Tomb spiders add one base to a unit of scarabs within 6". I assume the only other requirement is that the base be placed within coherency because this is not spelled out.
The trick ... Can you, with this ability and 9 tomb spiders, conga line the existing unit by adding scarabs so that the unit stretches towards your opponents deployment zone? In theory this would give you a 33.5 inches on the first turn. So basically you could assualt anything you wanted with a good amount of scarabs that are 19 man strong.

Hmmm I don't have my codex to hand, so I'm not sure about that. Off the top of my head, I don't think there is a restriction (so long as you maintain coherency).

That having been said, it's going to be a moot point as of 10AM tomorrow.

Nono, I am talking about with the upcomming of for some of us the current codex. 2011

I don't quite think I understand what you mean? Are you going to an event that is using the old codex?

I have no idea what the new rules for Tomb Spiders + Scarabs will be in the new codex.

Ahh ok, well the new tomb spiders allow you to add 1 scarab base to and existing unit of scarabs. In theory you can have 9 do the same to a unit all in turn, each time stretching further towards your opponent.

Its possible - though we can't really make a ruling on this until we see the codex in the print. We can probably answer this question tomorrow though!

I can answer this tonight, codex is sitting at my house waiting for me to un-box it.

Damn you sir! Mine needs to wait till 10AM tomorrow to be collected :( - do share when you get it though - the thought of first turn charging scarabs into a land raider fills me with amusement

I feel confident in saying that they would have to be placed in coherency with the existing unit.

As to the question if you can 'conga line' scarabs from multiple spiders then the rules that tell you when the scarabs are created should answer your question.

All it says is that you add a scarab base to a unit of scarabs within 6 inches. Says nothing about coherency with the spider or where the scarabs can or can't be placed.

If its not in coherency then its not with the unit, is it?

I think he means that it is placed in a Scarab unit within 6" of the Tomb Spyder, placed within coherency of the Scarabs. So he thinks it would be possible to have 9 Tomb Spyders within 6" of some Scarabs make 9 Scarabs and then space them out in a conga line.

You are right ghaz the scarab does have to be placed with the existing unit. But each time you create a scarab after the first the new one only has to be in coherency with one that was add prior ... correct? hence the conga?

Again, that depends on when the scarabs are created. For example, if it says that they are created "... at the beginning of the turn" then they would all be created simultaneously and all created scarabs would have to be placed in coherency with the existing scarabs. Hence no 'conga line'.

For the sake of clarity.

Scarab Hive: At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Conptek spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Conoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a d6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the conoptek scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. (the rest is unrelated to the disscussion)


So ghaz you are saying that you can only add units that would fall under coherency with bases that were there at the start of the movement phase?

I think the intention is that the scarabs can't go beyond that 6 inch qualifier but it doesn't say.

I think the intention is that the scarabs can't go beyond that 6 inch qualifier but it doesn't say

No. The 6" is the maximum distance that the Tomb Spider can be from the scarab swarm that it is adding a base to. It in no way allows the added base to be out of coherency. If the base is over 2" away from the swarm then it was not added to that swarm. Its that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

At the start of each Necron Movement phase...

This indicates that the bases would all created simultaneously as the army only has one Movement phase. Therefore they would have to be placed in coherency with the original swarm since you can't place them in coherency with a base which isn't there. That means no 'conga line'.

Dude, listen to what I said....I know that is the max distance from the swarm the spider can be, I said it sounds like the intention of the rule was to say the scarab swarm could only go up to that 6 inch rang to join the nominated unit. Please don't assume I'm misquoting our misinterpreting rules when I never said that was the hard ruling and in fact stated that the ruling didn't say that and that it was my thought process on their intention of the rule.

Thanks ghaz

Kevin I see what you are saying. But ghaz has the right interpretation, the unit that you add a base to has to be within six, not the scarab itself.

BTW Ghaz do you have any precedents that I could go by on that?

The last WBB allowed it, so that's one against Ghaz' interpretation. Also, it doesn't seem to make sense compared to other similar rulings and other 40k rules.

If there are multiple "at the beginning of the turn" things going on, and they are dependent upon one another, they can't happen at the same time. Iirc, eldar have this issue with psychic powers and guard have it with orders.

In this case, it is impossible to say that the placement of scarabs is simultaneous, because you can't physically place all of them simultaneously, and to keep nine models in coherency with the original squad is hard enough. In addition, if the Stormlord is rolling for night fight at the beginning of the turn, the result of the roll directly impacts decision-making for the necron player. If Night Fight happens, he doesn't have to make scarabs "conga line." If it doesn't happen, he probably wants to conga line because he wants to be certain he makes it into combat.

Clay Williams wrote:Thanks ghaz

Kevin I see what you are saying. But ghaz has the right interpretation, the unit that you add a base to has to be within six, not the scarab itself.

BTW Ghaz do you have any precedents that I could go by on that?

I'm not disagreeing with him though. The main reason I think this though is because of the line "if the scarab can't be placed for any reason it is destroyed." Well, why would they have that line if you can just put the scarab base anywhere in the unit within coherency? With his interpretation (and how the rule is written currently) there would basically never be a time where you couldn't place a base because of having no room. This is why *I* think the interpretation is that the base should be within that 6" bubble around the spider and also in coherency, but I understand the rule doesn't say it that way so it's not going to be played that way this is just what I think GW's INTENTION was.

Kevin, there is no reason to think the bases have to be placed within 6" of the Spyder. The 6" is the measurement to the unit, nothing more.

One situation where you couldn't place any bases would be if the Scarabs are surrounded by enemy units, but not engaged. There could be no room to place any new bases.

I said it sounds like the intention of the rule was to say the scarab swarm could only go up to that 6 inch rang to join the nominated unit...

As MasterSlowPoke pointed out, you do not 'move' the created scarab base. You measure 6" from the Tomb Spider and if the Scarab swarm is in range then the created base is placed anywhere within cogrency with the swarm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, it doesn't seem to make sense compared to other similar rulings and other 40k rules. If there are multiple "at the beginning of the turn" things going on, and they are dependent upon one another, they can't happen at the same time. Iirc, eldar have this issue with psychic powers...

Actually if I remember correctly, then the Eldar ruling would support my position. They can't use their psychic powers on the turn they come in from reserve because they're not on the table at the start of the turn when their powers are used. Likewise you can't place a created scarab base in coherency with another created scarab base because its not there until the same time as the other base.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Kevin, there is no reason to think the bases have to be placed within 6" of the Spyder. The 6" is the measurement to the unit, nothing more.

One situation where you couldn't place any bases would be if the Scarabs are surrounded by enemy units, but not engaged. There could be no room to place any new bases.

In that situation you wouldn't roll to do it anyway as to not risk taking a wound on the spider, so that is a moot point.

Also, it's clear you [all] don't understand "intention" so I'm done trying to explain it.

If the Spyders create the scarabs instantly and simultaneously, how does that prevent a conga line? Once all the models appear (simultaneously) in the conga line, with at least ONE model in coherency of the unit, all will be in coherency instantly. Otherwise, each model is created and place in coherency those permitting a conga line.

Because what you are doing requires the scarabs to be created sequentially. They join the existing unit all at once. That means you can't use a base of scarabs you've created in the same turn to determine coherency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, it's clear you [all] don't understand "intention" so I'm done trying to explain it.

We clearly understand what 'intention' means, but the rules clearly don't say what you think they say and nothing leads us to believe that they 'intended' them to be read as you want them to.

Ghaz wrote:Because what you are doing requires the scarabs to be created sequentially. They join the existing unit all at once. That means you can't use a base of scarabs you've created in the same turn to determine coherency.

Why not? The instant it's on the table it's in coherency(assuming you put them down that way). How could anyone argue that they aren't? In a tournament, if a judge walked over he'd see them in coherency.

What's that saying about easter eggs? If you think you found one, you're reading the rules wrong. Something like that.

My 5 cents on this is that this is entirely legal until an errata is released on the new necron codex. It doesnt mentions anything about the placing of scarab swarms so it seems entirely legal to me. Although your opponent might not agree with this and it could start an argument but as far as the rule, it is rather vague and can be interpreted in the favour of the controlling player.

It doesnt mentions anything about the placing of scarab swarms...

Actually it does. It tells us when (start of each Necron Movement phase) and where (a Canoptek Scarab unit within 6").

Ghaz wrote:Because what you are doing requires the scarabs to be created sequentially. They join the existing unit all at once.

A couple of things to point out:

1) The Spyder rule doesn't mention the scarabs are created simultaneously. The rules state at the start of the Movement phase a Spyder can create a scarab. Nothing states this all happens all at once, each Spyder is permitted to create a scarab. Yes, this happens at the start of the phase but not necessarily simultaneously. I could alternate Spyders from different units creating scarabs for instance.

2) It doesn't matter if the scarabs are created sequentially or simultaneously. Either way gets the scarab models into unit coherency immediately. Do note, there is some level of abstraction to the game and the notion of "instantaneously". The player is not required to actually place all the scarabs on the board instantaneously, if the notion of the scarab creation is meant to be instantaneous then, by normal game play, once all the scarabs are placed on the table the models have been "instantaneously" created.

That means you can't use a base of scarabs you've created in the same turn to determine coherency.

Please provide a rule, with page number, that supports this claim. The Spyder Scarab Hive rule specifically states the created scarab can move and act normally the turn it is created.

