Nemesor Dave wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:In the grim dark future there is only RAW

Page 48

An independent character may not join or leave a unit while either he or the unit is locked in combat or falling back.

Is the IC falling back? If the answer is yes then he can't leave the unit end of story. It doesn't matter if the rest of his unit is painted pink, painted blue, liberal, conservative, right handed, left handed, loyalists, traitors, alive, or living impaired (the politically correct term for dead) unless somewhere else in a rulebook or FAQ it specifically states there is an exception to the rule that a falling back IC can ignore the restriction against falling back IC leaving a unit.

RAW=The IC continues to soil his pants and run away.

Again, this is about a voluntary action. This thread is about a involuntary action - the unit is gone.

The quoted rule says nothing about the action being voluntary or involuntary. It merely states that it's illegal for a falling back IC to leave his unit. Therefor a falling back IC leaving the unit voluntary or involuntarily would be against the rules. Just because a unit is making an involuntary action doesn't mean it gets to ignore rules such as moving through impassible terrain, or leaving a unit while falling back. The black and white restriction that the IC can't leave the unit trumps the involuntary action of attempting to detach from the unit that the IC is required to attempt.

Nobody is saying the IC can leave a living unit while falling back.

What if the unit is dead and removed from play? This is what we're discussing.

The IC attaches and detaches during the movement phase. At the start of the IC's movement phase the IC would be required to attempt to detach from the unit because of a lack of coherency with live models. Also on page 48

An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the shooting and assault phases- once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is too late to join in or duck out !

Removing the IC from a squad during an opponents shooting phase would be a clear violation of that rule. The IC is stuck being a part of the dead unit until the next friendly movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Having an IC join a unit is a lot like marriage. Good or bad the IC is stuck with that unit until death or divorce, and divorce court is only open during the movement phase.

It's like these are the exact arguments given pages ago...

Dukal wrote:Oh? You mean the unit that the IC was attaching to during the shooting phase? You mean the unit that was wiped out, leaving the IC as the lone surviving member? You mean the unit that the IC is still attached to according to RAW, since he can only leaving the unit during the movement phase according to page 48? You mean the unit that the IC is still attached to, since you have not come up with any rules stating that he has permission to leave it? You mean that unit?

I know what the post is about, ND, I started the thread. Maybe go back and read the first few pages?

The rule you're citing is about what the IC can, and cannot do, not what the unit can or cannot do. The IC cannot leave the unit, but can the unit leave the IC? Of course it can, by dying.

RAW there is nothing about what happens when the unit leaves the game. Obviously the IC is alone.

So the argument from Nos is that the IC becomes the unit. Yes, he says they are now one and the same until the model checks coherency in its next movement phase. Although there are a couple other minor variations of this interpretation, some that say it can never leave the unit, the premiss is the same - the Independant character IS the unit.

My final argument against this is that the rulebook, yes RAW always references the unit and the IC separately, so any interpretation of the outcome must do the same to follow RAW. The Independant Character CAN NOT be the unit and still in line with the other wording of rules in the rulebook.

So you're ignoring the fact that the IC is a normal member of te unit?

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Leaving requires you to move more than X" away form an original member of the unit you joined, because THAT is the context of the rules.

And that is impossible if they are no longer on the board.

Except it isnt, for the reasons already given, that you have yet to address. At least 4 pages back at a guess. If no member of the unit I joined (context remember?) is within 2" then I have left. I CAN prove that, as I've already shown 100 times

insaniak wrote:

IF you claim that the requirement is NOT limited to the original members, then you are stating, flat out, that an IC can *never* leave

COuld you for once in this thread address that part of the argument? I've typed it out about 10 times already, and you consistently ignore it

I have addressed it, multiple times. I agree that your interpretation means the IC can never leave the destroyed unit.

No, you havent. That isnt my interpretation, and the fact you consistently tell me it is means you really arent reading the argument I am making.

The. IC. Is. NOT. An. Original. Member. Of. The. Unit. When you try to leave "the unit" the rule is referencing the original members of the unit, not the IC. Otherwise the IC can never leave, even when the unit has 1+ initial members left

Do NOT repeat that my interpretation results in an IC unable to leave a dead unit, because that is 100% false.

ND - So, page 48 and 49 still eluding you?

Does this not mean they are a member of the unit? a normal member of the unit Try it, page 49. Cant find that in your rulebook? Oh, and every time you reference a plural? Needed to make sure that you realise that the whole unit, including the joined IC, are there.

Your latest made up rule results in me being able to shoot your IC, even when attached. After all, if you are claiming they are ALWAYS separate units, that means Ic an target you, right?

Seriously, do you even THINK your arguments through, in the slightest?

Dukal wrote:Oh? You mean the unit that the IC was attaching to during the shooting phase? You mean the unit that was wiped out, leaving the IC as the lone surviving member? You mean the unit that the IC is still attached to according to RAW, since he can only leaving the unit during the movement phase according to page 48? You mean the unit that the IC is still attached to, since you have not come up with any rules stating that he has permission to leave it? You mean that unit?

I know what the post is about, ND, I started the thread. Maybe go back and read the first few pages?

Yeah, I do think he means THAT unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Leaving requires you to move more than X" away form an original member of the unit you joined, because THAT is the context of the rules.

And that is impossible if they are no longer on the board.

Except it isnt, for the reasons already given, that you have yet to address. At least 4 pages back at a guess. If no member of the unit I joined (context remember?) is within 2" then I have left. I CAN prove that, as I've already shown 100 times

insaniak wrote:

IF you claim that the requirement is NOT limited to the original members, then you are stating, flat out, that an IC can *never* leave

COuld you for once in this thread address that part of the argument? I've typed it out about 10 times already, and you consistently ignore it

I have addressed it, multiple times. I agree that your interpretation means the IC can never leave the destroyed unit.

No, you havent. That isnt my interpretation, and the fact you consistently tell me it is means you really arent reading the argument I am making.

The. IC. Is. NOT. An. Original. Member. Of. The. Unit. When you try to leave "the unit" the rule is referencing the original members of the unit, not the IC. Otherwise the IC can never leave, even when the unit has 1+ initial members left

Do NOT repeat that my interpretation results in an IC unable to leave a dead unit, because that is 100% false.

ND - So, page 48 and 49 still eluding you?

Does this not mean they are a member of the unit? a normal member of the unit Try it, page 49. Cant find that in your rulebook? Oh, and every time you reference a plural? Needed to make sure that you realise that the whole unit, including the joined IC, are there.

Your latest made up rule results in me being able to shoot your IC, even when attached. After all, if you are claiming they are ALWAYS separate units, that means Ic an target you, right?

Seriously, do you even THINK your arguments through, in the slightest?

But you can only leave at the end of your movement phase!

rigeld2 wrote:So you're ignoring the fact that the IC is a normal member of te unit?

The IC is considered for some purposes to be a normal member of the unit. Obviously it is an IC so it doesn't follow all of the rules of a normal member of a unit. And not the for purpose of telling which is the unit and which is the IC. The RAW still reference the IC separately from the unit.

So any interpretation must also do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - So, page 48 and 49 still eluding you?

Does this not mean they are a member of the unit? a normal member of the unit Try it, page 49. Cant find that in your rulebook? Oh, and every time you reference a plural? Needed to make sure that you realise that the whole unit, including the joined IC, are there.

Your latest made up rule results in me being able to shoot your IC, even when attached. After all, if you are claiming they are ALWAYS separate units, that means Ic an target you, right?

Seriously, do you even THINK your arguments through, in the slightest?

That would be true, except there is a specific rule about not being allowed to pick out an IC that is joined to a unit. Perhaps think about your response a little better.

I'm not claiming they are separate units. But they are two different things. For your interpretation to work they must become 1 thing. You're saying the IC IS the unit.

JGE - I know that, and have mentioned it a number of times. For this purpose it wasnt important to repeat it.

ND - "once again a normal member of the unit States you are wrong. Again

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Dukal wrote:Oh? You mean the unit that the IC was attaching to during the shooting phase? You mean the unit that was wiped out, leaving the IC as the lone surviving member? You mean the unit that the IC is still attached to according to RAW, since he can only leaving the unit during the movement phase according to page 48? You mean the unit that the IC is still attached to, since you have not come up with any rules stating that he has permission to leave it? You mean that unit?

I know what the post is about, ND, I started the thread. Maybe go back and read the first few pages?

The rule you're citing is about what the IC can, and cannot do, not what the unit can or cannot do. The IC cannot leave the unit, but can the unit leave the IC? Of course it can, by dying.

RAW there is nothing about what happens when the unit leaves the game. Obviously the IC is alone.

So the argument from Nos is that the IC becomes the unit. Yes, he says they are now one and the same until the model checks coherency in its next movement phase. Although there are a couple other minor variations of this interpretation, some that say it can never leave the unit, the premiss is the same - the Independant character IS the unit.

My final argument against this is that the rulebook, yes RAW always references the unit and the IC separately, so any interpretation of the outcome must do the same to follow RAW. The Independant Character CAN NOT be the unit and still in line with the other wording of rules in the rulebook.

Units can't attach or detach from an IC, the IC attaches and detaches from the unit.

While the IC is attached to the unit the IC is part of the unit so the unit can't be wiped out as long as the IC is alive and attached to the unit. Page 48 of the rulebook is very clear that under no circumstances may an IC attach or detach from the unit during the shooting or assault phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:JGE - I know that, and have mentioned it a number of times. For this purpose it wasnt important to repeat it.

ND - "once again a normal member of the unit States you are wrong. Again

The line is on page 49. Context! That is what the paragraph is about picking out a model separately for attacks. After combat is resolved, they can no longer be picked out separately from a unit they are joined with. That is all.

But you see, otherwise IC's simply are not normal members of the unit at all.
1) in every other case the unit is mentioned as a separate item from the unit - not normal behavior for a member of the unit
2) independant characters pile-in move differently - not normal
3) they can move out of coherency during moving - not normal

There are many many ways that IC's are not normal members of the unit, so the subject of that paragraphs context - picking out a model separately must be what returns to "normal".

ND, I am really glad that you so completely addressed schadenfreude's point that ICs join or leave units, and that units do not join or leave ICs. I am also really glad that you are using some general thoughts about the rules, and trying to use them to override specific rules. Good show.

