You don't get to roll more dice because it is no longer the start of the movement phase.

Most places I've been to allow this for the time being due to RAW, but EVERYONE agrees this is an extreme BS list and will more than likely get the FAQ chop, on the other hand though....It IS nice to see this list smash GK (sorry GK players , I'm on the side of the fence that thinks your ENTIRE codex is cheese lol)

Some horrible GK players if they are letting a Scarab Swarm list wreck them.

And Chuggy, I am not basing coherency at deployment or at adding to on the RAW, but on context alone. However you do not have RAW or context to base your argument on.

Adding to a unit does not tell you either in coherency or out.

Deploying a unit does not tell you either in coherency or out.

Placing a base does not tell you either in coherency or out.

At no time do you have RAW support or even context to place them out of coherency. Being required to place/add to/deploy them in coherency does not have RAW support either, however it does have contextual support.

So keep barking up the no coherency tree all you want. It has no RAW support or contextual support which when compared to having to place them in coherency, just does not stand up to scrutiny.

Okay what contextual support do you have for it meaning in coherency?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What you on about doesn't stand up to scrutiny? I've provided evidence against everything you've said that attempts to disprove my case.

I finally got home and was able to crack open my BRB and realized a couple of things,

1. Overview of Play in the BRB tells us under the Movement Phase that each member of a squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times.

2. We are told later on in Models & Units that warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups.

So addressing the Scarab Swarm placement, we now have RAW that they must be placed in coherency because as stated, each member of a squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times. The exceptions to staying within 2" at all times is given in Unit Coherency;

1. "So, once a unit has finished moving, the models must form and imaginary chain......."

2. "During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency....."

These are the only times a unit is allowed to break coherency and then are instructed how to return to being within 2" at all times.

Moving onto the premise that you can deploy out of coherency, you once again touch on the Order of Play statement that during the Movement Phase;

1. "Each member of the squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times."

While you are not told to deploy in coherency, you are told that during the Movement Phase you need to be within 2" of a squad-mate at all times, with the only exceptions being listed in the Unit Coherency section. At all times would include the exact moment you end deployment and begin the Movement Phase.

Before it is said that you are then required to move into coherency during the Movement phase, you need to note that it is said,

"DURING the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency...."

As some of you have been keen to point out, deployment does not happen during the game, it happens before the game so that exception does not apply to deploying out of coherency and then using the first Movement phase to regain unit coherency.

Cluggy - the context is that, EVERY time you EVER add to / join / increase the numbers of / "with" during a game, EVERY TIME, this is in coherency

THERE is your context. You have NO permission to place the model out of coherency, NONE, because context dictates what "add to" means.

Again: you can play this in pick up games all you like, convincing locals that youre right, however do not attempt it at any southern tournament (cant think of any TO i know that will let this through) or outside of your locality, as it is a known about attempt to break the way the game works, and wont be tolerated.

Can you give me page numbers of this context please.

Cna you give me the page number which defines "add to" please

If you cant you still lack rules.

What the hell dude? So now your not even going to show me exactly where your getting the context from? Seems a bit petty to be honest. I've told you that add to is not described anywhere besides a dictionary and seeing as how it is not said that coherency is required, the logical deduction is that it is not required. So again your talking lot of context so show me exactly where your getting it from?

Read the 10 or so posts made on this that clarify EXACTLY where the context comes from: EVERY SINGLE time you EVER add / join / increase the number of / are "with" a unit you do so with reference to coherency.

Find an instance where, during a game, you increase the unit without doing so in coherency, and you would have a counter. You cannot (because you cannot use the scarab rule here, oddly enough) so you do not

Are you incapable of a straight answer? no one has provided any page reference to any context relating to add. All that's been said about it is what you just said. Now your saying the context supports your answer, you say everytime you add its in coherency. Tell me the page number of where your getting this information, simply saying Aw but context says is getting rather redundant when you don't say exactly where your getting it from. So i ask again, what exactly is this "context" you speak of?

I've given a straight answer, you just dont like it because it interferes with your desire to be able to place a model anywhere you like on the table.
I've given my support - now you must find a counter, otherwise your extraordinary claim is just that - a claim, un supproted by anything in the game

Note: do not keep posting rule-less demands that one side prove theirs while you remain utterly incapable of doing the same for your argument, as this breaks the tenets of the forum. Additional demands, like the one above, will simply be ignored as irrelevant and spam

I notice that you are completely ignroing my post Chuggy that does give you the relevent context you keep demanding.

How about you quote my post and then break it down to still allow you to place/add to a unit out of coherency?

Why not just say where your getting this "context" from? Your the one who thinks its soooo important in the game. And if you had read my 1st or 2nd post i said i have no desire in doing it, Im arguing this case because i am correct until someone provides RULES that says otherwise. So far none has said rules that say that this brakes them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ramses how about you get my name right for a start and if were allowing context then that tells us that we can move out of coherency. It tells us that models have to stay in coherency otherwise they take a punishment in the next movement phase also in the ic section it says they can move out of coherency to exit the unit. You can't pick and choose what context to follow.

cluggy89 wrote:Ramses how about you get my name right for a start and if were allowing context then that tells us that we can move out of coherency. It tells us that models have to stay in coherency otherwise they take a punishment in the next movement phase also in the ic section it says they can move out of coherency to exit the unit. You can't pick and choose what context to follow.