Avatar's got you on that one. Take reanimation protocols for example, THAT rule works as you're suggesting Ghaz. Specifically with the phrasing "placed in coherency with a model from its unit that has not itself returned through Reanimation Protocols this phase."

If the spyder rule was phrased as the above, you'd be entirely correct. However, it is not.

Sorry, but you only have one 'start of the Necron Movement phase'. If you do anything else, then its no longer the start of the Movement phase, is it? No. Hence they are created simultaneously as that is the only way that they can meet the requirement of the start of the Movement phase.

I should grow some extra arms then? Kind of hard to place 3 scarabs at the exact same second on the board.

They are all CREATED simultaneously, as in one set of dice thrown for the unit of spyders, but the only restriction on them that is that they are placed in coherency with a unit of scarabs within 6"

You'll notice that when they wanted to stop this behavior (ie. in reanimation protocols), they used substantially different wording for almost the exact same effect.

In game terms they are created and then placed simultaneously. How many arms you have to place the models does not change the rules. You only have one start of the Necron Movement phase.

Ghaz wrote:Sorry, but you only have one 'start of the Necron Movement phase'. If you do anything else, then its no longer the start of the Movement phase, is it? No. Hence they are created simultaneously as that is the only way that they can meet the requirement of the start of the Movement phase.

The actual physical act of placing the models on the table obviously isn't instantaneous. The rules are abstract and as such the notion of instantaneous is in terms of the game not the physical world. Placing the models around the unit or in one long line all happens simultaneously in game terms.

However, the Spyder's rule doesn't state the Scarabs are all created at once. The rules state each Spyder can create a Scarab and each rolls a D6 when the Scarab is created to determine if any damage is done generating the Scarab. The Scarab is then placed in unit coherency with the Scarab unit. Again, nothing in the rule states I can't alternate between Spyder units creating Scarab from each Spyder.

In the end, it doesn't matter if the Scarabs are generated in sequential order or all are generated simultaneously thus as that moment the Scarabs are created the can move and act as normal Scarabs.

What constitutes the start of the Movement phase is a red herring and not relevant to the discussion.

There is one "start" of the movement phase, so while you may place them sequentially you can only place them in coherency with Scarabs that were already there. If you place them in coherency with a scarab created later then you have not created it at the start of the phase, but later.

Ghaz is correct. NO you are not going to conga ine

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is one "start" of the movement phase, so while you may place them sequentially you can only place them in coherency with Scarabs that were already there. If you place them in coherency with a scarab created later then you have not created it at the start of the phase, but later.

Ghaz is correct. NO you are not going to conga ine

Discussing the start of the movement phase is a straw man. The best you are going to get me to say about the issue is there are many actions that can happen at the start of the movement phase and doing one doesn't exclude doing the others.

IF you accept the Scarabs are created instantaneously, then the conga line is a valid placement as once the Scarabs are created they will be, by definition, in unit coherency. Remember, page 46 of the Necron codex states the created Scarab "can move and act normally."

Now, the rule on page 46 of the codex doesn't stipulate the Scarabs are created all simultaneously. I can alternate from unit to unit picking a different Spyder and different Scarab unit each time I roll for the Scarab Hive wargear. Based on the RAW, the Scarabs are created sequentially.

I will also direct you to the wording RP which has wording explicitly that prevents the forming of a RP conga line. This verbiage is lacking the Scarab Hive wargear rule.

Either way, the conga line can be formed with Scarabs.

Using that ideaology I can deepstrike a raider with Haem using duke siliscus, disembark and deploy a webway portal. Then deploy models from the webway portal during the same reserve phase and move/shoot/assault out of it since I obviously do not have enough hands to place all the models at once so there are seperate actions during the reserve phase

Of course you cannot do that because it has been faqed that you only count models already on the board for determining arrival of new units, which will probably be the same for scarabs.

blaktoof--disembarking models is not an action that happens at the start of the movement phase, so your example is flawed.

The answer (IMHO) is that 40k does not have a defined order of operations for simultaneous actions being resolved sequentially. They did make it a rule for the latest fantasy book, and pretty much every ruling so far has supported simultaneous events being resolved sequentially, with the caveat that actions that any action that requires a simultaneous but subsequent action not working for START OF (whatever) purposes only.

Example: A rhino suffers 9 glancing hits from a single big scary necron unit. These 9 glances cause 2 weapon destroyed and 1 immobilized result. Despite being simultaneous, the damage is resolved sequentially, such that the 3rd damage result causes the rhino to be destroyed, as it subsequently had lost its weapon and was immobilized.

Example 2: Eldar farseer in reserve. Reserves and farseer both have 'start of' actions. However, the farseer's psychic power action would require that the simultaneous yet subsequent action (coming in from reserve) be resolved. In a manner different from how we handle the glancing situation above, the farseer can not use his powers via simultaneous subsequent actions.

SO, for the OP. Placing a second scarab based off the position of the first scarab, when all scarabs are generated simultaneously at the 'start of,' should indicate that via teleport homers and the farseer, only preexisting models in the scarab swarm would apply for start of turn effects.

With that being said, however, the rule for placing scarabs is so criminally vague that I dont know why we were bothering to place them in coherency in the first place. IF we were forced to place scarabs in coherency, then I would say that congo lines are not legal (based on precedent) BUT nothing forces us to place the scarabs in coherency currently.

Coherency must be met at the end of the units movement. No pre-measuring distance at the start of the movement phase (before the new scarabs have moved or had a chance to move!) to check 2" coherency should be allowed. Instead, place the new scarabs anywhere on the table, and if at the start of the movement phase they are not in coherency, per the movement rules, then the unit must move to be in coherency that turn. Scarabs are basicly the opposite of removing casualties it seems, and like removing casualties we dont check if the unit is in coherency when we remove the models from a unit. So likewise, when adding models to a unit, we do not check coherency.

EDIT: by the way, its not just scarabs that have this issue. The new Ghost Ark also creates models for a warrior unit within 6 inches, and like the spyders the ghost ark only says that they go in a unit that is within 6, so basily anywhere you want. THEN you can move them, and must move into coherency.

TGA - see the other thread. You are very wrong on this.

Was the scarab there at the start of the phase? If the answer is "No", then it is not part of the unit you can spawn the squad into .

No conga line, youre wrong. Multiple start of phase is allowable UNTIL you create a sequence that requires on something that happens EARLIER in the start of phase. This is ewhy, in case you havent noticed, you cannot DS a homing beacon in and then use it to avoid scatter on other units.

You are creating a sequence when a) this is denied and b) when doing so wouls top you spawning more in.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - see the other thread. You are very wrong on this.

Was the scarab there at the start of the phase? If the answer is "No", then it is not part of the unit you can spawn the squad into .

No conga line, youre wrong. Multiple start of phase is allowable UNTIL you create a sequence that requires on something that happens EARLIER in the start of phase. This is ewhy, in case you havent noticed, you cannot DS a homing beacon in and then use it to avoid scatter on other units.

You are creating a sequence when a) this is denied and b) when doing so wouls top you spawning more in.

Again, show me where in the rules a) the creation of Scarabs are ALL created simultaneously (and not just at a nebulous period of time) or b) the instantaneous creation of the models in a line doesn't place the models in unit coherency.

The Scarab Hive rule states once the Scarab is created it can move and act the moment they are created. So, at one moment the Scarabs don't exist, the the next moment, all the Scarabs are on the table, in unit coherency. That's what instantaneous means.

It may be kosher by the rules (I'm not convinced either way) but are you really going to exploit something that you know is going to be FAQed out of existence?

This move is possible, but not very effective as you will still only have about 3 bases worth able to attack.

Godless-Mimicry wrote:This move is possible, but not very effective as you will still only have about 3 bases worth able to attack.

False. 6" move , 1d6" fleet and 12" charge range.

deploy 12" in, gain 3" for every base (2 inch coherency, 1 inch base) at 9 bases is an extra 27". 39" from your end of the table and you're *inside* his deployment zone. Add 19-24" and there's more than 3 bases.

I agree with two points others have brought up:

1) At no point are you told the new models have to be placed in coherancy. You can place them anywhere on the table and simply state they belong to the unit of scarabs within 6" of the creating tombspyder. Once you get to moving the scarab unit, if all the models in the unit (including the new ones) are not in coherancy, then you must move them so they are, up to thier maximum move. If they are in coherancy when it is their turn to move, then move as normal. In abusing this oversight, yes, the conga line is possible.

2) This will get FAQed into the ground.

At no point are you told the new models have to be placed in coherancy. You can place them anywhere on the table and simply state they belong to the unit of scarabs within 6" of the creating tombspyder.

The only way you could do that is if the Canoptek Scarab unit is considered to cover the entire table. If not, then you haven't added a base to the unit, have you? No.

Sure you have. Coherancy does not have any bearing upon what models are part of that unit, except in the case of ICs. If a unit gets blasted out of coherancy by taking casualties, do the models that are out of coherancy cease being a part of the unit? No, so it's the same issue here.

No you haven't. Once again, show is a rule that says that the squad occupies the entire table. It doesn't.

Maelstrom - if a model isn't in coherency with the rest of the unit, it can't be part of the unit.