Dukal wrote:ND, I am really glad that you so completely addressed schadenfreude's point that ICs join or leave units, and that units do not join or leave ICs. I am also really glad that you are using some general thoughts about the rules, and trying to use them to override specific rules. Good show.

The IC may not leave the unit except during movement phase. Very specific and not applicable. The unit is doing the leaving.

The unit may leave the IC by dying. It is removed from play. That's as specific as you can get.

Nos's final argument - that the IC is a regular member of the unit - in content is referent to purposes of being targeted separately. Not applicable.

As much as you and others like to pick apart words and take the most absurd interpretation as fact, I am still arguing the side that makes the most logical sense.

In a case like this you could admit as well there is a lack of any precise wording in the rulebook either way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The. IC. Is. NOT. An. Original. Member. Of. The. Unit.

Which makes no difference when he is the only member of the unit left on the table.

You're adding an additional stipulation that doesn't actually exist in the rules. The rules do not reference 'original' unit members.

Here's a thing: A Captain and a Librarian joined to a Tactical squad. The Captain is within 2" of a Tactical marine. The Librarian is within 2" of the Captain. Has the Librarian left the unit? He's not within 2" of an 'original' squad member.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Dukal wrote:ND, I am really glad that you so completely addressed schadenfreude's point that ICs join or leave units, and that units do not join or leave ICs. I am also really glad that you are using some general thoughts about the rules, and trying to use them to override specific rules. Good show.

The IC may not leave the unit except during movement phase. Very specific and not applicable. The unit is doing the leaving.

The unit may leave the IC by dying. It is removed from play. That's as specific as you can get.

Nos's final argument - that the IC is a regular member of the unit - in content is referent to purposes of being targeted separately. Not applicable.

As much as you and others like to pick apart words and take the most absurd interpretation as fact, I am still arguing the side that makes the most logical sense.

In a case like this you could admit as well there is a lack of any precise wording in the rulebook either way.

If the IC is in the unit the IC is a current member of the unit and is stuck there until his next movement phase. The IC doesn't count towards the unit's size and can be sniped out in CC, but is otherwise a member of the unit. Those are the only 2 exceptions to the normal rules while the IC is joined. If all of the non IC members of a unit die there is nothing in the rulebook written about the IC leaving the unit. The only thing written about the situation was on page 48 and it goes as follows.

An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the shooting and assault phases- once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is too late to join in or duck out !

It really can't get any more specific than that. The IC and original unit always remain 1 unit through the entire shooting and entire assault phase no matter what. If the IC dies the IC and unit remain 1 unit though the entire shooting and assault phase. If the non IC members of the unit die the IC and the unit remain 1 through the entire shooting and assault phase. If the IC and the unit are both wiped out they die together during the shooting and assault phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Your claim is that an attached IC, which has lost combat by 20 due to his squad being wiped out, has somehow NOT lost combat at all. This is not only utterly stupid, but breaks the rules something chronic - if he caused one wound on the opponent, and nothing on him in return, then your "reading" of the "rules" (in quotes because, quite frankly, you are simply making up rules - so you cannot actually read any) results in the IC "winning" combat.

Yet another absurd result based on your making up rules. Can you quit making up rules any time soon? It may make your arguments less....easily ignorable .

nosferatu1001 wrote:Thats a joke - I need to read rules again? LOL, rich from the king of making things up. Im just pointing out a logical conclusion to your rule-less claims. It is of course absurd, but thats because it is based on your absurd ideas

You did quite clearly demonstrate that you need to check the rules before you post as your statement was completely wrong per the IC & Assault rules, page 49 BRB and the mutlple combat rules page 41
Also, less personal ridicule of other posters would help the debate go smoother and would be more in line with the tenets #1 and #5 of YMDC. Perhaps you should read those as well.

You also have yet to acknowledge the fact that moving the IC away from a unit that the IC is the only member of is not possible. Measuring 2" around means nothing. You are improperly trying to prove you did something you cannot and have not done.
-----------------------------------------------------------

IMO
The IC rules for joining, being a part of and leaving units all imply there is a unit/rest of the unit to join, be a member of or leave. Trying to apply these rules to an IC and a unit that does not exist is taking them out of context. Since those rules not longer apply you are no longer permitted to consider the IC a member of the unit.

schadenfreude wrote:The IC doesn't count towards the unit's size...

...for the purposes of determining if the unit is below 50%. He does count for all other purposes.

Current INAT FAQ used is pretty much every GT.

Page 10

RB.49A.01 – Q: When an Independent Character is
part of a unit, and that unit is wiped out by shooting
or close combat, does the character still take Morale
and Pinning tests as if he was part of the unit?
A: Yes, as the character counts as being part of the unit until
the start of their next turn. This also means that enemies
who fired at and wiped out the unit the IC was with may still
declare a charge against the character in the subsequent
Assault phase [clarification].

Link

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.1.pdf

INAT FAQ Is fine if you are arguing HYWPI, however, it doesn't mean anything in a RAW debate in YMDC. As it is I think we've moved away from RAW and msot people are arguing HYWPI.

HYWPI, I would follow INAT.
RAW, as the IC is not given permission to leave the unit until the movement phase (and the only time a unit can leave an IC is by disembarking from a vehicle), and cannot move away from a non-existent point, he would be stuck falling back.

Happyjew - RAW and INAT agree in this case.

Specifically - Abandon and insaniak are arguing that the unit that destroyed the "fodder" unit is unable to assault the IC - since he's a completely separate unit now. That's something the INAT brings up I hadn't even thought of.

rigeld2 wrote:Specifically - Abandon and insaniak are arguing that the unit that destroyed the "fodder" unit is unable to assault the IC - since he's a completely separate unit now.

Actually, I wouldn't have an issue with the IC being assaulted. He's (as I would play it) no longer joined to the squad, but he was still shot at by the assaulting unit, which makes him a valid target, IMO.


Having said that, the INAT take on it is fairly straightforward. I'd be more than happy to use that interpretation.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Specifically - Abandon and insaniak are arguing that the unit that destroyed the "fodder" unit is unable to assault the IC - since he's a completely separate unit now.

Actually, I wouldn't have an issue with the IC being assaulted. He's (as I would play it) no longer joined to the squad, but he was still shot at by the assaulting unit, which makes him a valid target, IMO.

With no rules support, of course. The only exception to charging what you shot is vehicle transports.

Actually rigeld, RAW and INAT don't quite agree. RAW, since the IC cannot leave the unit, he would never be able to be an IC, meaning he would not be able to attempt to regroup. Per INAT, at the beginning of his next Movement phase, he reverts to bein an IC.

Well, INAT doesn't address falling back, but I see that distinction. Thanks for pointing that out.

rigeld2 wrote:With no rules support, of course.

So you're saying that the IC wasn't shot at when the squad was?

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:With no rules support, of course.

So you're saying that the IC wasn't shot at when the squad was?

Absolutely not.

You target the squad. You can only charge the target you shot at.
You are prohibited from targeting the IC.

Since (under your interpretation) the IC immediately reverts to his own unit, he is not the squad that was targeted.
Therefore cannot be charged by the shooting unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:With no rules support, of course.

So you're saying that the IC wasn't shot at when the squad was?

Absolutely not.

You target the squad. You can only charge the target you shot at.
You are prohibited from targeting the IC.

Since (under your interpretation) the IC immediately reverts to his own unit, he is not the squad that was targeted.
Therefore cannot be charged by the shooting unit.

The IC was a part of the unit at the time it was shot at and available to have wounds allocated to him along with all that comes with that. Every member of the unit was a target of the shooting attack, even the ones that could not be seen by the firing unit. BRB page 24 second to last paragraph.

rigeld2 wrote:You target the squad.

No you don't. You target the unit. That unit consists of the squad and the IC.

So the IC was a member of the unit you shot at.


If you want to try to draw the line on only targetting the unit with the same specific composition as the unit you shot at, you would be similarly unable to assault a unit if your shooting inflicted any casualties on them...

Saying the IC can not be shot at is a strawman argument intended to point out the inherent flaw in the logic that if every member of a unit except for an IC is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase the IC suddenly becomes a different unit that doesn't have to take a morale check, and can not be assaulted by any units that shot at the unit.

So if it was Draigo and 10 pallies that shot up the boys killing all of the ork boys but the warboss survived INAT and RAW say the warboss is still part of the mob even though the rest of the squad is dead. He still has to take a morale test, and then he still has to eat an assault by Draigo and his pallies. Some people here are not happy with the INAT and still insist the warboss doesn't need to take a morale test because he's now an IC that is not part of the mob of ork boys. Now the strawman argument comes into play. If the warboss is now an IC and no longer attached to the squad the target the paladins shot was the mob of boys not the IC, therefor if the IC doesn't need to take morale tests the paladins can't assault him. Now to selectively apply the rules so that the IC doesn't have to take a morale test but can still be assaulted one needs to selectively apply the rules which turns into pure RAI

schadenfreude wrote:Saying the IC can not be shot at is a strawman argument intended to point out the inherent flaw in the logic that if every member of a unit except for an IC is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase the IC suddenly becomes a different unit that doesn't have to take a morale check, and can not be assaulted by any units that shot at the unit.

So if it was Draigo and 10 pallies that shot up the boys killing all of the ork boys but the warboss survived INAT and RAW say the warboss is still part of the mob even though the rest of the squad is dead. He still has to take a morale test, and then he still has to eat an assault by Draigo and his pallies. Some people here are not happy with the INAT and still insist the warboss doesn't need to take a morale test because he's now an IC that is not part of the mob of ork boys. Now the strawman argument comes into play. If the warboss is now an IC and no longer attached to the squad the target the paladins shot was the mob of boys not the IC, therefor if the IC doesn't need to take morale tests the paladins can't assault him. Now to selectively apply the rules so that the IC doesn't have to take a morale test but can still be assaulted one needs to selectively apply the rules which turns into pure RAI

Good point. It looks like there are strange situations that can occur no matter which way you play it and the result of the unit leaving the games effect on the IC is not precisely in RAW.

In this case I think INAT took the best of both sides. It seems that for the sake of the turn in which they were separated the INAT is going with the "lone IC is part of the unit" and for the sake of the next turn going with the "lone IC is not part of the unit any more".

As someone else said the INAT FAQ is definitely HWYPI.