Right - ICs explicitly allow you to move out of coherency. Can you show where you think context "tells us that we can move out of coherency" when the rules explicitly do not allow that?

And nowhere in unit coherency does it say anything about adding so no you have not posted anything that is relevant to adding chief


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So the moving ooc rule is applied only to ic's but they're join/leaving rules apply to all? How does that make any sense when they are both under independent characters section. Also one of the buliten points says "while an independent character is part of a unit he must obey he usual coherency rules"

Huh? Rigeld was responding to your hilarious argument that non-IC units can voluntarily move out of coherency, showing how baseless an argument it is.

So, any rules to counter the ones we've provided many, many times in the last 12 pages?

cluggy89 wrote:So the moving ooc rule is applied only to ic's but they're join/leaving rules apply to all? How does that make any sense when they are both under independent characters section. Also one of the buliten points says "while an independent character is part of a unit he must obey he usual coherency rules"

Yes, he must obey all usual coherency rules. He is also given permission to leave the unit. These two things do not conflict.
You do not have permission to have a unit move out of coherency - in fact, there are explicit rules on page 12 that require you to maintain coherency during movement.

The join/leave coherency requirements give context to words like "add" and "with" when reading the rules.

edit: Your move, "chief".

Yeah my argument is baseless as opposed to yours which takes rules from ic's and place them wildly into a simple word like add when there is NOTHING telling you to do so. The rules for canoptek spyders say nothing about coherency so it is NOT a factor. Give me one RULE that states otherwise please. Can you not see that adding your own definition of a word is wrong, regardless of how you justify changing it?

Sigh, irrelevant posts abound, apparently

Your move, "chief"

Rigeld what Im saying is if your getting this context that models getting added comes from the joining rules from ic's then why cant i use the rule for moving ooc from the exact same page when both rules are only for ic's?

cluggy89 wrote:Yeah my argument is baseless as opposed to yours which takes rules from ic's and place them wildly into a simple word like add when there is NOTHING telling you to do so. The rules for canoptek spyders say nothing about coherency so it is NOT a factor. Give me one RULE that states otherwise please. Can you not see that adding your own definition of a word is wrong, regardless of how you justify changing it?

Either you allow context to influence interpretations of the rules, or you go by dictionary definitions for every word. The latter is impossible and results in an absolutely unplayable rule set.

Irrelevant post yeah? Show me Im wrong tell me where it says within coherency go i urge you. Forget your context rubbish its irrelevant the rules are the rules. Now go. Show me Im wrong.

cluggy89 wrote:Rigeld what Im saying is if your getting this context that models getting added comes from the joining rules from ic's then why cant i use the rule for moving ooc from the exact same page when both rules are only for ic's?

Because the rules on page 12 explicitly require a unit to stay in coherency. The rules on page 48/49 explicitly allow ICs to break coherency as an exception to the rules on page 12.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cluggy89 wrote:Irrelevant post yeah? Show me Im wrong tell me where it says within coherency go i urge you. Forget your context rubbish its irrelevant the rules are the rules. Now go. Show me Im wrong.

Irrelevant post? You're actually arguing that you must use dictionary definitions for every word, and context is impossible?

There goes FNP, just off the top of my head.

Rigeld give me one thing that doesn't work when using correct definitions

cluggy89 wrote:Rigeld give me one thing that doesn't work when using correct definitions

FNP. Injury has no rules definition.

How is feel no pain negated by correct interpretations it tells you everything you need to know if it suffered an unsaved wound roll a d6 on a 4+ ignore the wound. What's wrong about that

Wrong, on a 4+ you ignore the injury.

cluggy89 wrote:How is feel no pain negated by correct interpretations it tells you everything you need to know if it suffered an unsaved wound roll a d6 on a 4+ ignore the wound. What's wrong about that

It says to ignore the injury. Injury has no rules definition, therefore without context you are ignoring fluff.

edit: and ignoring fluff means that models will still decrement their wounds stat, and be removed at 0 wounds.

Wound and injury are the same meaning

cluggy89 wrote:Wound and injury are the same meaning

Wrong.

Wounds have an explicit rules definition. Injury does not. Assigning them the same meaning means you're using context.

No they're synonyms of each other and besides even if you do use context the rule says add not join and according to you even if it did say join the rule doesn't give you permission to use the IC's rule for joining

During the course of a game, it's possible that a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties.

After reading the above for the umpteenth time, I have realized there are three conditions required to follow all of the rules in the second paragraph of p.12.