This is how I see things:

Scarabs are spawned simultaneously. This is because it's done at the "start of the move phase". One can't do it after another, because then it's no longer the start. Clear cut.

You're then asked to place a scarab base to the existing unit if you pass a roll. You have to place within coherency, because otherwise it wouldn't be part of the unit, and thus an illegal move.

Having multiple scarabs repeat the same operation changes nothing - the "unit" will only ever consist of that one scarab until they're all placed - and since you're asked to place a base IN THE UNIT - you have to be coherent (2") to that one base. Conga lining is therefore impossible.

Additionally, anyone pulling this maneouvre is clearly a bad sport as it doesn't make sense lorewise or in the game design - it's rule lawyering to the maximum and I suggest anyone who comes across it to shame their opponent!

Just tossing in my 2 cents, while it's shady it's legal.

You roll the spyders one at a time, you are not forced to roll them all at once (though most will). Nothing states that placing that once that model is place down it's not part of the unit, thus allows the congo line.

The teleport homer really has no bearing since that has to do with the use of wargear and it's timing. Placement of models in a unit is a whole separate animal that hasn't been covered by any FAQs to my knowledge.


I"ll get FAQed into the ground and playing it will probably piss off your opponent. Ask yourself how badly you want to win a game of toy soldiers.

TGA - Again, show that "Start of the turn" has a duration.
If you cannot show it has ANY duration, which you cannot as it defies the term "start" to apply a sequence then what you are attempting to do is halted as soon as you place the second scarab, as you have broken a rule.

Over to you: prove you have ANY period of time that is not a single instant "Start" of phase. If you cannot do so, and you CANNOT DO SO, you are still wrong on this.

Also, you cannot claim you have placed a Scarab "with" a unit if you are placing it 30" away. the other Scarabs you have just placed are entirely unimportant for this, as EACH scarab you place must be placed "With" the unit - not another scarab you have just placed, as remember this scarab you have just placed doesnt yet exist, ok?

I am a necron player. I will have to say 'no line' either. I will say at most(b.c of RAW and no FAQ) you will get no more than 2 inches(not including the new scarab) b/c you have to place them around the original unit within 2 inches.

I have to say, it took a while to read whats here already and if 'That guy' (that wants to make a line of scarabs) comes into the store wants to play a game with me and tried to do this 'scarab line' BullS and tried to spend said time with me arguing a rule hes trying to make broken, I would play someone else...

Actually you would have to roll each spyder separately. They form a unit of 3 now and if they have differing wargear you would have to nominate for each spyder. Also the rule says "nominate a spyder", wouldn't that imply one at a time? Again I am just pointing this out and not using it to side with either answer. I am still very much neutral on this subject.

Dannygee wrote:I am a necron player. I will have to say 'no line' either. I will say at most(b.c of RAW and no FAQ) you will get no more than 2 inches(not including the new scarab) b/c you have to place them around the original unit within 2 inches.

I have to say, it took a while to read whats here already and if 'That guy' (that wants to make a line of scarabs) comes into the store wants to play a game with me and tried to do this 'scarab line' BullS and tried to spend said time with me arguing a rule hes trying to make broken, I would play someone else...

Can you leave the "that guy" crap out of this discussion please? I was enjoying the debate until this post. We have all heard that comment before and it doesn't need to be brought up again. Thanks.

You roll the spyders one at a time, you are not forced to roll them all at once.

It does not matter if you roll them one at a time or all at once. They are still considered to all have occurred at the same time and that is at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

Mesothere wrote:Maelstrom - if a model isn't in coherency with the rest of the unit, it can't be part of the unit.

This statement is 100% false. A model can be part of a unit and not be within coherency of it.

Example:

The letters below represent a Tactical Squad deployed in a straight line.

A=Sergeant, B=Meltagun, C=Regular Guy, D=Missile Launcher

ABCCCCCCCD

An opponent fires at the unit and kills everyone but the Sergeant and the Missile Launcher. Those models are no longer in coherency. Are they no longer part of the same unit? Obviously they are the same unit, they were purchased as one unit.

Maelstrom808 has the right of this. It's perfectly legal by the RAW since at no point are you required to place models in coherency with the unit. They are added to the unit, but they can be added anywhere on the board. Coherency is checked when the unit moves, and thus if they are no longer in coherency, they are required to move as fast as possible by the most direct path to restore coherency. So the models are placed in a conga line, and then coherency is checked when the models move. Obviously there is now coherency, so the unit moves as normal.

This will be FAQ'd almost immediately, but by the RAW I can find no flaw with it right now.

Apart from the RAW that this all occurs at the start?

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

Aldarionn wrote:

Mesothere wrote:Maelstrom - if a model isn't in coherency with the rest of the unit, it can't be part of the unit.

This statement is 100% false. A model can be part of a unit and not be within coherency of it.

Example:

The letters below represent a Tactical Squad deployed in a straight line.

A=Sergeant, B=Meltagun, C=Regular Guy, D=Missile Launcher

ABCCCCCCCD

An opponent fires at the unit and kills everyone but the Sergeant and the Missile Launcher. Those models are no longer in coherency. Are they no longer part of the same unit? Obviously they are the same unit, they were purchased as one unit.

Maelstrom808 has the right of this. It's perfectly legal by the RAW since at no point are you required to place models in coherency with the unit. They are added to the unit, but they can be added anywhere on the board. Coherency is checked when the unit moves, and thus if they are no longer in coherency, they are required to move as fast as possible by the most direct path to restore coherency. So the models are placed in a conga line, and then coherency is checked when the models move. Obviously there is now coherency, so the unit moves as normal.

This will be FAQ'd almost immediately, but by the RAW I can find no flaw with it right now.

I'm pretty sure you don't "check" for coherency on movement - you only attempt to fix it on that stage. Through that logic I could deploy my entire army out of coherency on the first turn?

You can't just say you add this base to a unit - 30 inches away. When you're placing your units they have to be within coherency... such is how reserves, deep striking and deployment works.

...because those rules specify that you have to place in coherancy. This is not reserves, deep strike, or deployment. Please show me the specific rule that states when you add a model to a unit already on the table, it must be in coherancy. Please show me the rule that states a model (other than an IC) that is out of coherancy with it's unit, ceases to be a part of that unit.

And just to be clear, I'm not advocating that people actually do this, as it is obviously not how this was intended to work. Just trying to point out another example of bad RAW.

It's the only definition of "with" a unit we have. Exactly the same as the GoI debate.

If you treat "with" as ANYWHERE on the board then a LR can be dragged by a Libby.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It's the only definition of "with" a unit we have. Exactly the same as the GoI debate.

If you treat "with" as ANYWHERE on the board then a LR can be dragged by a Libby.

"At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Conptek spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.
Nominate a Conoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a d6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the conoptek scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn."

Where is the "with"?

How have you added it to the unit, if you are placing it out of coherency?

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

I am personally waiting until the new spyders get released, hate the old ones. And in any case some of these armies already existed before the codex. I have seen my fair share of 9 tomb spiders with 30 scarabs. I think the list in this codex would be a nice counter to armor meta and still leave 1100pnts worth of army if you are playing 2k. The other nice thing is that on the first turn you are now facing and army with 2135 pnts.

Perhaps you would like to show is something to support your claims instead. If you can't, then you can not place them halfway across the board. Your whole argument is that nothing says you can not when what you need to do is show is where you can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apart from the RAW that this all occurs at the start?

That doesn't matter at all. Whether you place them out of coherency simultaneously or sequentially makes not a speck of difference, because they are still being placed out of coherency. Hell, you could place all 9 of them at different ends of the board and the rule would be the same. The moment the unit moves it must attempt to get back into coherency. If you place all of them at the beginning of the movement phase in coherency with one another (but not all in coherency with the original unit) then when the unit moves, it checks for coherency, finds that it has normal coherency now that all models have been placed, and moves as normal.

There is no point in the section about placing models that requires them to be placed in coherency with anything. It simply states that you add a base to an existing unit within 6". If you can point out where the RAW specifically states that the base must be placed within coherency I'll gladly concede my point.

Mesothere wrote:I'm pretty sure you don't "check" for coherency on movement - you only attempt to fix it on that stage. Through that logic I could deploy my entire army out of coherency on the first turn?

You can't just say you add this base to a unit - 30 inches away. When you're placing your units they have to be within coherency... such is how reserves, deep striking and deployment works.

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

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

Unit Coherency must be fixed at the end of the units movement. If they are out of coherency at the start of their movement, they must move in such a way that they restore coherency in their next movement phase. Again, there is nothing that I can find that specifically disallows placing models out of unit coherency as long as the unit moves into coherency by the end of their move, which they do simply by all moving in the same direction at the same speed, because they were placed in such a way that this happens.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
And just to be clear, I'm not advocating that people actually do this, as it is obviously not how this was intended to work. Just trying to point out another example of bad RAW.

I want to second this. It's merely an example of poorly worded Rules, and another reason that GW needs to have open playtesting for this crap. All secrecy gets them is an FAQ that's 5 times longer than necessary and more holes in their rules than almost any other game system. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but it's frustrating as hell to argue over points that could very easily be clarified with more consistent wording. Please don't take me for someone looking for a loophole to exploit, I simply find the loopholes so I know where they are when the OTHER guy tries to exploit them.