ND - ONCE AGAIN a normal member of the unit. It doesnt get more clearly written than that. In the context of the rules you are ONCE AGAIN a normal member of the unit, after Attacks have been resolved.

Once they have stopped being *treated as* a separate unit (not needed under your entirely ruleless opinion that he is always a separate unit, just to point out another problem with your argument - youre not only making rules up, but youre making other rules redundant AND allowing me to always shoot your IC - thanks for that!) you are now, once again, a normal member of the unit

Meaning you were a normal member of the unit, and you are now again a normal member of the unit.

Try again on this - please provide some ACTUAL RULES and not made up stuff to support that they are always a separate unit - that overrides the *specific* rules on page 48 and 49. WE'll wait, because it is hilarious that you are even going down this route, it really is quite amusing as it is a naive reading of the rules that occurs infrequently on these boards, but usually in more complex arguments than this (for example the old Shrouding rules in codex: DH)

Insaniak -could you respond to the *specific* conclusion your argument makes?

The IC is a normal member of the unit. YOUR interpretation of the rules is that he can never move away from himself, meaning he is always stuck. Meaning the GENERAL case an IC is never allowed to leave a unit, as he can never move away from himself.

CONTEXT tells you that you are required to only be in coherency of members of the unit you have joined, and it is THOSE members you are required to move away from - otherwise you can never, at any point, leave.

Meaning that a falling back IC CAN leave their unit, as they are not within 2" of the members of the unit they joined. This is not me adding in extra qualifiers - it is me actually using Context to say who you must join or leave "against", and making the IC rules function

Your interpretation means that the IC can never leave. Please address all points here, not just one, and address this central consquence of your idea that an IC must move away from itself.

Insaniak - in addition, if you beleive an IC immediately reverts to its own unit when its unit is shot out around it, then it CANNOT be charged - it is a different unit to the one that was shot at.

You shot at [dire avengers + IC], you are now trying to charge [IC] - a different unit. So this is another consequence of your idea that a unit is immediately removed from the IC upon destruction - you cannot any longer charge the IC.

Abandon - I was being silly in response to someone making up rules, as quite frankly that was all the response that was required or needed. It is a ridiculous argument that entirely ignores ALL the rules on page 48 in preference to a single general rule on page 47. It has no use in an actual rules discussion because it entirely ignores the entire way the rules are written, in favour of a bizarre interpretation than renders IC able to be shot at at any time, reduces a lot of rules to not being needed, and downright ignores others. Leave it - it is not relevant to this thread

I *have* shown that I can move outside of 2" of your unit, and shown the *2* methods you can use to achieve that. Not my fault you are unwilling to acknowledge this, or even basic mathematics, and is not a fault of mine. Once no unit is within 2" of me, and I have moved, by definition I HAVE moved 2"+ away from ANY unit, and A unit in particular. It is that simple, as that is what the rule is asking you to do. The rule is NOT requiring you to measure to the unit you are leaving and determine exactly how far away it is - it is asking you if you are at least 2" away from it.

Again, you may disagree here, however this is basic mathematics you are arguing with, and so your problem is your own understanding of what is required. Address that and you will seee your error

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You target the squad.

No you don't. You target the unit. That unit consists of the squad and the IC.

So the IC was a member of the unit you shot at.

You target a single unit. That single unit is squad + IC.

By your interpretation, the squad + IC unit ceases to exist after everyone in the squad dies.

You can only charge what you shot - which means you can only charge the unit that consists of squad + IC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it isnt, for the reasons already given, that you have yet to address. At least 4 pages back at a guess. If no member of the unit I joined (context remember?) is within 2" then I have left. I CAN prove that, as I've already shown 100 times

Just out of curiosity, how are you determining that there are no models within 2"?

The "measure 2" around my IC" isn't supported by the rules. Measurements are base-to-base between models (see p. 3). Permissive ruleset.

biccat, So I'm not allowed to have a (for example):
3" ruler, 6" ruler, 12" ruler, 18" ruler, 24" ruler, 36" ruler, 48" ruler and 60" ruler because that is the max range of all my weapons. If I fire a weapon that has a range of 12". I don't need to measure out 13" to see that I'm short. I can measure 12" and see that I'm not hitting anything. By the same logic, I can measure out 2" around my IC and see that there is nothing within 2" of him.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it isnt, for the reasons already given, that you have yet to address. At least 4 pages back at a guess. If no member of the unit I joined (context remember?) is within 2" then I have left. I CAN prove that, as I've already shown 100 times

Just out of curiosity, how are you determining that there are no models within 2"?

The "measure 2" around my IC" isn't supported by the rules. Measurements are base-to-base between models (see p. 3). Permissive ruleset.

Measurements are not restricted to only between models - for example, movement.

The IC rules tell you to move out of coherency distance. We know that distance is 2". Measure 2" in every direction.

Happyjew wrote:biccat, So I'm not allowed to have a (for example):
3" ruler, 6" ruler, 12" ruler, 18" ruler, 24" ruler, 36" ruler, 48" ruler and 60" ruler because that is the max range of all my weapons. If I fire a weapon that has a range of 12". I don't need to measure out 13" to see that I'm short. I can measure 12" and see that I'm not hitting anything. By the same logic, I can measure out 2" around my IC and see that there is nothing within 2" of him.

Except measurements between models (and the coherency rules address distances between models) is always base-to-base.

So no, technically you cannot have a 12" ruler to determine if you are within rapidfire range of an enemy. You must measure the distance between the firer and the target and if it is less than 12", you can fire.

My oh my did this discussion get side tracked on some coherency nonsense.

schadenfreude wrote:In the grim dark future there is only RAW

Page 48

An independent character may not join or leave a unit while either he or the unit is locked in combat or falling back.

Is the IC falling back? If the answer is yes then he can't leave the unit end of story. It doesn't matter if the rest of his unit is painted pink, painted blue, liberal, conservative, right handed, left handed, loyalists, traitors, alive, or living impaired (the politically correct term for dead) unless somewhere else in a rulebook or FAQ it specifically states there is an exception to the rule that a falling back IC can ignore the restriction against falling back IC leaving a unit.

RAW=The IC continues to soil his pants and run away.

As myself and others have also said in this thread. RAW, the IC is still running away.

Dukal wrote:As I argued much much much earlier in this thread, i believe that schadenfreude has it right. The rules specifically say that an IC cannot leave a unit falling back. There is no rule that you can quote that says that this is restricted to voluntarily leaving the unit. As such, the rule should apply. The IC must fall back, because he can only leave a unit during the movement phase.

Emphasis mine. Again, in this side-tracked debate about coherency and whether or not a unit exists, it misses the only important point. RAW, an IC can only leave a unit in the Movement phase. That means in the Shooting Phase and Assault Phase, the IC counts as part of the Multiple-Unit Unit still. He'll be required to take the morale tests, can still be assaulted, and still under the affect of any psychic powers (such as Murderous Hurricane's Dangerous/Difficult Terrain for example).

schadenfreude wrote:Current INAT FAQ used is pretty much every GT.

Page 10

RB.49A.01 – Q: When an Independent Character is
part of a unit, and that unit is wiped out by shooting
or close combat, does the character still take Morale
and Pinning tests as if he was part of the unit?
A: Yes, as the character counts as being part of the unit until
the start of their next turn. This also means that enemies
who fired at and wiped out the unit the IC was with may still
declare a charge against the character in the subsequent
Assault phase [clarification].

Link

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.1.pdf

Happyjew wrote:INAT FAQ Is fine if you are arguing HYWPI, however, it doesn't mean anything in a RAW debate in YMDC. As it is I think we've moved away from RAW and msot people are arguing HYWPI.

HYWPI, I would follow INAT.
RAW, as the IC is not given permission to leave the unit until the movement phase (and the only time a unit can leave an IC is by disembarking from a vehicle), and cannot move away from a non-existent point, he would be stuck falling back.

What Happyjew said.

RAW is like I said it was a few pages ago, and many others have said in this thread. For the most part their posts are ignored so 4 of you can argue a pointless semantic (to the RAW argument here) with one another.

RAW: The IC can join a unit to form a single mult-unit unit. The IC can only join or leave this unit during the movement phase. Voluntarily, the only way for the IC to leave the unit is to move out of Coherency with the unit. You check Coherency at the end of movement. If the IC is falling back, he cannot join or leave a unit. Falling back happens before any movement for that unit.

Example: Warboss + Boyz. The Boyz portion of the unit is wiped out due to enemy shooting. 25% casualties are inflicted that turn so a Morale test is required. The Warboss' Leadership is used but the test fails. The unit (of which the Warboss is the last remaining member) has to fall back. Beginning of the Ork Player's movement phase, the Warboss is still technically a member of the multi-unit unit, at least RAW. RAI/HYWPI all are irrelevant to YMDC. This means the Warboss is stuck falling back. He cannot 'leave' the multi-unit with RAW.

Its stupid, but it seems to be making sense. I'd never want to play it that way against my foes so I'll be sure to discuss it with them if it comes up.

cowmonaut wrote:RAW: The IC can join a unit to form a single mult-unit unit. The IC can only join or leave this unit during the movement phase. Voluntarily, the only way for the IC to leave the unit is to move out of Coherency with the unit. You check Coherency at the end of movement. If the IC is falling back, he cannot join or leave a unit. Falling back happens before any movement for that unit.

That can't be a voluntary only action - as has been posted.

Everything else you've posted we've already said. Thanks for repeating it.

biccat - and, as has been pointed out 20 times, an IC leaving is a check on coherency *dsitance*, NOT a check that he is outside of coherency. He just needs to be more than 2" away from any unit - and if there is no unit within 2" it has succeeded at what the rules actually required.

nosferatu1001 wrote:biccat - and, as has been pointed out 20 times, an IC leaving is a check on coherency *dsitance*, NOT a check that he is outside of coherency. He just needs to be more than 2" away from any unit - and if there is no unit within 2" it has succeeded at what the rules actually required.

No:
"An independent character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."

You move out of "coherency distance" by calculating the distance between the IC and a model in the unit, which, as explained on page 3, is the distance between the nearest points on the bases of the models.

If you've got some rule to support your assertion that you can measure around your model, I'd be happy to see it. But by RAW you cannot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak -could you respond to the *specific* conclusion your argument makes?