1. It must happen during the course of the game.
2. The unit must be broken up.
3. The unit must lose coherency.

Each of these is delineated separately, and so must be observed separately. There are two issues on the table:

1. Deployment
2. The scarab hive wargear

Here is how each of them ignores one of those conditions:

1. Deployment is not during the course of the game. Ergo, condition one is not satisfied. Units deployed out of coherency from the beginning of the game must only obey coherency when they have been broken up during the course of play.

2. New scarabs are created during the game, and definitely disobey coherency if placed outside of 2" of the other models in their unit. As the squad is never "broken up" (the squad has expended in size, and cannot have been broken up as new members have been added) it also does not obey the further rules for coherency until the squad loses a model, just as with the example with deployed squads immediately former.

On a fundamental level, the deployment scenario I just presented does not play the game of 40k in a way that any given group of players will agree to. In effect, it reduces this line of reasoning to absurdity.

In order for the game as a whole to function, therefore, the scarabs must be deployed in coherency.

BUT:
There are several ways to determine when the scarabs are laid out, and coherency, while I now agree should be enforced as a general principle in all phases, especially with emphasis to movement, is only CHECKED in the movement phase. In the case of created scarabs, their NEXT movement phase.

In conclusion:
I believe that, assuming the creation is simultaneous, a new set of scarabs that exists within coherency, without regards to where its members might have been in regards to said coherency before their creation, is allowable.

If you are of the belief that the turn starts with "triggers", then to create the "conga line" all you have to do is place the scarabs one-at-a-time until the line is complete.

IN EITHER RESPECT, the "conga line" is possible. If someone could explain to me what their reasoning is to refute this position, please let me know.

PSA:
I played in a tourney where this tactic was legal. Weeks ago.

cluggy89 wrote:No they're connotations of each other and besides even if you do use context the rule says add not join and according to you even if it did say join the rule doesn't give you permission to use the IC's rule for joining

con·no·ta·tion/ˌkänəˈtāSHən/
Noun:
An idea or feeling that a word invokes for a person in addition to its literal or primary meaning.
The implication of such ideas or feelings.

con·text/ˈkäntekst/
Noun:
The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

Not that it matters as you've stated that nothing outside of literal definitions and rules matters. I've given you an example of why that way of reading rules results in the 40k universe imploding. You're trying to argue that a connotation is not essentially the same thing as using context to define a word. Which of those is the more logical argument?

cluggy89 wrote:Why not just say where your getting this "context" from? Your the one who thinks its soooo important in the game. And if you had read my 1st or 2nd post i said i have no desire in doing it, Im arguing this case because i am correct until someone provides RULES that says otherwise. So far none has said rules that say that this brakes them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ramses how about you get my name right for a start and if were allowing context then that tells us that we can move out of coherency. It tells us that models have to stay in coherency otherwise they take a punishment in the next movement phase also in the ic section it says they can move out of coherency to exit the unit. You can't pick and choose what context to follow.

Clug, as I have mentioned there exist no RAW for adding to/placing bases/units in coherency as is their neither any permission to add to/place bases/units out of coherency. I am now speaking of the RAW, not context, that units must always maintain coherency during the game.

As I mentioned, I finally got a chance to go over my BRB last night and instead of trying to find the requirement for coherency in the rules for placement/adding to/deployment, I instead looked at the properties required by units to be units and maintain being units.

The relevant property being that units must maintain coherency at all times. This is referenced in the beginning of the book in the section titled, "Overview of Play" and later on in the Unit Coherency rules where exceptions to break coherency are given and the requirement/instructions to reacquire it are given. As you have pointed out, additional coherency exceptions are given to IC and IC alone.

Now, if we follow your reasoning that you are allowed to place new bases out of coherency, you break the RAW that units must maintain coherency at all times and with placement/adding to not one of the specified exceptions given, you are not allowed to place them out of coherency. This isn't contextual, this is the RAW.

Now if you want to say that placing/adding to is not movement and therefore not bound by the rules for Unit Coherency, you still run into the fact that the properties of being a unit, per the Overview of Play as well as the properties for units explained in the BRB both still require that you maintain coherency. The Overview of Play note even goes on to say that you must maintain coherency at all times which if you intentionally place models out of coherency, you are doing so without a specified exception to always maintaining coherency.

@Ramses:

Overview of Play comes before the section headed "Rules" and is designed for an at-a-glance example of a game. Nowhere in the rules are the terms "squad" or "squad-mate" defined.

If this section were to be followed, please note that a space marine who fired a blast template and rolled a 3 or higher would never scatter.

In any case, I think my last post posed the more relevant question, that being, "Why does coherency matter?"

Okay thank you i see your point. So the only way to Conga line scarabs is if you believe that their creation is not at the exact same time... Which i don't. okay i said i would so, i was wrong i concede lol... Maybe not. The rules of units only say they have to stay together to be an effective fighting force. Not that they simply have to stay together

@cluggy89: I believe that the "conga line" works using current rules regardless of whether viewed through a lens of a series of "triggered" events at the start of the turn, or through the lens of "everything is instant". I cannot find the relevance of coherency to the discussion.