This will receive FAQ almost immediately, but until it does, expect to see a few random mooks try to pull it off in minor tournaments between now and then.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:Perhaps you would like to show is something to support your claims instead. If you can't, then you can not place them halfway across the board. Your whole argument is that nothing says you can not when what you need to do is show is where you can.

Actually there appear to be no rules that tell you where you CAN or CANNOT place the base. It simply tells you to 'pick a scarab unit within 6" and add a base to the unit', but nowhere in the rules does it specify HOW you are supposed to add the base to the unit. In fact, it doesn't state you are allowed to "place" the base, so if you want to go for strict 100% interpretation, you add a base to the unit but cannot put it anywhere on the table because the rules don't tell you that you can.

The second you go down that road this discussion has jumped the shark, because it simply further exposes the poorly written rule and that it needs clarification. One person can interpret "adding a base to a unit" as meaning one thing, while someone else can interpret it as meaning something else entirely, which is the whole reason we are arguing here. If they had simply worded this rule like the rules for Reanimation Protocols then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but for some stupid reason they didn't and thus everyone goes crazy over the loophole. It happens with every codex, and all that we can hope for is that we make enough of a spectacle of it that it makes it into the FAQ.

But you nominate a canoptek spider to do it, then roll, then nominate the next, then roll, down the list of spiders near scarab units...Wouldn't that mean that they are created one at a time, instead of simultaneously?

Aldarionn wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:Perhaps you would like to show is something to support your claims instead. If you can't, then you can not place them halfway across the board. Your whole argument is that nothing says you can not when what you need to do is show is where you can.

Actually there appear to be no rules that tell you where you CAN or CANNOT place the base. It simply tells you to 'pick a scarab unit within 6" and add a base to the unit', but nowhere in the rules does it specify HOW you are supposed to add the base to the unit. In fact, it doesn't state you are allowed to "place" the base, so if you want to go for strict 100% interpretation, you add a base to the unit but cannot put it anywhere on the table because the rules don't tell you that you can.

The second you go down that road this discussion has jumped the shark, because it simply further exposes the poorly written rule and that it needs clarification. One person can interpret "adding a base to a unit" as meaning one thing, while someone else can interpret it as meaning something else entirely, which is the whole reason we are arguing here. If they had simply worded this rule like the rules for Reanimation Protocols then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but for some stupid reason they didn't and thus everyone goes crazy over the loophole. It happens with every codex, and all that we can hope for is that we make enough of a spectacle of it that it makes it into the FAQ.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner....

While I understand that "conga-lining" Scarab bases is potentially advantageous with the charging and whatnot... I don't see myself ever employing this method, because IMO it spreads out the unit too much for it to survive for long - granted that Scarabs can be obliterated relatively easily. Assaulting units, blasts/templates and superior shooting will hurt this tactic, I believe. Though, I have yet to try it out so I could be wrong.

Would someone be able to counter my standpoint regarding this?

Gorandius wrote:While I understand that "conga-lining" Scarab bases is potentially advantageous with the charging and whatnot... I don't see myself ever employing this method, because IMO it spreads out the unit too much for it to survive for long - granted that Scarabs can be obliterated relatively easily. Assaulting units, blasts/templates and superior shooting will hurt this tactic, I believe. Though, I have yet to try it out so I could be wrong.

Would someone be able to counter my standpoint regarding this?

The only note I'll add to this is stringing out in a line is actually the most effective formation for defending against blast markers.

I do see how that can be defensive as well as offensive. The blasts can also ruin the coherency if the template lands in the middle of the line, right? Large blasts even more so.

Thanks Maelstrom!

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - Again, show that "Start of the turn" has a duration.
If you cannot show it has ANY duration, which you cannot as it defies the term "start" to apply a sequence then what you are attempting to do is halted as soon as you place the second scarab, as you have broken a rule.

First off, the Scarab Hive wargear is used at the start of the Movement phase. But do note:
Reserve Rolls are made at the start of the Movement phase.
Psychic Powers are generally used at the start of the Movement phase.
Some abilities can be used at the start of the Movement phase.
Some wargear can be used at the start of the Movement phase.

Obivously, there is an undefined "meta-phase" with the Movement phase call "The Start of the Movement Phase" where any or all of the above can happen. I've debated this to death over at warseer http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=316620&page=9&highlight=start+turn. Click the link if you want to read about the various notions regarding start of Turn, start of turn, start of Movement phase, the duration of said and so forth and so on. I'm not going to rehash it here.

Regardless of the my point of view in the warseer debate, one thing is clear: the start of the Movement phase is neither clearly defined NOR instantaneous. If it was instantaneous, then only one Spyder would get to roll since, by your myopic viewpoint, the start of the turn is over. Further, if the Necron player rolled for reserves he couldn't use the Scarab Hive or vice versa, if he used the Scarab Hive, he couldn't roll for reserves. This obviously isn't the case. So, let's just go to our neutral corners regarding the issue of start of the Movement phase.

Over to you: prove you have ANY period of time that is not a single instant "Start" of phase. If you cannot do so, and you CANNOT DO SO, you are still wrong on this.

Um, just did. See above.

Also, you cannot claim you have placed a Scarab "with" a unit if you are placing it 30" away. the other Scarabs you have just placed are entirely unimportant for this, as EACH scarab you place must be placed "With" the unit - not another scarab you have just placed, as remember this scarab you have just placed doesnt yet exist, ok?

Maybe we're using different definitions of instantaneous. You're insisting all the Scarabs are created instantaneously yet are placed sequentially. The moment the line of created Scarabs exists (instantaneously, I might add), the created Scarabs are are with the Scarab unit via unit coherency. Mind you, the rule states, "add one base the Canoptek Scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn." (Necron codex: page 46). The created Scarabs act normal in the turn they're created.

Now, what you and Ghaz have failed to show is how the Scarab creation is instantaneous for all the Spyders generating Scarabs instead of sequentially as the rules lay out: 1) nominate a Spyder, 2) Roll a D6, 3) On the result of a 2-6, place the newly created Scarab with the Scarab unit, 4) on the result of a 1, place the newly created Scarab with the Scarab unit but the Spyder suffers a non-saving wound. The rules do not state this happen simultaneously. Nominate a Spyder, roll, place Scarab. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Gorandius wrote:I do see how that can be defensive as well as offensive. The blasts can also ruin the coherency if the template lands in the middle of the line, right? Large blasts even more so.

Thanks Maelstrom!

No, the blasts cannot ruin coherency. Models are removed from wherever the controlling player wants, so instead of removing models from the middle of the line, they could remove them from the ends. There are certain weapons that remove specific models (Jaws of the World Wolf, Vindicare Assassin, Etc...) but firing a blast weapon at a unit of Scarabs won't destroy coherency unless the controlling player elects to do so.

Ah...wound allocation. Don't mind the noob, for I totally Derp'd on that, too. Well, then...*turns away quickly and whistles*

Actually there appear to be no rules that tell you where you CAN or CANNOT place the base.

Read it again. It is right there in black and white. It tells you to place the base WITH THE UNIT. Halfway across the board does no qualify.

But you nominate a canoptek spider to do it, then roll, then nominate the next, then roll, down the list of spiders near scarab units...Wouldn't that mean that they are created one at a time, instead of simultaneously?

And yet again, when do the rules say that the base is created? It says at the start of the Necron Movement phase, that's when. It doesn't matter if you place them sequentially or not. They still occur when the RULES dictate and that is at the beginning of the Necron Movement phase for ALL of them.

It doesn't mean it has to be simultaneously. If the rules were saying that, they would say simultaneously. It is open to the players to choose until an erratta comes.

And using capitals for the word rules doesn't make you right. You are just stating your interpretation of the rules, you didn't write them, so don't try to make it sound like your view is the one and only.

Ghaz is correct about the simultaneous creation, there is no question about that. The actual act of rolling for and adding models to the units does not have to take place at the same time, but game terms it happens at the exact same moment...IE "at the start of the Necron movement phase."

Say I attack a vehicle with a model with a Thunder Hammer. These attacks happen at "initiative 1", which is to say they are resolves all at the same time. I roll all of my armor penetration results at the exact same time, and I roll all of my damage results at the exact same time. I can choose to roll all of the dice separately, but that doesn't change the fact that all of the results are simultaneous, so if I score 3 Penetrating Hits and one is Weapon Destroyed, one is Wrecked, and one is Explodes, the vehicle explodes no matter what order the dice are rolled in. The Wrecked result doesn't prevent it from happening even if it was rolled first, because all results are applied at the same exact time as far as the game is concerned, and ALL simultaneous results apply. In this case, Explodes would override Wrecked.

That said, I still think he's wrong about placement of models as it's currently worded .

There is alot of butt hurt in this thread

Even if you roll 1 unit at a time you gain 10.5" by layering them, thats more then enough to pull off a first turn charge, personally Id rather wait til I have 30+ bases before I charged.

It doesn't mean it has to be simultaneously. If the rules were saying that, they would say simultaneously.

So how are you doing them sequentially when you only have one "start of the Necron Movement phase"? They don't have to say simultaneously because with the wording of the rule that is the only way it can happen.

Ghaz wrote:Read it again. It is right there in black and white. It tells you to place the base WITH THE UNIT. Halfway across the board does no qualify.