The IC is a normal member of the unit. YOUR interpretation of the rules is that he can never move away from himself, meaning he is always stuck. Meaning the GENERAL case an IC is never allowed to leave a unit, as he can never move away from himself.

This is nonsense.

The fact that the IC can not move away from himself in no way prevents him from leaving a unit with other models in it. Moving away from other models is not the same as moving away from yourself.

The IC is a member of the unit until he is found to be out of coherency with them. But determining coherency requires there to be more than one model in the unit, because as was pointed out earlier in the thread coherency doesn't apply to single model units.

CONTEXT tells you that you are required to only be in coherency of members of the unit you have joined, and it is THOSE members you are required to move away from - otherwise you can never, at any point, leave.

But context doesn't tell you what to do when the unit is no longer on the table to measure a distance to them.

At that point, when the IC is the only unit member left on the table, and thus is a unit of one, there is nobody else to move away from.

Insaniak - in addition, if you beleive an IC immediately reverts to its own unit when its unit is shot out around it, then it CANNOT be charged - it is a different unit to the one that was shot at.

No it isn't. Already covered that.

insaniak wrote:

Insaniak - in addition, if you beleive an IC immediately reverts to its own unit when its unit is shot out around it, then it CANNOT be charged - it is a different unit to the one that was shot at.

No it isn't. Already covered that.

You were incorrect in your "coverage".
You target a unit. You are prohibited from targeting the IC.

How can you assault the IC when you shot at a different target?

Biccat - wrong. Seriously, reread what you just posted. Now, have you spotted the word distance in there?

The phase is NOT "move out of coherency with..." but |move out of coherency distance..."

If I move more than 2" away, I HAVE moved out of coherency *distance*, which is a different entity to *coherency* alone. Coherency requires measuring to models, coherency distance does NOT require this.


Insaniak - you are saying you must move away from members of the unit, in toto, and that this includes the IC. If you must move away from ALL members of the unit, then this would include yourself. You are artificially excluding the IC when the unit is alive from counting towards members of the unt they are required to move away from.

Stop a second and realise the inherent contrdiction you are creating here - you are saying that, if the unit is shot around the IC, he cannot leave because he must move away from himself. If, instead, he wants to leave a healthy unit, then why is he no longer required to move away from himself?

Yes, I agree it is nonsense, in that your argument is bogus. It ignores context (which tells you who you are moving away from - never yourself), contradictory, and ignores what is written.

Also - your final quote?

"The IC is a member of the unit until he is found to be out of coherency with them"

This is WRONG, plain and simple - he is a member of unit until he has moved out of choerency *distance* - which is 2". Coherency as a process is not used, you are simply checking if you are more than 2" away.

Stop repeating incorrect statements - the word DISTANCE is crucial, and may be a clue as to why your argument is floundering.

Aditionally - I am not following the rules for coherency, hence I dont have to measure to another unti to prove I am more than 2" away. If there is noone within 2" then de facto I am more than 2" away from a unit. So yes, it can be done. You are stuck in assuming that measurement in 40k is always unit to unit, but it isnt - the most trivial example being movement, deepstrike scatter, disembarking, et al. You are choosing to limit this measurement to between models, but have no rules basis for doing so.

Finally - ICs being assaulted. No, you have not covered it. If you target {unit + IC}, and shoot out {unit}. then you cannot (under YOUR interpretation of timing, not mine) assault the IC, because the UNIT you targetted did not exist

You are prohibited from choosing the IC as a target. You cannot therefore assault an IC unit, as it was not your target when you were shooting.

Under the interpretation that follows the rules - that an IC leaves at the end of the movement phase - you CAN charge the IC, as it is still a member of the unit you targetted. Meaning that, again, your reading of the rules just simply falls over at the first "sniff" test - the logical conclusion is absurd, which should tell you a little about the argument you are making.

Now please - address the points, paying particular attention to the phrasing used. You have been consistently flawed in phrasing and terminology, and its grating to have to repeatedly correct you. I expect it off some posters, but not you!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - you are saying you must move away from members of the unit, in toto, and that this includes the IC.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the IC has to move away from the rest of the unit. And for that to happen, there has to be a 'rest of the unit'.

There is no 'artificial exclusion'... If the IC is out of coherency, he leaves the unit. If there is nobody else in the unit, coherency doesn't apply.

Stop a second and realise the inherent contrdiction you are creating here - you are saying that, if the unit is shot around the IC, he cannot leave because he must move away from himself. If, instead, he wants to leave a healthy unit, then why is he no longer required to move away from himself?

There is no contradiction there.

He's not required to move away from himself. He simply can not do so. That's what prevents him from leaving a unit when he is the only member of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Finally - ICs being assaulted. No, you have not covered it. If you target {unit + IC}, and shoot out {unit}. then you cannot (under YOUR interpretation of timing, not mine) assault the IC, because the UNIT you targetted did not exist

Is the IC a unit? Yes he is.
Did you shoot at the IC? Yes you did.
Can you assault the unit you shot at? Yes you can.

insaniak wrote:Is the IC a unit? Yes he is.
Did you shoot at the IC? Yes you did.

False. You are explicitly prohibited from targeting the IC with shooting.
You must have fired at the squad he joined.

rigeld2 wrote:False. You are explicitly prohibited from targeting the IC with shooting.
You must have fired at the squad he joined.

Once again, you don't target the squad. You target the unit. A unit that includes the IC.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:False. You are explicitly prohibited from targeting the IC with shooting.
You must have fired at the squad he joined.

Once again, you don't target the squad. You target the unit. A unit that includes the IC.

I was using the words interchangeably - I'm sorry.

Shooting, you target a unit (yes, it may have the IC attached).
Assault, you must charge the same unit. If the unit is defined as the squad plus IC, then the squad plus IC must be what is charged.

page 16 BRB wrote:A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not
locked in combat as its target, and may not split its fire
among different targets.

Page 33 BRB wrote:In addition to the above, a unit that fired in the
Shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at
– it cannot assault a different unit to the one it
previously shot at.

You're defining "unit" as "squad + IC" in one section, and "unit" as "IC" in the other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - wrong. Seriously, reread what you just posted. Now, have you spotted the word distance in there?

The phase is NOT "move out of coherency with..." but |move out of coherency distance..."

If I move more than 2" away, I HAVE moved out of coherency *distance*, which is a different entity to *coherency* alone. Coherency requires measuring to models, coherency distance does NOT require this.

Already addressed.

Please review the rules on Page 3 addressing how you measure between models. If you believe there are additional rules that contradict, supplement, or change those rules, please provide a reference to the page, paragraph, and line number. For additional details, see my post above.

Again, and to reiterate what has been repeated many times over, 40k is a permissive ruleset. Unless the rules specifically allow you to perform an action (e.g. measuring 2" around your independent character at the end of the movement phase), you may not perform that action.

Remember, argument is not a substitute for evidence.

There is no requirement to measure to a model.

rigeld2 wrote:There is no requirement to measure to a model.

How do you measure the distance between models if you don't measure to a model?

Insaniak - and, again, you are CREATING RULES out of whole cloth

You are not required to measure coherency - the process. YOu are required to measure coherency distance - a 2" measure.

These are not the same things. You repeatedly conflate these two terms as if they are the same thing. They are not. Given you never even *address* the point I raise every time you DO conflate tthe two terms, I assume you are simply not even reading the whole post

coherency distance is not the same thing as checking for coherency - do not repeat that they are the same thing, as it fatally undermines your argument.

"Is the IC a unit? Yes he is.
Did you shoot at the IC? Yes you did.
Can you assault the unit you shot at? Yes you can."

The IC, while joined to a unit, is a member of that unit. He is not a separate unit, and *cannot* be the target of your shooting.

You did NOT shoot "at" the IC - you shot at the Unit containing the IC as a normal member

You can therefore only assault the unit you targetted - which is NOT the IC, under your interpretation.

This is a fundamental issue you are having here
.

Unit A is comprised of models Y and IC V
When you target the unit, yo uare targetting Unit A

When you shoot all models Y away, under your interpretation the IC immediately becomes his own unit - which MUST be unit V. It cannot be any other unit, because the construct set {Y,V} no longer exists.

Thus, under YOUR interpretation an IC cannot be charged if his unit is shot down.

Biccat - you addressed the same wrong thing as Insaniak. Page 3 deals with measuring between models - however this is not required, as you are NOT CHECKING COHERENCY - you are checking coherency dsistance which is not the same thing. Thus I fall back on the general rules for measuring, whcih are from my base "out" - same as you do when moving. Un less you are saying when moving you are measuring between models? How about DS scattter?

You are lacking rules because page 3 does not have to apply, as it is not the only way to check coherency distance (yes, I will keep emphasising this as both of you and Insaniak are guilty of dropping this crucial word) from a model. It IS one way, it is not the ONLY way.

Nos - still arguing your made up version of how to measure distances in 40k.
So when you shoot and your range is 36", you measure 36" in a circle around the firing model? This is ridiculous.
According to RAW you measure base to base between models. This is why when you shoot, you actually get to measure the full distance between the firer and the target even if they are out of range.
You apparently don't know how multi-combat works, how to measure, that IC's cannot be picked out for shooting from a unit they are joined to.

The IC, while joined to a unit, is a member of that unit. He is not a separate unit, and *cannot* be the target of your shooting.

You are only partly correct. The IC cannot be picked out, but this is not why.

"Independant Characters that have joined a unit are considered part of the unit and so may not be picked out as targets."

The are considered part of the unit regarding shooting. Not for everything.

"Independant characters that are monsterous creatures may be picked out as separate targets."

In some cases they may be picked out. They are simply not "normal members of the unit" in the way you are stating.

(edited for clarity)

Nemesor Dave wrote:Nos - still arguing your made up version of how to measure distances in 40k.
So when you shoot and your range is 36", you measure 36" in a circle around the firing model? This is ridiculous.

God, correcting you is getting tiresome.

So, when you move 6" forwards, are you doing so by measuring between units?

No? Then guess what - not all measurement is base to base.

Your inabiltiy to parse even such a simple concept as this is faintly tragic.

Nemesor Dave wrote:You apparently don't know how multi-combat works, how to measure, that IC's cannot be picked out for shooting from a unit they are joined to.