Honestly, if anyone can give any kind of argument against either of the beginning-of-turn interpretations, it would be much appreciated.

Yeah kitzz i honestly never even noticed that the overview of play wasn't in the rules can't believe i almost conceded in something i was right about. Just glad you posted that when you did lol

Kitzz wrote:@Ramses:

Overview of Play comes before the section headed "Rules" and is designed for an at-a-glance example of a game. Nowhere in the rules are the terms "squad" or "squad-mate" defined.

If this section were to be followed, please note that a space marine who fired a blast template and rolled a 3 or higher would never scatter.

In any case, I think my last post posed the more relevant question, that being, "Why does coherency matter?"

Squad is defined under Models & Units iirc.

If you want to go down the road of undefined words, adding to/placing are undefined. Guess creating Scarab Swarms is a useless waste of a dice roll because you don't have anything to do with them once they are created right?

And Overview of Play is just as relevant to the rules section. It gives you a quick glance an explanation of various nuances of gameplay. Model profiles are clearly relevant in relation to a characteristic test that may have to be taken according to the rules section as is infantry movement and weapon profiles.

On that page there are several sources of information that are directly relevant, including the requirement that units must maintain coherency at all times. This is reinforced by the Unit Coherency rules that specifically give you exceptions as to when coherency can be broken and the requirement to regain it as soon as gameplay mechanics allow.

jayjester wrote:
I wiill however point out that YAD is by RAW correct. It is a dickish move to abuse this oversite by GW, but legal. That being said, there are a lot of things I could point out that is bad RAW.

That's just it...YAD hasn't provided RAW to support his claim. The only thing he has provided is "add to" doesn't say I can't.

The reason I'm posting is I have an interesting hypothetical to raise, brought on by this mess. Lets say I have a largish unit of scarabs spread out really wide. They take some damage and loose all but 2 models, choosing to leave the 2 on the farthest end from each other. They are out of coherency, but that's legal. Now, a Tomb spider 'adds' one scarab. No matter where I place it, it will be out of coherency from part of the unit. Can I add a scarab out of coherency?

The created Scarab is placed in coherency with either Scarab.

cluggy89 wrote:Okay thank you i see your point. So the only way to Conga line scarabs is if you believe that their creation is not at the exact same time... Which i don't. okay i said i would so, i was wrong i concede lol... Maybe not. The rules of units only say they have to stay together to be an effective fighting force. Not that they simply have to stay together

You mean the rules that say "So once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between..." (emphasis added).
Or what rules are you talking about that allow you to voluntarily break coherency (and just not be an effective fighting force)?

The whole do this or this will happen. And i was referring to the units section of the rulebook and the rules from unit coherency you just stated don't matter here as it has nothing to do with the unit moving. So even the can't move out of coherency thing doesn't apply as nothing is "moving" they are getting placed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't think you can move out of coherency i was saying it earlier to prove a point that contradictions were happening due to context

cluggy89 wrote:So even the can't move out of coherency thing doesn't apply as nothing is "moving" they are getting placed.

They are getting added to an existing unit.

Add to, by context, means the same thing as joining a unit, right?

To join a unit, we know that you must be within 2" of said unit.

No. To join a unit ic's have to be within 2" no limitations exist for normal models. And as has been pointed out you cannot take rules that are only for ic's

cluggy89 wrote:No. To join a unit ic's have to be within 2" no limitations exist for normal models. And as has been pointed out you cannot take rules that are only for ic's

No limitations exist for normal models because there are no normal rules for normal models to be added during the game.
And I'm not using IC rules directly - I'm using context to define words that have no rules basis.

It's not a key word based ruleset, like Magic or Warmachine is. Haven't we been over this in a dozen incarnations?

Daemon Princes are Daemons, case in point, don't need the special "daemon" rule to be so.

Yad wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
As I pointed out in my previous post, there is a general perception a unit must always stay in unit coherency. Yes, this is derived from the rules defined in the Movement phase, but other rulings, including the FAQs, support this perception applies to other phases of the game. I used the idea of deployment as an example of how this general perception applies to all aspects of the game, not just Movement.

Once again I disagree (no surprise there). There are very specific rules concerning when a unit must remain in coherency. Any 'general perception' you allude to is yours and yours alone (i.e., esoteric in nature, not supported by actual rules). You have created this perception to fill in a gap in the rules that was brought to light by the Scarab Hive rule.

Again, the general perception is not mine alone, the vast majority of players have it. Hell, I was taught it thus I haven't created anything.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What you're saying is since the rule doesn't state the model has be placed in unit coherence it can be place anywhere on the board. Mind you, the rule also doesn't state the model CAN be placed anywhere on the board. Now, general perception dictates the model is placed in coherency with the unit. Yes, I know it's not a rule but, per my previous post, it's a well established perception. Models are deployed in coherency, models move in coherency, models run in coherency, models assault in coherency, models fall back in coherency. Yes, there are times the unit is not in coherency, when models are removed from the table. Given all the precedence surrounding this general perception, it's easy to see how the created Scarab model must be placed in coherency with the unit.