I am going by this being the quoted rule:

Scarab Hive: At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Conptek spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Conoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a d6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the conoptek scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. (the rest is unrelated to the disscussion)

In there it does not tell you to place the base "with" the unit. Now if the actual rule is different, please quote it and I will re-evaluate my stance based on the actual wording of the rule.

The exact wording, word for word from the Codex:

Scarab hive:

At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Canoptek Spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Canoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a D6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. This can take the unit beyond its starting size. On a roll of a 1, the Scarab base is still placed, however, the Canoptek Spyder is drained by the energy expenditure and suffers a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed. If the Scarab base cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed.

Ruan wrote:The exact wording, word for word from the Codex:

Scarab hive:

At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Canoptek Spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Canoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a D6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. This can take the unit beyond its starting size. On a roll of a 1, the Scarab base is still placed, however, the Canoptek Spyder is drained by the energy expenditure and suffers a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed. If the Scarab base cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed.

Thank you for taking the time to put that up.

I stand by my previous assessment of the rule. There is no wording within the rule that directs you to place the base "with" the unit.

I still stand by what I put before, which is that swarm bases can go anywhere on the table, and dont have to be in coherency. As I have stated, the act of measuring out of phase (if you want to create a base in coherency) seems to be a much bigger rules infarction than adding scarab bases halfway across the board.

I dont think you should put your swarm bases 3 feet away from the existing scarab unit, but with no FAQ I have no rules to say they cant be 3 feet away. As I said before, I will be playing that the new base must be within 6 inches of the spyder that created it, like termagants must be within 6 inches of the tervigon that created it. Its not a real rule, but it feels right and I have no need to play 'crons to win via the 3 foot 'congo line' of scarabs for turn 1 charges.

GTA - ah, you are under the misapprehension that, just because multiple things happen at the start of a phase, that they therefore occur sequentially

They dont

There is a single start of phase, and all those activities (roll for reserves, moving on from reserves, rolling for spiders) all occur in that single instant.

You have NOT proven a duration at all, you just waffled on that just because lots happen they must happen sequentially. They dont. Again, nothing you have said is proof of anything like the extraordinary claim.

Also nice Insult there. I do not have a myopic viewpoint, I just have a more coherent understanding of the term "start of" than you do, clearly.

Say you only have one set of dice, and you are firing a HB and Bolter armed squad. In your "myopic" view point these would happen sequentially, as you have to roll the dice sequentially. Now of course this isnt true - yet according to your determination of when something must be a sequence it would be.

So, now we have determined that simply because you cannot perform something truly simultaneously doesnt mean it must be sequential, this should hopefully be enough to prove to you that, while we must roll scarabs one at a time, usually (you could have 9 sets of dice, of course, but for now assume 1 colour - the truly degenerate case) this does NOT make this a) sequential in game time nor b) moves us out of the "start of phase" timing we inhabit.

So, now we can see that 1 - 9 scarabs are all created at the same time, even though you add them to the unit in sequence. Point the first proven.

So, where do you add them? well, you are told to add them "TO" "the unit". The only definition we have for "the unit" is "the unit' as it was at the start, before we added anything - as remember the addition is simultaneous - meaning you cannot add scarabs in sequence, claiming that each you have added is now part of "the unit", because all addition occurs simultaneously and you have JUST instated a sequence, with no permission to do so.

So, now we know all addition is simultaneous, we have to see where we can add them. So, we must add them "to" the unit - and the only definition we have anywhere of "the unit" is wrapped up in coherency.

So, you must a) place them in coherency and b) in coherency with the unit that existed at the start
No conga line possible, QED

Accepting that the spiders must be placed in cohesion with the existing unit of spiders:

If you are placing all 9 scarabs simultaneously, what's preventing those 9 scarabs from being in a coherent line and simultaneously placing that line in coherency. Those 9 spiders exist, and are all in coherency with one another, and one of them is in coherency with the existing squad, therefore they are all in coherency when you place them. If they are being placed simultaneously, at no point is any spider out of cohesion.

Because you are only allowed to place them in coherency with "the unit", not the scarabs you have just placed. Remember they DONT exist at the time you place each scarab, only once ALL have been placed do they exist. So you must fulfill coherency without "knowledge" of the other scarabs. Each individual scarab must be placed in coherency with the original unit, then once all are placed they now all simultaneously exist.

Is anyone honestly going to try and place new scarab bases anywhere on the board totally out of coherency with the unit they are part of? I call you WAAC, King of Cheese and bring the TO over. The intent of units is always to keep them in coherency in the movement phase and the start of the movement phase is still the movement phase. Involuntary movement such as tank shocks is the exception and covered by it's own rule.

You tools are going to kill the game. When you have no one left to play you because of your antics I'm sure you'll be giving yourself a pat on the back over your cleverness.

Clay Williams wrote:

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

I am personally waiting until the new spyders get released, hate the old ones. And in any case some of these armies already existed before the codex. I have seen my fair share of 9 tomb spiders with 30 scarabs. I think the list in this codex would be a nice counter to armor meta and still leave 1100pnts worth of army if you are playing 2k. The other nice thing is that on the first turn you are now facing and army with 2135 pnts.

I actually posted this as a throw away fun comment, maybe should have posted a smiley with it. What is your "fair share" of 9 Spiders/30 scarbs as I have never seen that Army build on the table? Using 45% of your points allocation and all your HS choices at 2000 points to get a first turn charge that can be countered is not in my view worth it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:GTA - ah, you are under the misapprehension that, just because multiple things happen at the start of a phase, that they therefore occur sequentially

They dont

There is a single start of phase, and all those activities (roll for reserves, moving on from reserves, rolling for spiders) all occur in that single instant.

Please provide a page number that describes the start of the Movement phase. That would be helpful. Otherwise, all you have is an opinion on the the notion of "the start of the Movement phase". Also, please provide a definition of start that solely means "instantaneous". I have way to much evidence to prove the start of thing, in most instances, is NOT instantaneous. Again, I'm not here to argue the finer details of what defines a turn (or phase). Instead, I will insist you provide the necessary evidence to support your claim, rules, page numbers, etc.

You have NOT proven a duration at all, you just waffled on that just because lots happen they must happen sequentially. They dont. Again, nothing you have said is proof of anything like the extraordinary claim.

Also nice Insult there. I do not have a myopic viewpoint, I just have a more coherent understanding of the term "start of" than you do, clearly.

No insult: myopic in the sense of your opinion narrowly defines the start of the Movement phase as a single instance of time. You haven't provided any support for such interpretation.

What your suggesting is all things that happen at the start of the Movement phase happen simultaneously. For example, if a Necron player had units in reserve AND Spyders on the table, unique acts of using the Scarab Hive wargear and rolling for Reserves (and bringing units onto the table) happen all at once. This obviously isn't the case.

Say you only have one set of dice, and you are firing a HB and Bolter armed squad. In your "myopic" view point these would happen sequentially, as you have to roll the dice sequentially. Now of course this isnt true - yet according to your determination of when something must be a sequence it would be.

Straw man argument. I've made no such suggestion. Shooting is already defined as happening simultaneously.

So, now we have determined that simply because you cannot perform something truly simultaneously doesnt mean it must be sequential, this should hopefully be enough to prove to you that, while we must roll scarabs one at a time, usually (you could have 9 sets of dice, of course, but for now assume 1 colour - the truly degenerate case) this does NOT make this a) sequential in game time nor b) moves us out of the "start of phase" timing we inhabit.

Well we haven't determined anything, yet. I will concur there is a difference between the game mechanics and the game logic. From a game logic point of view, things happen simultaneously but due to game mechanics, things are handled sequentially, such are your (poor) shooting example: All the shooting is logically dealt with simultaneously but the mechanics of resolving the shooting is handled sequentially.

The Scarab Hive wargear rule states nominate a Spyder, roll for effect, place Scarab with unit. The rule doesn't say roll for all the Spyders' wargear together.

So, now we can see that 1 - 9 scarabs are all created at the same time, even though you add them to the unit in sequence. Point the first proven.

So let me get this straight. You are arguing that the events in creating the Scarabs are logically simultaneous, though the mechanics of placing the created Scarabs on the table is sequential. Did I interpret that correctly?

So, where do you add them? well, you are told to add them "TO" "the unit". The only definition we have for "the unit" is "the unit' as it was at the start, before we added anything - as remember the addition is simultaneous - meaning you cannot add scarabs in sequence, claiming that each you have added is now part of "the unit", because all addition occurs simultaneously and you have JUST instated a sequence, with no permission to do so.

If all adding is simultaneous (logically with respect to the game), instantaneous if you will, then, by definition, one moment the Scarabs aren't there then the next moment all the Scarabs appear, from a game logic point of view. The instant the Scarabs appear they move and act normal for the turn. Acting normal includes being part of the unit including supporting unit coherency.

So, you must a) place them in coherency and b) in coherency with the unit that existed at the start
No conga line possible, QED

Actually, I just showed above how,using your logic to support my claim, that the conga line is valid.

What you still haven't shown is how the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous nor have you shown the use of the Scarab Hive wargear occurs simultaneously for all Spyders involved.

No, you havent shown it, as you ignore that the initial placement must be in coherency, and you cannot count scarabs you have "yet" to place as being there for coherency.

Also -BRB FAQ on "start of movement phase" powers indicates instantaneous time, otherwise you could indeed bring a farseer on from reserves and use powers. You cant. THis indicates single instant

This is one I do not read as stated by nosferatu1001.