Sorry, but youre now spouting even more crap. YOUR contention is that an IC is *always* a separate unit, and when shooting you target units. There is no other reason why you cannot pick ICs out with shooting. THis is why your naive misreading of the rules on pages 47, and sheer ignorance of the rules on 48 and 49 is so utterly incomprehensibly wrong no wonder you cant see it youself.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

me wrote:The IC, while joined to a unit, is a member of that unit. He is not a separate unit, and *cannot* be the target of your shooting.

You are only partly correct. The IC cannot be picked out, but this is not why.

Then why can it not be picked out? I have multiple rules telling me the IC is a normal member of the unit, and not a separate unit any longer

I even have a specific rule telling me when the IC is to be "treated as" a separate unit (meaning he isnt actually a separate unit - stop me if this is going too quickly for you now) when resolving attacks - immediately followed by a rule sttating he is ONCE AGAIN a normal member of the unit

So where is your rule denying them being shot at that isnt tied to their status as a separate unit having gone now? OR is this more made up NDhammer rules that simply dont exist in the actual rulebook?

Nemesor Dave wrote:"Independant Characters that have joined a unit are considered part of the unit and so may not be picked out as targets."

The are considered part of the unit regarding shooting. Not for everything.

Wrong, they are considered a NORMAL member of the unit for everythihng except resolving attacks

Nemesor Dave wrote:"Independant characters that are monsterous creatures may be picked out as separate targets."

In some cases they may be picked out. They are simply not "normal members of the unit" in the way you are stating.

(edited for clarity)

Yes, there is an *exception* to the rule - SHOCK! 40k is full of exceptions. This in fact proves that your position is wrong, as they had to write an exception to the normal rule for Monstrous ICs (of which there arent any)

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:There is no requirement to measure to a model.

How do you measure the distance between models if you don't measure to a model?

Where's the requirement to measure to a model? Don't cite page 3 - that only comes in when you actually need to measure to a model.
Movement, for example, doesn't require measuring to a model.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You repeatedly conflate these two terms as if they are the same thing.

Indeed. It's almost as if I disagree with you...

The IC, while joined to a unit, is a member of that unit. He is not a separate unit, and *cannot* be the target of your shooting.

So at least you're finally agreeing that he is a part of the unit. Which has been my point all along with your interpretation preventing him from leaving the unit once it is destroyed...

You did NOT shoot "at" the IC - you shot at the Unit containing the IC as a normal member

...which means you shot at the IC.

Otherwise, we're back to not being able to assault a unit that suffered casualties from shooting. You didn't shoot at the 5-man tactical squad. You shot at a squad with 6 guys in it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:God, correcting you is getting tiresome.

You do realise that there is no prize for being the most correct, right?

rigeld2 wrote:Where's the requirement to measure to a model?

Establishing coherency involves measuring the distance between two models. That's kind of the point of it.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Where's the requirement to measure to a model?

Establishing coherency involves measuring the distance between two models. That's kind of the point of it.

You are not required to establish coherency. You are required to be out of coherency distance.

Do you have a rules based reason for thinking they're the same?

rigeld2 wrote:You are not required to establish coherency. You are required to be out of coherency distance.

On consideration, I'm happy to concede that point. If you're required to measure to other models in order to establish that an IC is out of coherency of a unit, you would actually need to measure to every other friendly model on the board in order to establish that he is not in coherency with any of them.

That doesn't change my objection to the idea of having to leave a unit that isn't there, though. You can't move away from something that isn't there in the first place, nor can you move away from yourself.

insaniak wrote:That doesn't change my objection to the idea of having to leave a unit that isn't there, though. You can't move away from something that isn't there in the first place, nor can you move away from yourself.

You can move away from something that isn't there in the first place...

I'm required to move and be 60' from any elephants. Ignoring the fact that there are no elephants within 60 miles (at least) let alone 60 feet, I move 10 feet. I then check the surrounding 60 feet.
No elephants, so I've complied with the requirements.


It doesn't make a lot of logical sense. I don't see any other way to read the RAW and I've already said that I'd play it like INAT ruled.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm required to move and be 60' from any elephants. Ignoring the fact that there are no elephants within 60 miles (at least) let alone 60 feet, I move 10 feet. I then check the surrounding 60 feet.
No elephants, so I've complied with the requirements.

You haven't moved away from the elephants that you were previously hanging with, though.


Here's how I see it:
There's a group of people over in the corner. We'll call them, say, 'People Who Are a Little Bored With This Discussion and Would Rather Talk About Biscuits'. I go and join them.
Now:
Scenario A:
After a while, a thought suddenly comes to me: "Wait! Someone is wrong on the internet!" ... and so I leave the PWAALBWTDAWRTAB group, and go back to my computer to rejoin the rules discussion. I have succesfully left the PWAALBWTDAWRTAB group.


Scenario B:
After a while, I look up and notice that everyone else in the PWAALBWTDAWRTAB group has wandered off while I wasn't paying attention. I decide to go see if the rules discussion is still going. When I move out of the corner, have I left the group? Well, no... there is nobody else for me to leave, just me standing alone in the corner muttering about biscuits and twitching occasionally.

In the first scenario, I was a member of the group, but was able to leave the group by moving away from them.
In the second scenario, when I tried to leave the group I was the only one still in it. No matter how far away I go, I can't move away from the only remaining group member. So either I will always be a member of the group because I can't leave the last member... or I'm no longer a member of the group because the group is gone. I can't leave the group by waiting until tomorrow and suddenly jumping 3 feet to the left when I least expect it.

" You did NOT shoot "at" the IC - you shot at the Unit containing the IC as a normal member


...which means you shot at the IC. "

No, you didnt. You targeted the unit. That is what you shot at. That is what you are allowed to assault.

As for coherency /= coherency distance - you never addressed it, so never "disagreed" except passively. You never offered a single reason why they were the same, and have suddenly seen sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As for coherency /= coherency distance - you never addressed it, so never "disagreed" except passively. You never offered a single reason why they were the same, and have suddenly seen sense.

I never offered a reason for them being the same because, as I pointed out several times, it's completely irrelevant to the outcome. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not coherency and coherency distance are the same thing. It's solely to do with the fact that it's impossible for the sole member of a group to move away from that group.

I still disagree that they are different in the context of the rule being discussed. The only thing I have changed my opinion on is that establishing that the IC is out of coherency requires measuring to another model. It doesn't change my opinion on whether or not the IC can leave a unit that contains only the IC as the sole remaining member.

Fair enough - I just didnt get that disconnect in arguments, thanks for explaining it.

I still think we've shown that you can indeed "move away" from the unit, in the purely mathematical sense, and that an IC can indeed "leave" a unit when it is the last surviving member.

Rob

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat[/b] - you addressed the same wrong thing as Insaniak. Page 3 deals with measuring between models - however this is not required, as you are NOT CHECKING COHERENCY - you are checking coherency dsistance which is not the same thing. Thus I fall back on the general rules for measuring, whcih are from my base "out" - same as you do when moving. Un less you are saying when moving you are measuring between models? How about DS scattter?

You are lacking rules because page 3 does not have to apply, as it is not the only way to check coherency distance (yes, I will keep emphasising this as both of you and Insaniak are guilty of dropping this crucial word) from a model. It IS one way, it is not the ONLY way.

Nos:
I see you're continuing to refuse to cite pages or quotes for your assertions.

One of the tenets of YMDC is that this is about the rules as presented in the 40k rulebook, not about your beliefs what the rules should be.

If you're not going to back up your comments with actual citations to the rules, then you're not participating in YMDC, you're writing your own game.

biccat wrote:Nos:
I see you're continuing to refuse to cite pages or quotes for your assertions.

The 40k rulebook does not define the english language.

Coherency Distance is not the same as Coherency.
As Insaniak pointed out, if you're measuring coherency to determine if an IC has left a unit, you have to measure to every other unit on the board.
But you don't - you measure to see if he's left coherency distance. That's 2" for the rulebook impaired.

Biccat - I see you're continuing to cite irrelevant rules, and decrying others for pointing this out as "not following YMDC tenets)

To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

To measure a 2" distance do I need to measure between bases? No

Coherency is not the same thing as Coherency Distance. I do not need a rulebook to define the difference, because the English language states there is a difference. You have yet to address this difference, and as such your argument is impaired as it addresses the wrong item.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - I see you're continuing to cite irrelevant rules, and decrying others for pointing this out as "not following YMDC tenets)

To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

To measure a 2" distance do I need to measure between bases? No

Coherency is not the same thing as Coherency Distance. I do not need a rulebook to define the difference, because the English language states there is a difference. You have yet to address this difference, and as such your argument is impaired as it addresses the wrong item.

BRB p3 Measuring Distances
"..when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points."

BRB p 12 How do we measure unit coherency?
"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".

We call this - Nos is wrong.

There is even a pretty diagram to help your reading comprehension. Oh look someone has measured 3". That would be impossible if we were simply measuring 2" in a circle around the model.

Nemesor Dave wrote:We call this - Nos is wrong.

There is even a pretty diagram to help your reading comprehension. Oh look someone has measured 3". That would be impossible if we were simply measuring 2" in a circle around the model.

You can leave out the personal attacks. Thanks.

You're conflating measuring coherency with measuring coherency distance.

What models do you measure between to move?
When an IC leaves a unit, are you required to measure to every friendly model on the board to see if he's in coherency?

(hint: the answers are "none" and "No, because I only need to measure coherency distance")

edit: the rules on page three, even included in your quote, say "when measuring distances between two models".
There is no reason to measure between models, so that quote is useless.
Your second quote defined coherency distance as 2". And being coherent requires all models to be within coherency distance of another model.
The IC leaving references coherency distance. Not coherency.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're conflating measuring coherency with measuring coherency distance.

What models do you measure between to move?
When an IC leaves a unit, are you required to measure to every friendly model on the board to see if he's in coherency?

(hint: the answers are "none" and "No, because I only need to measure coherency distance")

edit: the rules on page three, even included in your quote, say "when measuring distances between two models".
There is no reason to measure between models, so that quote is useless.
Your second quote defined coherency distance as 2". And being coherent requires all models to be within coherency distance of another model.
The IC leaving references coherency distance. Not coherency.

BRB p 12 How do we measure unit coherency?
"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".

Notice the word "distance" in there. Notice that the sentence references "one model and the next". That means two models.

This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Yes, that is correct.
That is how you measure coherency.

Does an IC leaving a unit require you to measure coherency?

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Yes, that is correct.
That is how you measure coherency.