If the rules don't state you are required to place the model in coherency with the nominated unit, but it does state that you place the model. Where does that leave you? Anywhere on the board. Perception is relative to the observer.

That's where your logic begins to fall apart. You've assumed since the rule doesn't state coherency you're free to ignore it. You've taken the idea of "add to" and stretched it to satisfy your argument. You would be hard pressed to show that two models six feet apart are in the same unit. This is what your suggesting.

You understand that you are not referencing a 'perception' in any of these statements, right? These all trace back to actual rules. You are using these statements to create a game mechanic (i.e., rule) to define how you believe 'add to' works. If I've got it right you are in essence saying that, due to the very specific rules regarding the Movement of models within a unit, you must, when increasing the size of a unit, do so in coherency. Even though this has nothing to do with the actual Coherency rules. Even though the coherency rules allow for units to be out of coherency for multiple phases/turns.

A unit is defined to be a group of models in coherency. There are specific instances that a unit is not in coherency. You haven't shown that "add to" is one of those specific instances.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What precedence is there for adding a model to a unit such the added model is not in unit coherency? Is there a general perception permitting this? A common method of play? A BRB example? Codex support? FAQ? A WD battle report? Ever? Beyond this thread (and those derived from this thread), I've never seen it suggested.

The rules for Deployment is all the precedence you need.

The rule of deployment? You're equating "add to" to deployment? Is that your argument?

We've all been making the same assumptions about how we deploy a unit. Those assumptions though are not grounded in actual rules. We deploy our units in coherency because we know that when the Movement phase begins we will need to end our Move in coherency. That does not mean we are forced to deploy the unit in coherency in the first place. As you so astutely observed, it creates the perception we must but that does not equate to an actual rule.

Yep, you're right. The rule doesn't specifically state the unit must be deployed in coherency. The reason it's done has little to do with tactics as much as accepted practice. Again, this perception goes far beyond an mere assumption. The meme is an accepted implied rule.

In the end, it's incumbent upon you to show "add to" mean you can place the created Scarab anywhere on the table. You haven't done that.

But we can say for certainty that they are classed as deamons due to faqs so until such faq comes out saying that adding includes coherency it doesn't. And i was using context to allow models to move ooc which is supposedly never allowed so tell me why you think you can add the join rules to normal models but not coherency. Context tells us the definitions of words not their purpose in a set of rules. Add to means exactly what it says. Add one to the rest.

Seriously, does anyone have an argument to show that coherency matters in this situation? I can obey every iteration of coherency rules posited by the posters on this forum, and still use the tactic, as far as I can tell. If someone has an answer, please let me know.

Kitzz wrote:@cluggy89: I believe that the "conga line" works using current rules regardless of whether viewed through a lens of a series of "triggered" events at the start of the turn, or through the lens of "everything is instant". I cannot find the relevance of coherency to the discussion.

Honestly, if anyone can give any kind of argument against either of the beginning-of-turn interpretations, it would be much appreciated.

The relevance of coherency to the conga line tactic exists in that the Caoptek Spyder nominates an existing Scarab unit at the start of the Necron movement phase. It is that existing unit, nominated at the start of the Necron movement phase, that created Scarab Swarms must be placed into coherency.

Per the RAW,

Canoptek Spyder 1 nominates Scarab unit A at the start of the Necron movement phase.
Canoptek Spyder 2 nominates Scarab unit A at the start of the Necron movement phase.

Canoptek Spyder 1 creates Scarab unit B, it must be placed within coherency to Scarab unit A.
Canoptek Spyder 2 creates Scarab unit C, it must be placed within coherency to Scarab unit A.

For the conga line to work;

Canoptek Spyder 2 creates Scarab unit C, and places it within coherency to Scarab unit AB.

Well, Scarab unit AB was not the unit nominated at the start of the Necron movement phase. The unit "footprint" nominated at the start of the Necron movement phase is Scarab unit A, not Scarab unit AB.

The argument was originally whether or not the added scarabs all had to be in coherency with the original nominated swarm. If they do, then yes, coherency matters, and the tactic fails. It they just have to be in coherency, then the tactic is viable.

I wonder how fun it would be to introduce,

"A Canoptek Spyder...."

Is not the same as,

"Any Canoptek Spyder..."

I could just see it now,

"Has "A" Canoptek Spyder nominated a unit at the start of the Necron Movement phase? Well guess you can't nominate anymore since the conditions of "A" Canoptek Spyder nominating a unit at the start of the Necron Movement phase has been done."

"A person that has a rulebook can read the rules" is exactly the same meaning as "Any person that has rulebook can read the rules."

cluggy89 wrote:But we can say for certainty that they are classed as deamons due to faqs so until such faq comes out saying that adding includes coherency it doesn't.

And now you're back to "it doesn't say I can't so I can". That's not the way 40k rules work.