Reserves preventing Start of turn actions are unrelated, as that would take have a single unit do two different things to start with.
This takes 2 different units doing something to start with.
Which happens almost every single turn.

This takes 2 different units performing the same thing in sequence, which isnt usually allowed

You would be fine with 2 libbys GoI twice, once each?

Every phase is done in sequence, why is starting the phase different?

Generally speaking, and there are more exceptions to my following statements than the rules:
I read it as saying "When this unit starts its turn." Bearing in mind that this is functionally identical to "Before/when this unit starts to move" in many cases--unless you have models with each.

Start of the turn has to happen before anything can try to move.
e.g. You do not get to move a unit then use any "Start of turn" ability, but you can use each unit's "Start of turn" abilities (in normal order).
See: Farseer Psychic powers
Start of the move happens when that unit moves.
e.g. You could in theory even bring a unit in from reserves, then use ANOTHER unit's "Start of move" ability.
See: Instinctive behavior

kirsanth wrote:e.g. You could in theory even bring a unit in from reserves, then use ANOTHER unit's "Start of move" ability.
See: Instinctive behavior

Just to note - IB is not applied to units that come in from reserves - you are assumed covered by Synapse at the start of your turn.

Doubt it has any bearing on the discussion, but in case it does...

Add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit...

This still supports my position because so far I've not seen anything that says that the unit covers the entire board. It doesn't. If its not in coherency with the other members of the unit then it wasn't added to the unit.

ruminator wrote:Is anyone honestly going to try and place new scarab bases anywhere on the board totally out of coherency with the unit they are part of? I call you WAAC, King of Cheese and bring the TO over. The intent of units is always to keep them in coherency in the movement phase and the start of the movement phase is still the movement phase. Involuntary movement such as tank shocks is the exception and covered by it's own rule.

You tools are going to kill the game. When you have no one left to play you because of your antics I'm sure you'll be giving yourself a pat on the back over your cleverness.

You mistake a desire to debate semantics and the fundamentals of the rules in order to better understand them for being a "WAAC, King of Cheese". It's players like YOU that make the assumption that we discuss rules loopholes in order to gain some advantage that are in fact hurting the game. A willingness to argue differing opinions regarding how a certain rule is interpreted is NOT the same thing as actually intending to put those (sometimes wild and obviously against the spirit of the rules) interpretations into practice on the battlefield. So please, do not point the accusatory finger and make generalizations about one side of an argument simply because they are arguing a potentially game-breaking point. Chances are those people have no intention of using the loophole they are arguing, they simply find enjoyment in the debate and actually stripping the rules down to their basic elements in order to be a more well rounded player (and sometimes to prepare themselves for the players that DO intend to exploit such a rules loophole).

So far Nosferatu's argument has been the most compelling for his side because he has effectively backed up his opinion with facts, and I think he might actually have the right of it now. Sometimes it takes a discussion like this to understand how GW actually writes the rules, and what might actually be going through their heads when they form the various wordings for the special rules and abilities they write. The issue is that they take for granted the knowledge or exactly how things are intended to work because it's THEIR rules system. Obviously they know what they mean. The problem occurs when GW intends one thing, but inadvertently writes something that appears to mean another, which is what we are attempting to uncover.

Nice argument Nos, I concede my point.

Aldarion - thanks

Kirsanth - because the rules suggest otherwise. In fact where things are in sequence they are explicitly so.

Placing it in coherency is the only way to place it with the scarab unit, and that cannot include placing it in coherency with the scarabs you are in the process of creating.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Aldarion - thanks

Kirsanth - because the rules suggest otherwise. In fact where things are in sequence they are explicitly so.

Placing it in coherency is the only way to place it with the scarab unit, and that cannot include placing it in coherency with the scarabs you are in the process of creating.

I still don't see how you can draw that conclusion out of "...add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit..." Before I get into my explanation let me start with a statement that I agree with you and Ghaz that this is how the Hive rule should be played, but not how it must be played.

It seems to me that when you (and Nos) read ...add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit... What you have extracted out of that is, "add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit. A scarab base added in such a way must be placed in coherency with a Scarab base [from the nominated scarab unit] that was on the board at the beginning of your turn".

This strikes me an an assumption you are both making about how one is to add a member to an existing unit on the board. I call it an assumption because I have not found anything in the Necron codex or main rulebook that supports it. You have in a sense created a new rule mechanic to deal with how to add one or more members to an existing unit. If there are any precedents set in a FAQ they are hopefully sufficiently general enough to apply across armies. I haven't seen any yet.

This is how I see the Scarab hive mechanic working.

If I have three Spyders (A,B,C) in one unit I would work it out as follows:

1.) Nominate a Scarab unit within 6'' of Spyder A
2.) Roll a d6 and subtract 1 wound from the Spyder if necessary
3.) Add the scarab base to the nominated unit. Since there is no explicit game mechanic describing how this occurs, I will for simplicity add it in coherency to a scarab base from the nominated scarab unit.

At this point I have completed 1 iteration of the Scarab Hive rule. If I wanted to create a scarab base for the other Spyders in the unit I would iterate through the rule two more times. I do not cache the newly created scarab bases and add them all at once. The primary reason I don't do this is because of step #1. I have not read the rule as measuring within 6'' from the Spyder unit, but rather to each individual Spyder in the unit. That by RAW is how I see this game mechanic working. Now we can speed this all up by measuring to each Spyder and rolling the dice all at once, but remember, the Hive rule works through 1 Spyder rolling 1 d6 and placing 1 Scarab base.

I see no reason why you couldn't add subsequent scarab bases to any base in the nominated unit, even 'newly' created one.

It is pretty obvious that GW dropped the ball on this one in part (not requiring coherency for newly created scarab bases). I would have expected to see specific language regarding how a newly create scarab base must be placed. I would hope that GW FAQ's this rather quickly and I expect it to eventually work just as you and Nos describe.

-Yad

I don't see much use in continuing to debate my point as we are just going in circles. I will simply bulletpoint a few things then leave this thread to you all to hash out.

1) To add a base to the unit simply implys a numerical increase. The unit had 10 bases, it now has 11.

2) As stated before, at no point anywhere are you told that to be a member of a unit, you must be in coherency with it (with the exception of ICs). In fact you are shown examples where a model is out of coherancy, still a member of the unit, and told how to resolve that.

3) In every other example I can think of for placing a model on the table, you are explicitly told where it can be placed: 6" of X model/unit, in coherancy with X model/unit, etc. There is no such stipulation in this rule. Without being told where it can be placed, you are left with two ways to approach it. The first being with no restriction being given to the placement, it can be placed anywhere, or the second taking a hardline approach to the permissive ruleset meaning you are not given permission to place it in a specific place so the model cannot be placed at all...thus making the rule non-functional.

4) I'm not arguing this for the sake of having something to exploit against my opponents as a few have seemingly believed. I prefer to lose while having a good time playing the game with a friendly opponent rather than winning with a frustrated opponent who I've spent the entire game arguing rules with. With that in mind, I hold some tiny hope that the writers at GW occasionally read through these threads from time to time and hopefully will see a discussion like this and take a little more care in closing these loopholes (and possible loopholes) so in the future, I can get through games with as little arguing and head scratching as possible.

Anyway have fun with the discussion for now. When the FAQ hits, I'm 99% sure this will get clarified and we can get all get on to the next "nuh-uh!...uh-huh!" debate

Hesh_Tank_On wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:

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

I am personally waiting until the new spyders get released, hate the old ones. And in any case some of these armies already existed before the codex. I have seen my fair share of 9 tomb spiders with 30 scarabs. I think the list in this codex would be a nice counter to armor meta and still leave 1100pnts worth of army if you are playing 2k. The other nice thing is that on the first turn you are now facing and army with 2135 pnts.

I actually posted this as a throw away fun comment, maybe should have posted a smiley with it. What is your "fair share" of 9 Spiders/30 scarbs as I have never seen that Army build on the table? Using 45% of your points allocation and all your HS choices at 2000 points to get a first turn charge that can be countered is not in my view worth it.

3 armies, before the current codex. It was a popular pariah list in which you used the tomb spyders as a way to get the paraiahs into combat. 30 scarabs turbo boost on turn 1 assualt turn 2, spyders assualt turn 3 and get the pariahs in turn 4 to clean up.

It is not a "fun" comment when you are calling people out, even with a smiley.

At the start of movement phase seems to just imply "before any moves are made" and should be treated like any other phase; for example the shooting phase...

Though, ostensibly, all shooting in a turn is taking place at the same time, it is temporally linear and sequential. The same applies to movement during a movement phase; though in the abstract all movement is taking place simultaneously, it is managed sequentially.

There's nothing to indicate that 'at the start of the movement phase' is any different than bringing in reserves (sequential) or moving units (sequential).


Also, If your Spyder is at 1 wound at the start of the movement phase, any one of those 3 spiders might be the one that kills it, doesn't that need to be resolved 1 at a time?

I see no reason why you couldn't add subsequent scarab bases to any base in the nominated unit, even 'newly' created one.

Once again, read when the bases are created. No matter how many bases are created they're all created at the same time and that is at the beginning of the Necron Movement phase. Since they're all added at the exact same instant rules-wise you can't conga line them since the models you need to keep coherency with the unit are not there.

junk wrote:At the start of movement phase seems to just imply "before any moves are made" and should be treated like any other phase; for example the shooting phase...