Does an IC leaving a unit require you to measure coherency?

Coherency is defined as being within coherency distance. So indeed it does require you to measure coherency distance as described "between models".

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Yes, that is correct.
That is how you measure coherency.

Does an IC leaving a unit require you to measure coherency?

Coherency is defined as being within coherency distance. So indeed it does require you to measure coherency distance as described.

Yes, coherency requires you to measure coherency distance.
Coherency is the act of being within coherency distance of another member of your unit.

What does an IC leaving a unit require?

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Yes, that is correct.
That is how you measure coherency.

Does an IC leaving a unit require you to measure coherency?

Coherency is defined as being within coherency distance. So indeed it does require you to measure coherency distance as described.

Yes, coherency requires you to measure coherency distance.
Coherency is the act of being within coherency distance of another member of your unit.

What does an IC leaving a unit require?

For the IC to leave coherency you must measure between the IC and each model from the unit it was joined to. If there are none alive, the IC is not joined to any unit because there is no unit left for it to be joined to.

You may not exit the house if a tornado tore it away from above you. You have not left the house but you are also no longer inside the house.

If the IC is a regular member of the unit it has joined for the sake of determining coherency, it is not allowed to move any place other than within 2" of another member of the unit. At that point you may measure to judge if it is within coherency and has voluntarily left or not. You see? If you're saying the IC for ALL purposes is a regular member of the unit, it is not allowed to move farther than 2" from another member of the unit before you even get to measure if it has left coherency distance so it can never leave..

Nemesor Dave wrote:
For the IC to leave coherency you must measure between the IC and each model from the unit it was joined to.

And that is not what the IC rules require you to do.
They require you to leave coherency distance.

BRB Page 48 wrote:An independent character can leave a unit during
the Movement phase by moving out of coherency
distance with it.

You may not exit the house if a tornado tore it away from above you. You have not left the house but you are also no longer inside the house.

You're bringing a real world situation in as a strawman... please don't.

If the IC is a regular member of the unit it has joined for the sake of determining coherency, it is not allowed to move any place other than within 2" of another member of the unit. At that point you may measure to judge if it is within coherency and has voluntarily left or not. You see? If you're saying the IC for ALL purposes is a regular member of the unit, it is not allowed to move farther than 2" from another member of the unit before you even get to measure if it has left coherency distance so it can never leave..

The IC must stay in coherency. The IC has explicit permission to move out of coherency distance for the purposes of leaving the unit.
Note that moving out of coherency distance is [edit] not [/edit] the same as leaving coherency. Only the latter requires a model to measure to.

rigeld2 wrote:
The IC must stay in coherency. The IC has explicit permission to move out of coherency distance for the purposes of leaving the unit.
Note that moving out of coherency distance is the same as leaving coherency. Only the latter requires a model to measure to.

Coherency is by definition determined by measuring distance between two models.

Staying in coherency or moving out of coherency is determined by the same thing. Measure between two models, the IC and each other member of the unit and see how far it is. If it's more than 2" the IC has left the unit.

Which one exactly are you saying is different and doesn't require measuring between two or more models?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Which one exactly are you saying is different and doesn't require measuring between two or more models?

Coherency distance does not require measuring between two or more models.
IC's are required to move out of coherency distance.
Coherency distance is defined as 2".

edit: I found a HUGE typo of mine above. "Note that moving out of coherency distance is the same as leaving coherency." should be "Note that moving out of coherency distance is not the same as leaving coherency."
I apologize for that typo and have corrected it.

ND - no, this is called you inability to read the words written on the page, and then making YET more rules up. Insaniak realised his mistake and, like an adult, conceded the point. Would you like to as well, or slip further into irrelevancy?

Coherency Distance is not the same as coherency

Being within COherency requires you to measure Coherency Distance between models

However, what EXACTLY does the rule for an IC leaving require you to do? I'll give you a hint: Rigeld2 gave you the *exact* quote.

Now, do you see the phrase "check coherency" in there? No? GOSH! Who would have thought it? Instead it asks you to move out of Coherency Distance which is a defined measurement of 2"

So, now we work out what we are measuring - and it is NOT measuring between bases

So here we have something called "ND missing the point by so far the curvature of space time has brought him back round to it again"

Oh, and in case you missed it - Coherency Distance is not the same as coherency; one is a distance variable (2" in this case for this set of rules) and the other is a process

nosferatu1001 and rigeld2:

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it"

Measuring 2" around the IC proves there is no other unit within 2" of it.
Measuring 2" around does not prove you move 2+" away from the unit.
Clearly you are asked to move away 2". Not simply be 2" away
A simple measurement does not satisfy the above rule. It is an action of movement not just a simple check at the end.

Abandon wrote:A simple measurement does not satisfy the above rule. It is an action of movement not just a simple check at the end.

So if an IC moves one inch, and the unit he's leaving moves 6 inches the other direction, that's an illegal move?

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:A simple measurement does not satisfy the above rule. It is an action of movement not just a simple check at the end.

So if an IC moves one inch, and the unit he's leaving moves 6 inches the other direction, that's an illegal move?

This question is somewhat unclear.

If the IC moved one inch first and that moved him out of coherency distance with the unit, the player then has the option of removing him from the unit. Subsequent models in the unit he just left no longer need to move so they'll end in coherency with him and can go there own way.

If the IC moved one inch first and it did not put him outside of coherency distance with the unit then he has not moved far enough away to be permitted to leave the unit. Subsequent models in that case would have to end movement in a way including the IC in coherency.

If the rest of the unit was moved first so that no other member was left within 2 inches of the IC, he would then have the choice of moving inside cohereincy distance with the unit and staying with them or moving anywhere outside of coherency distance from it and parting ways.

In any case the IC would have to start movement inside of coherency distance with the unit and end it's move outside of that distance with the unit to satisfy the rule.and allow the IC to leave.

Note the IC cannot stay where it is while the rest of the unit moves away. The rule says the IC must move.
Note also it says during movement not at the end.
...and most relevantly, note that none of this is possible for a single model unit.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."

nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - no, this is called you inability to read the words written on the page, and then making YET more rules up. Insaniak realised his mistake and, like an adult, conceded the point. Would you like to as well, or slip further into irrelevancy?

Coherency Distance is not the same as coherency

Being within COherency requires you to measure Coherency Distance between models

However, what EXACTLY does the rule for an IC leaving require you to do? I'll give you a hint: Rigeld2 gave you the *exact* quote.

Now, do you see the phrase "check coherency" in there? No? GOSH! Who would have thought it? Instead it asks you to move out of Coherency Distance which is a defined measurement of 2"

So, now we work out what we are measuring - and it is NOT measuring between bases

So here we have something called "ND missing the point by so far the curvature of space time has brought him back round to it again"

Oh, and in case you missed it - Coherency Distance is not the same as coherency; one is a distance variable (2" in this case for this set of rules) and the other is a process

Sorry to say you are wrong. Coherency is by definition the distance that is measured between two models to confirm or deny coherency. Here are the relevant quotes from the BRB.

BRB p3 Measuring Distances
"..when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points."

BRB p 12 How do we measure unit coherency?
"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".

Feel free to post your own quotes to refute this. But it is there as plain as black and white.

Oh dear god.

Seriously.

There is jsut a point at which the word "Troll" is just too accurate a term, and you've reached it.

Have you read the bullet points on page 48? Did you read the quote Rigeld posted up for your benefit? Did you read the very large text I gave you as a hint?

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

Ok, so now this has hopefully sunk in, please actually go back, read the actual rules, and notice you are required to move out of coherency distance

Coherency distance is, oddly, not the same thing as coherency. Who would have thought the addition of a word would change the meaning of the phrase! Shock!

You can keep repeating entirely irrelevant rules, but they will stay irrelevant, and you will stay a Troll

Measuring coherency distance is perform the same way you perform a measurement for any movement

Abandon - if you move, and are more than 2" from a member of the unit, you have by definition moved so you are more than 2" away from the unit.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Sorry to say you are wrong. Coherency is by definition the distance that is measured between two models to confirm or deny coherency. Here are the relevant quotes from the BRB.

That is correct. 100%. Congratulations.


What does that have to do with the method ICs use to leave units? Hint - they are not required to leave coherency.

rigeld2 wrote:So if an IC moves one inch, and the unit he's leaving moves 6 inches the other direction, that's an illegal move?

Yes.

Something you guys seem to take little notice of, is that coherency is mandatory, its not a choice for a unit.

Its not something that may or may not happen at the end of its move, it is compulsory.
You cannot "find" a unit to be out of coherency at the end of its move, you must move the models so as to regain/maintain coherency at the end of it.

So, that example above ...
The ic moved, but did not move out of coherency distance with the other models.
The other models are compelled to form a coherent unit, tracing the line through all models of the unit, inc the ic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Now, do you see the phrase "check coherency" in there? No? GOSH! Who would have thought it?

Where do you see the phrase "check coherency" anywhere on p12?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - I see you're continuing to cite irrelevant rules, and decrying others for pointing this out as "not following YMDC tenets)

Please cite some rules that you believe are more relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:To measure a 2" distance do I need to measure between bases? No

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency is not the same thing as Coherency Distance.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

nosferatu wrote:I do not need a rulebook to define the difference, because the English language states there is a difference. You have yet to address this difference, and as such your argument is impaired as it addresses the wrong item.

I wasn't aware that semetic arguments override the plain meanings of terms in the rulebook. See the quotes provided by Nemesor Dave.

Note that this whole argument is simply to reinforce the idea that playing precisely by the rules renders the game nearly impossible, or at least very difficult.

fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So if an IC moves one inch, and the unit he's leaving moves 6 inches the other direction, that's an illegal move?

Yes.

Something you guys seem to take little notice of, is that coherency is mandatory, its not a choice for a unit.

Absolutely not - I know that and have stated so, explicitly, several times.
The IC rules even reinforce this point (3rd bullet [or 2nd on the righthand side of the page from memory] on page 48).
The IC rules also state that an IC can leave a unit by moving out of coherency distance.
In my example above, the IC moved and is more than 2" away from the unit he's leaving (you can find that out by measuring a 2" circle around the model... if nothing is in that circle, then by definition he's out of coherency distance). This meets the requirements of the 4th bullet point (3rd on the right side from memory) on page 48.

Please explain how what I've explained is illegal.