And i was using context to allow models to move ooc which is supposedly never allowed so tell me why you think you can add the join rules to normal models but not coherency.

Because there is a rule saying normal models cannot move out of coherency. That sentence isn't ambiguous - it's 100% inarguable.

There's no rules definition for "add to", so first we look at context. What rules do exist for one model to be added to a unit?
Well, ICs join and leave units all the time. Since normal models can't leave a unit (because of the aforementioned inability to leave coherency) we'll look at joining.
An IC that is within 2" of an eligible unit is joined to that unit. Joining a unit is similar to adding to a unit (conceptually) so those two things are similar enough to use the same rules.

Context tells us the definitions of words not their purpose in a set of rules. Add to means exactly what it says. Add one to the rest.

You're wrong - by defining words that are used in a set of rules, we can know what the rules actually mean. By using that definition of "add to" you've fallen back to the dictionary definition fallacy.

Yeah im falling back to the dictionary definition because there is NOTHING telling you to introduce coherency into the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no need to draw coherency into the rule or even ask for a context plant of the rules because nowhere in the rule for canoptek spyders does it ask for any sort of coherency/distance placement.

cluggy89 wrote:Yeah im falling back to the dictionary definition because there is NOTHING telling you to introduce coherency into the rule.

Define "add to" using the rules, please. Also, while you're at it, "base".

cluggy89 wrote:"A person that has a rulebook can read the rules" is exactly the same meaning as "Any person that has rulebook can read the rules."

Not in the World of Warhammer 40k.

"A Space Marine may take a meltagun."

Is not the same as,

"Any Space Marine may take a meltagun."

One is a typical tactical squad with a special weapon while the other is a melta hell squad of doom.

A space marine may take a meltagun is never used it always says one space marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I've already defined such like add/place in dictionary and base in rulebook pg 3

Cluggy - BRB definition for "Add to" is now required, as apparently context is not allowed. Oops, there isnt one. Guess you cannot perform anything. Ever.

Stop repeating your "but models can move out of coherency, using context!!!!" argument, because its terrible, has been shown to be terrible, and will always be terrible. It fails as an argument the instant you apply the rule stating you cannot move out of coherency, and context doesnt help with that. Well, a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language does help with it, but then we could be here all day....

cluggy89 wrote:And I've already defined such like add/place in dictionary and base in rulebook pg 3

The "base" on page 3 refers to the black piece of plastic models come with. You're asserting that's what gets placed on the table?

No Im saying the rule for base states that models have to be glued onto the base that comes with it, so in order for the base to be used at all the model has to be on it. And i never said all context is not allowed Im saying nothing in the rule for spyders points you in the direction to look for coherency rules. Especially since your looking at a completely different type of unit. And since were on the topic of context can the spyders go to ground? Monstrous creature so no but in the spyders rule it says it cannot repair even if it goes to ground. Implying it can

cluggy89 wrote:No Im saying the rule for base states that models have to be glued onto the base that comes with it, so in order for the base to be used at all the model has to be on it. And i never said all context is not allowed Im saying nothing in the rule for spyders points you in the direction to look for coherency rules. Especially since your looking at a completely different type of unit. And since were on the topic of context can the spyders go to ground? Monstrous creature so no but in the spyders rule it says it cannot repair even if it goes to ground. Implying it can

For the go to ground - there's no rule allowing it, so no they cannot. That may change with 6E, and if it does, then that sentence is relevant. As of now, it's wasted ink.

To use the model, the model must be glued to the base it was supplied with. There is no rule saying that an empty base cannot be used. (See what I'm doing here? I'm arguing based on rules that don't exist, rather than using ones that do. Isn't that illogical in the 40k world?)

I don't particularly care. There is nothing telling you to spawn them in coherency so until there is a rule that tell you that the created scarabs have to be placed in coherency and not some twisted rule planting il always say this is legal. You can't pick and choose which rule is added due to context because if you think coherency matters to the spyders then you'd have to say they are able to go to ground because the context of the spyders rules specifically says they can. Il say it again you can't pick and choose. Il check back laters... No doubt when i check back noone will have found rules saying this is illegal

cluggy89 wrote:I don't particularly care. There is nothing telling you to spawn them in coherency so until there is a rule that tell you that the created scarabs have to be placed in coherency and not some twisted rule planting il always say this is legal. You can't pick and choose which rule is added due to context because if you think coherency matters to the spyders then you'd have to say they are able to go to ground because the context of the spyders rules specifically says they can. Il say it again you can't pick and choose. Il check back laters... No doubt when i check back noone will have found rules saying this is illegal

You don't understand context. That's all I can think of to explain "if you think coherency matters to the spyders then you'd have to say they are able to go to ground because the context of the spyders rules specifically says they can".

And again - you're misrepresenting the rules. You do not find rules saying X cannot be done. You find rules that say X can be done, and if you don't, it cannot.

Good times.

There is no rule for adding to or placing, so not only do you create one to do it, you also add the stipulation that they can be placed or added to out of coherency.