Though, ostensibly, all shooting in a turn is taking place at the same time, it is temporally linear and sequential. The same applies to movement during a movement phase; though in the abstract all movement is taking place simultaneously, it is managed sequentially.

There's nothing to indicate that 'at the start of the movement phase' is any different than bringing in reserves (sequential) or moving units (sequential).


Also, If your Spyder is at 1 wound at the start of the movement phase, any one of those 3 spiders might be the one that kills it, doesn't that need to be resolved 1 at a time?

GW has been very clear with past rulings that your interpretation here is incorrect. "The start of the movement phase" is a very specific point in time (Though occasionally they use wording such as "The start of the turn" which is the same thing as "The start of the movement phase," or "the start of the Necron Lord's movement phase," which simply means "The start of the movement phase for the player controlling the Necron Lord." Regardless it all means the same thing.) and things that happen "At the start of the movement phase" happen prior to all other items in the movement phase, and they happen simultaneously. For instance, if I bring reserves onto the table, reserves happen "At the start of the movement phase", and I am obligated to move those reserves onto the table before I move ANYTHING ELSE in my entire army. Physically I must move them one by one because I don't have a thousand hands, but the abstract idea is that they all arrive at the exact same moment in time. Additionally, if one of those reserve units has an ability that happens "At the start of the movement phase" they may not use it the turn they arrive because technically speaking they were not on the board until they are placed, and once they are placed (abstractly speaking) it is no longer "The start of the movement phase" (See Farseer psychic powers in the FAQ). There are some notable exceptions to this in the FAQ and in the rules themselves (See Logan Grimnars The High King ability in the FAQ and the Autarchs Master Strategist ability in the actual wording), but by-and-large it is extremely clear that when GW references something like "The start of the movement phase" they mean the exact same point in time.

Another example of things happening simultaneously in game terms, but being done sequentially in practice is a Sanguinary Priest with a unit of Assault Marines. At "Initiative 5" all of the models in the unit attack (Furious Charge), and all opposing models with the same Initiative attack as well. An opposing model deals a wound to the Sanguinary Priest with a power weapon and kills him, however, because "Initiative 5" is a very specific point in time, even if he is removed from the combat before further blows are struck, the unit maintains FNP until later Initiative steps. They roll all of their armor saves, and then any models that fail their save and qualify for FNP take their FNP test. All of the to-hit rolls, to-wound rolls, armor saves, and FNP rolls are done sequentially because we lack the ability to do them otherwise, but in game terms they happen at the exact same moment in time, so it doesn't matter that the Priest was slain by a Power Weapon and never got to take his armor save. He was there for "Initiative 5" so his unit gets the benefit of FNP.

Comprende?

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, so thought I would throw it into this thread rather than start a new one.

"At the start of each Necron Movement phase..."

Does this mean if your opponent is also Necrons, then you get to roll for additional scarab bases during their movement phase?

Oaka wrote:I haven't seen this mentioned yet, so thought I would throw it into this thread rather than start a new one.

"At the start of each Necron Movement phase..."

Does this mean if your opponent is also Necrons, then you get to roll for additional scarab bases during their movement phase?

Jesus not this again (from previous Necron codex issues).

I can't believe we are having this discussion.

Rule clearly says two things. At the start of the Necron Movement phase and a unit that is on the table.

Now my understanding as the start of the movement phase.

You roll for reserves, roll for powers, roll for new scarabs.

If you put just one scarab down on the table then your part of the movement phase is done. So you must put down all scarabs at once. You now roll for powers and for reserves.

If you roll for reserves and put a unit on the table you are done rolling reserves. Why? Because you have gone to the movement part of your phase and are no longer at the start.

So you must roll for all of the above before you get to put anything on the table.

For example you can not roll for 1 scarab, roll for 1 reserve then roll for a power and then start over. It all comes at once. All scarabs, all reserves and all powers. It doesn't have to be in that order but they must all come as groups.

Lets go to putting things on the table.

The rule clearly stats that you have to put the scarabs in the unit that was already there. This means that each one must be within 2 inches of an existing scarab. If it can not be placed within 2 inches then it can not be placed. The rule also stats the new scarab can act as normal. It doesn't say that it must consolidate. Don't argue with me that consolidating is a normal move because it is not.

What does this mean?

You can't conga line them and they must be attached to the unit they were made for.

For those of you that do not understand the weight of this rule with the way you think it works.

3 units of 10 with 9 Spyders. You put the 30 on the deployment line. You add 3 bases to each squad allowing your 3 closest scarabs to be 22.5 inches across the board. You move them 6 inches, fleet and assault. This gives you 19-24 inch movement which comes out to 41.5-47 inch movement. With a table at 48 inches there is nothing you can't touch. Now if someone put all their vehicles on the deployment line you have 39 scarabs attacking. Remember that you only have to be withing 2 inches to get throw in's. Now with first turn this could mean that you just hit the majority of his army and even the big stuff behind it. In theory with a fleet of 6 inches you just hit every vehicle he/she has. With the enthropic strike you just took out their army. This is not something Games Workshop intended to do or be miss understood. I can't tell you how many armies will be running this list and it will be stupid to have to play in an RTT with 20 players all playing Necrons with the same exact list.

On a side note. Adding 3.5 inches by adding scarabs still give you a 80% chance to set up across from vehicles and still get your charge in. So you could get 3 charges against 3 vehicles that didn't move and still destroy them before you even rolled to see if you pen'd the vehicle.

That Librarian + Gate analogy doesn't apply. We know, by the rules, what it means for an Independent Character to be with a unit. In fact, the Librarian does not have to be within coherency of the unit he is with. The Librarian and rest of the unit could be separated by over two feet after your opponent's last turn if they had been in a maxxed out line prior. Gate would still Deep Strike them all together.

There's nothing in the Tomb Spyder's rule to demand coherency with the new scarab.

This requires actual errata to change the wording (which I hope is forthcoming). The RAW allows you to put the new scarab anywhere even if it creates a unit that is not in coherency.

Again, if they can't be placed with the unit then they can't be placed at all. Pretty clear in the rule.

Prove your unit is the entire table.

If you cant do thsat then you havent added it to the unit.

You can put them anywhere and it will still be with that unit. It just won't be in coherency.

C'mon, you're a champion of RAW. Coherency is never mentioned. "Being with" a unit is never defined to have a range. There's no RAW support for coherency.

It's a bad rule, but that's the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you havent shown it, as you ignore that the initial placement must be in coherency, and you cannot count scarabs you have "yet" to place as being there for coherency.

Do you understand what instantaneous means? I don't think so.

Here is a clear example of instantaneous.

A unit of three Scarabs are deployed (two inches apart) in a line as such prior to three nearby Spyders using their Scarab Hive wargear.
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

Now, the Spyders instantaneously create three Scarabs (*1, *2, *3) and all three are instantaneously placed (also two inches apart) with the unit:
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 *1 *2 *3
Note how all six Scarabs are in unit coherency, how all are part of the unit instantly.

Again:
Before Scarabs created (notice no additional Scarabs):
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

Instantaneously after the Scarabs are created (notice how, *poof*, the three created Scarabs appeared simultaneously with the unit):
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 *1 *2 *3

Also -BRB FAQ on "start of movement phase" powers indicates instantaneous time, otherwise you could indeed bring a farseer on from reserves and use powers. You cant. THis indicates single instant

No, the Farseer cannot use a power the turn he arrives via Reserves because the RULE states it cannot, NOT because the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous. Another Farseer already on the table could use a power on the arriving unit, however.

Show me in the rule where it states the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous? Prove that the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous.

Is there anything in the rulebook which states that a unit must be deployed in coherency? I'm struggling to find it.

Unless someone can find that statement for me, it seems legal (RAW) to deploy models in any legal position and then be forced to move them back into coherency in your movement phase. Theoretically, one could deploy every member of a squad out of coherency to put them all out of LOS, and then move into coherency the next turn.

Even if you do need to deploy within coherency, consider this: when deploying models for the first time, they are all off the board (thus not in coherency) one moment, and all on the board (and in coherency) the next.


In fact, the only way to tell if a unit is within coherency is by measuring the distance between their bases. A
If we treat the extra scarabs as a 'cache' which are all added at once, then the moment they are placed and the distance can be measured, you are within coherency.

As there is nothing in the rule specifically restricting you to placing models within coherency of the ones already on the table, I feel this is a legal move.

(It does appear that the RAI 'within 6" of the spyder' is to restrict the range of this ability. But where's the fun in that argument?)

TGA - no, you dont understand what instantaneous means., in this context at least. You are getting confused in thinking that, just becuse they all appear at the same time they can be placed in coherency with the new models only - and they cannot.

Each scarab you place must be in place with a model in the INITIAL unit. If not then you have placed it incorrectly - you havent added it to the unit that was within 6", you have placed it randomly on the table (unless you''re claiming "add to" means "add to the unit, but do this anywhere on the table entirely ignoriung the conventions for unit ownership"

Yes, the instant they "arrive" they are in coherency with each other; but the initial placement of them was not in a required space - in coherency with models that already exist, to whit the initial unit.