So, that example above ...
The ic moved, but did not move out of coherency distance with the other models.

Excuse me? Maybe you're misunderstanding the example... if the IC was in the middle there'd be a lot of variables, but it'd have to be a huge unit for the IC to move 1" in one direction, the unit move 6" in the other, and still not be out of coherency distance.

The other models are compelled to form a coherent unit, tracing the line through all models of the unit, inc the ic.

Correct. Until the IC wants to leave the unit. Your sentence means that ICs can literally never leave units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

This is laughable and has to be a trolling question, but page 12 where it shows how to measure movement.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency is not the same thing as Coherency Distance.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

The rulebook doesn't have rules explaining the english language, sorry.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu wrote:I do not need a rulebook to define the difference, because the English language states there is a difference. You have yet to address this difference, and as such your argument is impaired as it addresses the wrong item.

I wasn't aware that semetic arguments override the plain meanings of terms in the rulebook. See the quotes provided by Nemesor Dave.

ND's quotes are valid for Coherency. That is not what the 4th bullet point in the IC rules require. You might want to read it.

biccat wrote:Note that this whole argument is simply to reinforce the idea that playing precisely by the rules renders the game nearly impossible, or at least very difficult.

In some/many cases, yes. Not in this one.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - I see you're continuing to cite irrelevant rules, and decrying others for pointing this out as "not following YMDC tenets)

Please cite some rules that you believe are more relevant.

I have done. The rules for ICs leaving units. You know, the one that states coherency distance, yet you are prattling on about coherency?

Its odd. I cite a rule that mentions a specific phrase. You then take a similar but different phrase and build an argument based off that phrase, and vehemently claim it has relevance, and claim that it disproves my argument.

Without at any point seeing that your argument is, at base, entirely and 100% invalid, because it addresses something the rule never mentions. Not once.

So, please show how rules for the process of checking Coherency has ANYTHING to do with the process for checking Coherency Distance or concede your demonstrated lack of comphrension of a very simple phase. Your call. You cant, because one is a process, the other a variable distance currently defined as 2", as has been repeated for about 10 pages now to seeminly no avail.

Or is this just you trolling badly again?

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

rigeld2 wrote:Please explain how what I've explained is illegal.

Ok, variables could make my claim false (in your interpretation), but ...

Imo, the ic leaves the unit, in exactly the way it is described in the book, by moving out of coherency distance with it.
Coherency is not only checked at the end of a units move, you can do that whenever you want (as has been proved) during your move and, sometimes in other phases.
This means the ic can (it doesn't have to) leave during its move, by moving away.

That is how it is possible to leave and even leave behind a stationary unit.

According to your interpretation, the ic doesn't leave until it is out of coherency distance with the rest of the models, this can only be checked and therefore happens after the unit actually finishes moving.

The other models are compelled to form a coherent unit, tracing the line through all models of the unit, inc the ic.

rigeld2 wrote:Correct. Until the IC wants to leave the unit. Your sentence means that ICs can literally never leave units.

But, while a unit remains a unit, which you would claim of the ic + other models do, until after they finish moving, the unit MUST move so as to form a coherent whole.
While the unit is a unit, the other models cannot ignore what the ic does, where it is moved to, they can only do this, when it has left.

If its true that the only time the ic leaves the unit is after movement is complete, the ic can move however he likes, but the rest of the unit, because it is still a unit, will be compelled to chase after to retain coherency, because it must.
That's crazy.

That's the logic loop that you and others seem not to recognize.
You can't leave until you do, which you can't, because the others can't let you, until after you do.

fuusa wrote:If its true that the only time the ic leaves the unit is after movement is complete, the ic can move however he likes, but the rest of the unit, because it is still a unit, will be compelled to chase after to retain coherency, because it must.

The IC has an exception to the "must remain in coherency" rule - the 4th bullet point.
And you only determine coherency at the end of the units move - this must be the case, or it would be impossible to move a unit of models in line abreast formation. At least not their entire 6" movement.

You can't leave until you do, which you can't, because the others can't let you, until after you do.

Please show the requirement to stay in coherency during movement. From what I can see the only requirement is to be in coherency at the end of the unit's movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I have done. The rules for ICs leaving units. You know, the one that states coherency distance, yet you are prattling on about coherency?

Ah, personal attacks. I'll note that, while often effective at dissuading opponents from responding, these are not actually rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its odd. I cite a rule that mentions a specific phrase. You then take a similar but different phrase and build an argument based off that phrase, and vehemently claim it has relevance, and claim that it disproves my argument.

Actually, you didn't cite a rule. You said something about measuring around your model, then steadfastly refusing to provide support for that measurement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, please show how rules for the process of checking Coherency has ANYTHING to do with the process for checking Coherency Distance or concede your demonstrated lack of comphrension of a very simple phase. Your call. You cant, because one is a process, the other a variable distance currently defined as 2", as has been repeated for about 10 pages now to seeminly no avail.

I removed the "size=24" tag from your quote for improved readability.

edit: size tag re-inserted, simply to show that NOSFERATU1001 IS MAKING AN IMPORTANT POINT!
edit2: Size tag increased to emphasize the importantness of the point being made.
edit3: note size tag re-inserted at the request of nosferatu1001.
edit4: italics tag fixed

To answer your question, I would think that coherency distance has just about everything to do with coherency. There are no rules for measuring "coherency distance," in fact, "coherency distance" is used throughout the rules (see p. 48) as a substitute for "2 inches" (the distance for coherency).

Note that the definition is implicit rather than explicit, again from p. 48:
"an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or is this just you trolling badly again?

Again, I'm pretty sure personal attacks are not a substitutes for rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Try page 11. There's even an easy to understand diagram for those who dont understand very very basic concepts such as "measure a distance" on page 12

The diagram on page 12 is actually quite illustrative (see what I did there? I know you did). It shows "coherency" as a distance between models, not measured as a bubble around each individual model. This is consistent with the measurement rules defined on page 3 (measure base-to-base) and, unsurprisingly, inconsistent with your previous comments.

I realize I might be making the mistake of assuming you understand what a double headed arrow means. This is a drafting symbol that is used to indicate the distance between two reference lines or points.

Note that we are not talking about movement, we are talking about coherency, so the movement rules on the top of p. 12 are wholly irrelevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Now, have you noted that this doesnt mention measuring to another unit, and just gives a set distance and yhow you measure it? Oddly this means that page 3 isnt relevant here. Who would have thought.

Which is why the rules on page 12 clearly discuss how to measure the distance for moving models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 11, oddly enough. Please prove that, when measuring ANY 2" distance I MUST measure base to base, or concede that you dont have a clue what youre talking about?

Page 12 shows how you measure "coherency distance." At no point is a "2 inch bubble" provided, rather the distance between models is measured directly.

Page 11 deals with moving models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:English. Prove they are the same thing, or please cite a rule that defines "the" within 40k. Then you can find a rule that defines "a" within 40k rulebook. I'll wait.

Oh, shucks, just you trolling AGAIN.

Again with the personal attacks.

If you've got an argument to make, I'd love to hear it.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because the personal attacks are difficult to separate from the actual discussion.

If you've got a rule that tells you how to measure coherency other than base to base, I'll consider it.

If you're just going to throw out insults and personal attacks, I'll ignore it.

biccat wrote:If you've got a rule that tells you how to measure coherency other than base to base, I'll consider it.

Show the requirement to establish that you're out of coherency for an IC to leave a unit.

You won't be able to - that requirement is actually to move out of coherency distance which as you've shown is synonymous with 2".

rigeld2 wrote:You won't be able to - that requirement is actually to move out of coherency distance which as you've shown is synonymous with 2".

How do you determine that you're out of coherency distance?

biccat wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You won't be able to - that requirement is actually to move out of coherency distance which as you've shown is synonymous with 2".

How do you determine that you're out of coherency distance?

Coherency distance is synonymous with 2", as we've established.
You measure 2" and discover there's nothing there.

rigeld2 wrote:

biccat wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You won't be able to - that requirement is actually to move out of coherency distance which as you've shown is synonymous with 2".

How do you determine that you're out of coherency distance?

Coherency distance is synonymous with 2", as we've established.
You measure 2" and discover there's nothing there.

Except you're not allowed to do that.

Instead, you move your IC away from the unit, measure to the nearest model, and determine that he is more than 2" away from the nearest model. You can therefore conclude he is "out of coherency distance" with that unit.

rigeld2 wrote:The IC has an exception to the "must remain in coherency" rule - the 4th bullet point.

Of course, that's how they leave units, but there is also bullet 3, must remain coherent, but that only applies "while he is part of a unit."

If he doesn't leave by moving away during his move, he is a part of the unit until the end, which traps them together.
The ic has that rule, the rest of the models which (according to you) are still a part of the unit do not, so they cannot move , or not move, so as to be out of coherency with the ic.

rigeld2 wrote:And you only determine coherency at the end of the units move - this must be the case, or it would be impossible to move a unit of models in line abreast formation. At least not their entire 6" movement.

No.
Is it fair to say, you can only know if you have or have not lost coherency in a unit, only after you have checked it?
I would say certainly.

P12. "During the course of a game ... and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties. If this happens, the models in a unit must be moved ... restore coherency."

So I can lose coherency through casualties, then, in the enemy shooting phase, for eg.

1. How can I justify firing a staitionary unit if its coherency is in doubt?
2. How can I justify taking a regroup test if coherency is unclear?
3. When I place the last model in my unit down, how can I justify my choice without knowing if it will complete the coherency of the unit, which I am told I must do?

rigeld2 wrote:Please show the requirement to stay in coherency during movement. From what I can see the only requirement is to be in coherency at the end of the unit's movement.

No, because there is no need to do this.

My argument, is about the requirement to form coherent units when they have finished moving and that this is the overriding principle while you are moving individual models.
There is no requirement to stay in coherency, just a requirement not to do something which would prevent coherency at the end of the move.

Thus, its possible to do something to stop you from performing a legal move, while you are moving and that is check.

biccat wrote:Instead, you move your IC away from the unit, measure to the nearest model, and determine that he is more than 2" away from the nearest model. You can therefore conclude he is "out of coherency distance" with that unit.

Citation? That's you you determine coherency. We've established that coherency and coherency distance are not the same.

rigeld2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Instead, you move your IC away from the unit, measure to the nearest model, and determine that he is more than 2" away from the nearest model. You can therefore conclude he is "out of coherency distance" with that unit.