Interestingly enough, despite no defined rule for placing or adding to, those on the side of coherency understand what GW wants us to do so thus would allow it. However, the Canoptek Spyder rule does not imply, hint, or whisper softly in your ear that placing or adding to also stipulates the Scarab units can also be out of coherency.

While Nos pretty much says you would be laughed out of any tournament if you attempted to do this in the south, I am gonna add the southwest to that list as well as up the ante to probably being blacklisted from most gaming groups in general. Not for being laughable, but borderline cheating.

Wow.

Brother Ramses wrote:I finally got home and was able to crack open my BRB and realized a couple of things,

1. Overview of Play in the BRB tells us under the Movement Phase that each member of a squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times.

Agreed. Coherency must be maintained while Moving. Units that are out of Coherency must move so as to try to end its Movement in Coherency.

Brother Ramses wrote:2. We are told later on in Models & Units that warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups.

lol. Fluff, move along.

Brother Ramses wrote:So addressing the Scarab Swarm placement, we now have RAW that they must be placed in coherency because as stated, each member of a squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times. The exceptions to staying within 2" at all times is given in Unit Coherency;

The correct way of saying this is that when a unit comprised of more than 1 model moves, it must move in such a way as to remain in Coherency (aside from the 1st model moved of course). Good on you to note the exceptions. Bad on you for trying to extend this toward placing a model (which is not Movement).

Brother Ramses wrote:1. "So, once a unit has finished moving, the models must form and imaginary chain......."

2. "During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency....."

These are the only times a unit is allowed to break coherency and then are instructed how to return to being within 2" at all times.

Moving onto the premise that you can deploy out of coherency, you once again touch on the Order of Play statement that during the Movement Phase;

1. "Each member of the squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times."

While you are not told to deploy in coherency, you are told that during the Movement Phase you need to be within 2" of a squad-mate at all times, with the only exceptions being listed in the Unit Coherency section. At all times would include the exact moment you end deployment and begin the Movement Phase.

Couple of things wrong here:

1.) You are never told Deploy out of Coherency.
2.) You correctly note that Deployment does not fall under the umbrella of the Movement phase yet in the same 'breath' you try to apply the rules from the Movement phase to Deployment.

As you've noted earlier, the rules allow for the possiblity that units may lose Coherency. If you were to Deploy out of Coherency, you would then check the squad during the Movement phase, identify the problem and be forced to Move the unit back into Coherency. Simple.

Brother Ramses wrote:Before it is said that you are then required to move into coherency during the Movement phase, you need to note that it is said,

"DURING the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency...."

As some of you have been keen to point out, deployment does not happen during the game, it happens before the game so that exception does not apply to deploying out of coherency and then using the first Movement phase to regain unit coherency.

I said it anyway. So now you are defining what is meant by 'game'? Deployment strikes me as an integral component to game. Indeed, games are at times won or lost on Deployment.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Read the 10 or so posts made on this that clarify EXACTLY where the context comes from: EVERY SINGLE time you EVER add / join / increase the number of / are "with" a unit you do so with reference to coherency.

Find an instance where, during a game, you increase the unit without doing so in coherency, and you would have a counter. You cannot (because you cannot use the scarab rule here, oddly enough) so you do not

So, if GW was so deliberate in their previous rules of how other units/models joined or added to another unit, why is it not here? Your assertion that all of these previous detailed rules for other units somehow creates a context under which the Scarab Hive rule must operate is not sufficient. The Scarab Hive rule is completely self contained. It references two other game mechanics, allowing the Scarab unit to move and assault. Which is quite interesting seeing how that would mean placing a Scarab base doesn't count as Movement (otherwise the entire unit would count as having moved). And is not governed my the Coherency rules as defined in the Movement phase.

-Yad

I Read the spyders rule again... Im actually surprised that no one said that the created scarabs have to be placed within 6" of the spyder itself... Seems possible that this is what it'll be faq'd to. I know there's no reason to think this is the case but would solve alot of issues i suppose

cluggy89 wrote:I Read the spyders rule again... Im actually surprised that no one said that the created scarabs have to be placed within 6" of the spyder itself... Seems possible that this is what it'll be faq'd to. I know there's no reason to think this is the case but would solve alot of issues i suppose

No one said that because that's not the case. The unit they're being added to must be within 6", but the model you're placing doesn't.

Yad wrote:Wow.

Brother Ramses wrote:I finally got home and was able to crack open my BRB and realized a couple of things,

1. Overview of Play in the BRB tells us under the Movement Phase that each member of a squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times.

Agreed. Coherency must be maintained while Moving. Units that are out of Coherency must move so as to try to end its Movement in Coherency.

Brother Ramses wrote:2. We are told later on in Models & Units that warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups.

lol. Fluff, move along.

Brother Ramses wrote:So addressing the Scarab Swarm placement, we now have RAW that they must be placed in coherency because as stated, each member of a squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times. The exceptions to staying within 2" at all times is given in Unit Coherency;

The correct way of saying this is that when a unit comprised of more than 1 model moves, it must move in such a way as to remain in Coherency (aside from the 1st model moved of course). Good on you to note the exceptions. Bad on you for trying to extend this toward placing a model (which is not Movement).

Brother Ramses wrote:1. "So, once a unit has finished moving, the models must form and imaginary chain......."

2. "During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency....."

These are the only times a unit is allowed to break coherency and then are instructed how to return to being within 2" at all times.

Moving onto the premise that you can deploy out of coherency, you once again touch on the Order of Play statement that during the Movement Phase;

1. "Each member of the squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times."

While you are not told to deploy in coherency, you are told that during the Movement Phase you need to be within 2" of a squad-mate at all times, with the only exceptions being listed in the Unit Coherency section. At all times would include the exact moment you end deployment and begin the Movement Phase.

Couple of things wrong here:

1.) You are never told Deploy out of Coherency.
2.) You correctly note that Deployment does not fall under the umbrella of the Movement phase yet in the same 'breath' you try to apply the rules from the Movement phase to Deployment.

As you've noted earlier, the rules allow for the possiblity that units may lose Coherency. If you were to Deploy out of Coherency, you would then check the squad during the Movement phase, identify the problem and be forced to Move the unit back into Coherency. Simple.

Brother Ramses wrote:Before it is said that you are then required to move into coherency during the Movement phase, you need to note that it is said,

"DURING the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency...."

As some of you have been keen to point out, deployment does not happen during the game, it happens before the game so that exception does not apply to deploying out of coherency and then using the first Movement phase to regain unit coherency.

I said it anyway. So now you are defining what is meant by 'game'? Deployment strikes me as an integral component to game. Indeed, games are at times won or lost on Deployment.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Read the 10 or so posts made on this that clarify EXACTLY where the context comes from: EVERY SINGLE time you EVER add / join / increase the number of / are "with" a unit you do so with reference to coherency.

Find an instance where, during a game, you increase the unit without doing so in coherency, and you would have a counter. You cannot (because you cannot use the scarab rule here, oddly enough) so you do not

So, if GW was so deliberate in their previous rules of how other units/models joined or added to another unit, why is it not here? Your assertion that all of these previous detailed rules for other units somehow creates a context under which the Scarab Hive rule must operate is not sufficient. The Scarab Hive rule is completely self contained. It references two other game mechanics, allowing the Scarab unit to move and assault. Which is quite interesting seeing how that would mean placing a Scarab base doesn't count as Movement (otherwise the entire unit would count as having moved). And is not governed my the Coherency rules as defined in the Movement phase.

-Yad

I am not applying the coherency rules during the game to the deploying.

When you deploy out of coherency, the very moment the game starts, you are not maintaining coherency. You didn't lose coherency during the game either, you were not in coherency when it started. That is the why you cannot deploy out of coherency. You create a situation that breaks the primary rule that units must maintain coherency which is not covered by the exceptions listed for during the game.

Please explain how you lost coherency during the game when you deployed out of coherency and started the game out of coherency. You didn't lose coherency, you were out of it at the beginning of the game.

There is no RAW in the rules for deployment that require that you are in coherency. However the rules for maintaining coherency during the game make it impossible to deploy so that when the game starts you start out of coherency.

Also, reread the rules regarding when deployment ends and the game begins.

Im not trying to say that i think it is the case that they have to be created within 6" all Im saying is i personally think the rule should have been made like this... Since the scarab is coming out of the spyder. You know what i mean?

cluggy89 wrote:Im not trying to say that i think it is the case that they have to be created within 6" all Im saying is i personally think the rule should have been made like this... Since the scarab is coming out of the spyder. You know what i mean?

I agree.

It's the only reason I can think of for the part about the new units being destroyed if you are unable to place them.

After all,
1. if you could put them anywhere on the table then there's no reason for them to be unable to be placed.
2. if you can only put them within that 6" bubble then there is a finite amount of available space and you have the possibility of the new unit being destroyed due to lack of placement options.

Yes, this will be FAQ'd and I think you have the right call on the way it's going to go.

Hello. The Necron FAQ is out now and expressly forbids this:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170012a_Necron_FAQ_Version_2_0_January_2012.pdf

Happy gaming

Hesh_Tank_On wrote:Let them have their fun, the expense of buying 9 tomb Spiders both monetary and points for a one shot trick will give the "no camp" the final laugh when the FAQ comes out. Then the day after 200 tomb Spiders will go on E-bay..

I'm not sure if it would be better to pose on this thread or start a new one, but even post FAQ there seems to be 1 little bit up in the air.

Does every spyder in a unit of 3 sypder need to be within 6" of the scarab swarm that is going to receive new bases, or does the unit of sypders need be within 6" of the unit of scarabs.

It's each spider must be within 6" of a swarm. They can each add a scarab to 3 different swarms as long as each was in range of the swarm they were adding to.