Citation? That's you you determine coherency. We've established that coherency and coherency distance are not the same.

Page 3.

When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below. So, for example, if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model.

(Emphasis in original).

Substitute "coherency distance" for "2 inches" and "independent character" for "enemy unit/model".

edit: Sorry, to flesh out the argument, see this quote from up-page:
"when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points."

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I have done. The rules for ICs leaving units. You know, the one that states coherency distance, yet you are prattling on about coherency?

Ah, personal attacks. I'll note that, while often effective at dissuading opponents from responding, these are not actually rules.

Page 48, 3rd bullet on rh column. Of course, if you'd read the posts in the thread this specific rule has been given more than a dozen times - which you consistently ignore and misquote by stating it requies measurement of coherency.

It isnt a personal attack, but an honest statement about the fact you are conflating two entirely different phrases and claiming they are the same. Your argument has as much basis in relevance as responding with rules on how to roll to-hit when someone asks about to-wound.

Coherency distance is not the same thing as coherency. I'll keep repeating this until you finally acknowledge your error.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its odd. I cite a rule that mentions a specific phrase. You then take a similar but different phrase and build an argument based off that phrase, and vehemently claim it has relevance, and claim that it disproves my argument.

Actually, you didn't cite a rule. You said something about measuring around your model, then steadfastly refusing to provide support for that measurement.

False. Stop lying. The rule is p48, rh column, 3rd bullet point. This mentions coherency distance as the requirement. You respond by talking about coherency. The two are not the same. This is likely a shock to you.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, please show how rules for the process of checking Coherency has ANYTHING to do with the process for checking Coherency Distance or concede your demonstrated lack of comphrension of a very simple phase. Your call. You cant, because one is a process, the other a variable distance currently defined as 2", as has been repeated for about 10 pages now to seeminly no avail.

I removed the "size=24" tag from your quote for improved readability.

Dont, as it is there to prove a point - that the phrase is coherency DISTANCE the measurement, and not coherency the process. Something you seem to have difficulty in grasping.

biccat wrote:To answer your question, I would think that coherency distance has just about everything to do with coherency. There are no rules for measuring "coherency distance," in fact, "coherency distance" is used throughout the rules (see p. 48) as a substitute for "2 inches" (the distance for coherency).

Yes, there are - coherency distance is 2". The rules on page 11 cover measuring distances that dont involve base to base measurement.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or is this just you trolling badly again?

Again, I'm pretty sure personal attacks are not a substitutes for rules.

No, an honest interpretation that, given your inability to tell the difference between coherency, the process and cohernecy distance, a 2" measurement, you are indeed a troll.

Or did you miss that Insaniak now agrees there is a difference? Please explain how they are the same. I'll wait. Rulesthis time, that actually says the process called "coherency" is the same as the 2" mreasurement that is "coherency distance" - you have so far failed to provie any relevant rules, so this will be your first useful addition to the thread.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Try page 11. There's even an easy to understand diagram for those who dont understand very very basic concepts such as "measure a distance" on page 12

The diagram on page 12 is actually quite illustrative (see what I did there? I know you did). It shows "coherency" as a distance between models, not measured as a bubble around each individual model. This is consistent with the measurement rules defined on page 3 (measure base-to-base) and, unsurprisingly, inconsistent with your previous comments.

Ah, so when I point out, in context, a diagram that is about "moving models" you decide to troll and ignore that?

Classy. Oh wait, no, the opposite of that - puerile. Thats the word.

biccat wrote:I realize I might be making the mistake of assuming you understand what a double headed arrow means. This is a drafting symbol that is used to indicate the distance between two reference lines or points.

Ah, I see what you did there - you took your stated ignorance of basic measurement rules, and have tried to imply that others have the same deficiency of knowledge! Wow, you're actually clever!

No, no, again - not the right word. Puerile. That still fits.

biccat wrote:Note that we are not talking about movement, we are talking about coherency, so the movement rules on the top of p. 12 are wholly irrelevant.

No, YOU are talking about coherency. Meanwhile, those who have read the rules on page 48, rh column, 3rd bullet point are talking about coherency distance, because that is what the rule ACTUALLY asks you to check. Or do you disagree?

Again, you are talking about entirely irrelevant rules, and are getting flustered that people arent believing your argument has any merit.

Note - at this point I've given up to responding to every single one of your inane points. It got boring, as its essentially the same answer each time - you cant be bothered to read the rules actually as written, and instead construct an argument about something the rules dont ask for.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 11, oddly enough. Please prove that, when measuring ANY 2" distance I MUST measure base to base, or concede that you dont have a clue what youre talking about?

Page 12 shows how you measure "coherency distance." At no point is a "2 inch bubble" provided, rather the distance between models is measured directly.

Page 12 shows you how to measure for coherency. And, again, this doesnt answer the question you actually asked - which was your CONTENTION that ANY time you measure a 2" distance you MUST measure base to base. The obvious counter is movement, to which you havent bothered answering. Again.

biccat wrote:Page 11 deals with moving models.

...by measuring not base to base. Unlike your contention that all mesasurement is base to base.

biccat wrote:Again with the personal attacks.
If you've got an argument to make, I'd love to hear it.

No, not a personal attack, an honest assessment of the intent behind your posting. Obviously given you then stated that the reason you posted WAS trollish behaviour, it is also a factual statement.

My argument is that "Coherency" and "Coherency Distance" are not the same thing, because they are not the same thing as defined in English. Your response is to...ignore that. Again. Clever! Way to argue by avoidance!

biccat wrote:I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because the personal attacks are difficult to separate from the actual discussion.

Same as yours.

biccat wrote:If you've got a rule that tells you how to measure coherency other than base to base, I'll consider it.

No, I dont.

good job that the rule doesnt ask you to measure coherency, but "move out of coherency DISTANCE"

That extra word is important. Or do you argue that Ordnance is the same as Ordnance Barrage as well? Any other words you like to ignore?

Also - you rate your own importance waaaaay too highly. I dont care if you consider my argument, what I care about is pointing out to others that your argument is simply incorrect, as it ignores the actual rules and argues something else entirely than what the rule actually asks you to do. It helps others from thinking your posts have any merit to this discussion whatsoever.

biccat wrote:If you're just going to throw out insults and personal attacks, I'll ignore it.

Feel free.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dont, as it is there to prove a point - that the phrase is coherency DISTANCE the measurement, and not coherency the process.

I edited my quote of your post to re-emphasize the importantness of the point being made.

Because, as we all know, size is important to making an important point. If you don't use size tags, how will someone know what point you're making? They won't, that's how.

Ah, attempted wit! How cute.

Given you apparently missed the point every other time it was posted, increasing the size to emphasize the point seemed valid as a way to maybe draw your attention to your mistake

Sorry, I forgot youre trolling. Carry on

rigeld2 wrote:

biccat wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You won't be able to - that requirement is actually to move out of coherency distance which as you've shown is synonymous with 2".

How do you determine that you're out of coherency distance?

Coherency distance is synonymous with 2", as we've established.
You measure 2" and discover there's nothing there.

No, this is false.

You determine if a model is in coherency distance by measuring the distance between each of the models from the same unit as shown in the rules for determining unit coherency. Then you evaluate whether the model is within coherency distance (2").

There is no place in the RAW that shows measuring only 2" and not between two models for any measurement relating to coherency.

Nos, typing in all caps will not make your statements true. There are not two methods for determining if a model is in coherency. There is only 1method described in the rulebook - measure between two models base to base, then evaluate if the result is less or more than 2".

We all know that coherency distance is 2". If that was all the rules dictate, then you'd be free to make up your own method for measuring as you have done. However the BRB clearly tells you how to measure as I have quoted more than once.

Nemesor Dave wrote:However the BRB clearly tells you how to measure as I have quoted more than once.

You've quoted how to measure coherency. You have not quoted how to measure coherency distance.
An IC is not required to leave coherency - in fact he's forbidden from doing so.
He's required to move out of coherency distance.

Please stop conflating the two things.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:However the BRB clearly tells you how to measure as I have quoted more than once.

You've quoted how to measure coherency. You have not quoted how to measure coherency distance.
An IC is not required to leave coherency - in fact he's forbidden from doing so.
He's required to move out of coherency distance.

Please stop conflating the two things.

Coherency distance is not a method, its a length and in fact it is 2". How you determine coherency (is it within 2") is by measuring coherency distance. How you measure, is defined in the rule book and quoted below. There is no 2nd option.

Whether a model is within coherency distance or not is determined by measuring coherency distance.

BRB p3 Measuring Distances
"..when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points."

BRB p 12 How do we measure coherency distance?
"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".

Checking for coherency is done by measuring the distance between each model and the next and checking if they form an imaginary chain where the they are no more than coherency distance (2") apart.

ND - no, but pointing out where you are making up and ignoring rules DOES make me right, and continues to make you wrong. Can I point out to you that, again, Insaniak has realised that "coherency:" and "coherency distance" arent the same thing - could you at some point?

And, again, you are ignoring the rules on page 48, rh column, 3rd bullet point, which does NOT tell you to check coherency

Again, why are you referencing rules that dont have anything to do

Yes, coherency distance isnt a method - so why are you applying a method (coherency) when you are told to check a measurement (coherency distance)?

You do realise you need to measure to every single model on the table to determine if an IC has left coherency, yes? Whereas with coherency distance you just need to check he is outside of 2"

I seriously cannot believe you are entirely unable to parse the difference between "coherency" and "coherency distance". It is faintly unbeliveable that you cannot see that the two are different, and that applying the rules for one to the rules for another is just idiotic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given you apparently missed the point every other time it was posted, increasing the size to emphasize the point seemed valid as a way to maybe draw your attention to your mistake

Sorry, I forgot youre trolling. Carry on

Someone disagreeing with you isn't necessarily trolling, even if you repeat yourself and write in larger font. Most of the time, it simply means that they disagree with you.


Given the progressively more excitable tone of this discussion, and the fact that it hasn't really gone anywhere new for some time now, I'm inclined to shut it down to give everyone some time to cool off. if people aren't agreeing on how it works by now, they're not likely to suddenly change their mind on the 47th repitition of the same point.

As usual, if in doubt, discuss it with your opponent.