Prove that the "start" has duration. I can prove, and have done, that it doesnt - by definition as soon as you point a sequence in you are now no longer at the start, but some distance into the turn. Simple english says youre wrong, and has done all the way through this. Prove it. Rule please saying you are allowed to change an Instant (the start) into a Duration (not the start, but apparently still the start in TGA world)

So to use your flawed example:

Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc1* Sc2* Sc3*

Sc2* is not in coherency with Sc3, neither is Sc3*, so cannot be placed there. Sc1* IS in coherency with Sc3, so CAN be placed there. Once you have placed them all THEN Sc2* and Sc3* would be in coherency with eachother, but NOT before.

THIS is where you are creating a sequence - the only way to add to a unit is to place in coherency (leaving that argument aside for now) with a member of the unit; until you have finished placing all the new scarabs NONE of the new scarabs exist - and you cannot place something in coherency with something that doesnt exist. So your way explicitly requires there to be a sequence, with Sc1* appearing "first", then Sc2* etc.

Coherency argument - prove that you have "added to" a unit within 6" when you have placed it 3' away. If you cannot prove permission to place it anywhere on the table, and still claim it to be part of the unit, then you dont have permission.

Coherency argument - prove that you have "added to" a unit within 6" when you have placed it 3' away. If you cannot prove permission to place it anywhere on the table, and still claim it to be part of the unit, then you dont have permission.

The rulebook says that units *can*, through some circumstances, end up out of coherency. If this happens, they must move back into coherency. Other people have already shown that due to wound allocation rules, you could theoretically have a unit of 20 models stretching over 3', the 18 in the middle die and the two at the ends are now out of coherency.
As for proving permission... show me where the instructions are in the rulebook for actually placing *any* models on the board. Page 92 is disgustingly brief. I honestly would like to be enlightened if there is a more comprehensive discussion on that topic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Each scarab you place must be in place with a model in the INITIAL unit. If not then you have placed it incorrectly - you havent added it to the unit that was within 6", you have placed it randomly on the table (unless you''re claiming "add to" means "add to the unit, but do this anywhere on the table entirely ignoriung the conventions for unit ownership"

Yes, the instant they "arrive" they are in coherency with each other; but the initial placement of them was not in a required space - in coherency with models that already exist, to whit the initial unit.
...
THIS is where you are creating a sequence - the only way to add to a unit is to place in coherency (leaving that argument aside for now) with a member of the unit; until you have finished placing all the new scarabs NONE of the new scarabs exist - and you cannot place something in coherency with something that doesnt exist. So your way explicitly requires there to be a sequence, with Sc1* appearing "first", then Sc2* etc.

It seems to me that you're assuming a sequence... in reverse order. You can only show coherency when a model is on the table and can measure from it. If Sc3* is not in coherency with any model, then Sc3* exists and Sc2* does not exist, therefore Sc2* was not placed at the same instant as Sc3*.
Lets see.
BEFORE I place the scarabs, the unit is in coherency.
AFTER I place the scarabs, the unit is in coherency.
If the 'start of the movement phase' has no duration, then there is no time between BEFORE and AFTER.
There is no moment at which you can show that Sc3* is out of cohesion with the unit.

You're adding so many words to the rules that it is very difficult to discuss what's going on. Whilst it is implied, I can find no specific rules as to exactly when you're allowed to put models on the table, what 'deployment' is, let alone the intricacies on how to add models to an existing unit. You talk about 'conventions for unit ownership', yet these are conventions and not rules. The rules for the Spyder certainly do not say 'Each scarab you place must be in place with a model in the INITIAL unit' so it is surprising to say the least that you are treating that statement as fact in a debate that is obviously about what is written rather than what is intended.

No, I am not putting a sequence in in reverse. I am requiring that each mdoel is in coherency with a model from the initial unit, independent of the other models you are placing.

You are saying you can place a model in coherency with a model you havent placed "yet", when that obviously isnt true.

Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc3* Sc2 Sc2 Sc3 Sc2* Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc1*

This is the separate instances of placement in question. When you place Sc3* down, Sc2* and Sc1* do not exist, so you have placed a model down that isnt in coherency, and I doubt you could HONESTLY say you have added it to the scarab unit. "add to", within the context of 40k, can only mean "in coherency with", same as "with" in GoI rules.

Ditto for Sc2* - it is not in coherency, so you have not placed it as allowed.

Yes, IF you were allowed to place them there then the unit would be in coherency once the clock starts again, however my contention is that that INDIVIDUAL placements MUST be in coherency with models that already exist, because otherwise you have not added them in coherency.

At this point I'm done with this thread. The rules do not say you can do this and they must say you can do something. You can't say "It doesn't say i can't." They must spell out that you can do something.

I've explained to you the Start of the Turn. All happen at once. All reserve rolls are made before you place any unit on the table.

All scarab rolls are made before you put one on the table. This is not a new concept. Once all are made they are placed in the unit that is 6 inches away. If they are not put into that unit then they are not made.

This is pretty clear and I really hope people are not trying to abuse something that is not there. This type of argument is why people are leaving the 40K game and doing other things.

Nos and ghaz, you check to ensure coherency during the units move. Adding a new scarab base is not the new bases move. If you check coherency when its not your turn to do so you are premeasuring and cheating. In 40 k you can not premeasure whenever you like obviously, right?

You are required to check measurement otherwise you would not be placing into the unit ,but out of it.

Reread those rules on premeasuring, and note you are allowed to measure under specific circumstances. For example you would absolutely have to measure 6" to ensure you are picking a valid unit. Similarly you must "add to" the unit, and must do so in coherency, you must measure to ensure you are in coherency.

To see anotehr example where you are required to measure, but this is only implicit as a result of a requirement, cf to lesser daemons. These must arrive within 6", so you must measure. These must arrive within coherency, so you must measure.

So no, it is cheating to NOT measure

The argument over whether the new bases can be placed in coherency with each other, but at least one of them in coherence with the unit to which they are added, is a valid one and worthy of discussion. My concerns were over the extremes of people arguing about if coherency was required at all!

If you think this is being argued in a vacuum you are wrong. Some people will try to abuse this on the table and will look to this forum to validate their WAAC shenanigans.

Its only valid if you believe a) start has duration or b) TGAs bizarre interpretaton of what instantaneous allows for.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, the instant they "arrive" they are in coherency with each other; but the initial placement of them was not in a required space - in coherency with models that already exist, to whit the initial unit.

By the rules from the BRB and the Necron codex, the models that are created and placed in a line are in unit coherency with the unit on the table thus the created Scarabs are with the unit.

Prove that the "start" has duration. I can prove, and have done, that it doesnt - by definition as soon as you point a sequence in you are now no longer at the start, but some distance into the turn. Simple english says youre wrong, and has done all the way through this. Prove it. Rule please saying you are allowed to change an Instant (the start) into a Duration (not the start, but apparently still the start in TGA world)

Sorry, I missed the part where you proved the start of the Movement phase was instantaneous. You keep repeating it as if it's true but haven't proven it. English is a very imprecise language. Start has many definitions of which none seem to define a specific duration. I'll save yo the trouble of looking it up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/start. I loth dredging up dictionary references but you're making claims as if your an expert without actually knowing what you're talking about. You're clinging to flawed understanding of the use of start to justify your argument.

Again, show where in the rules the start of the Movement phase is defined. What page number?

So to use your flawed example:

Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc1* Sc2* Sc3*

Sc2* is not in coherency with Sc3, neither is Sc3*, so cannot be placed there. Sc1* IS in coherency with Sc3, so CAN be placed there. Once you have placed them all THEN Sc2* and Sc3* would be in coherency with eachother, but NOT before.

Wait!?? Now you're arguing the mechanics of the game have to be instantaneous as well. I thought we had agreed in a previous post that there is a difference between logic of the game and the mechanics of the game. You've made the argument the Scarabs are created instantaneously, game logicwise, meaning, regardless of the mechanics of game play, the event(s) happened simultaneously instantly. This is similar to rolling for shooting, regardless of how the rolling of dice occurs the outcome is assumed to have all occurred simultaneously instantly (instantaneously).

Instantly, all six Scarabs are in coherency. Instantly all six models are in one unit.

THIS is where you are creating a sequence - the only way to add to a unit is to place in coherency (leaving that argument aside for now) with a member of the unit; until you have finished placing all the new scarabs NONE of the new scarabs exist - and you cannot place something in coherency with something that doesnt exist. So your way explicitly requires there to be a sequence, with Sc1* appearing "first", then Sc2* etc.

Coherency argument - prove that you have "added to" a unit within 6" when you have placed it 3' away. If you cannot prove permission to place it anywhere on the table, and still claim it to be part of the unit, then you dont have permission.

Actually, no. I've shown the models are created together instantaneously, are deployed instantaneously, and join the unit instantaneously. The Scarab Hive rule states the model created moves and act as normal once created. The rule does not place strict limitations on model placement as does RP. Therefor, the conga line, however lame it is, is a valid tactic for now. Yes, it will be FAQed but until then, it's legal.

What you haven't done is prove the use of the Scarab Hive by the Spyders is instantaneous for all the Sypders. The wording of the Scarab Hive indicates it's a sequential model-by-model use. "Nominate a Canoptek Spyder...." (Necron Codex, page 46). The notion the start of the Movement phase is somehow is a single momentary instant of time is unsubstantiated (although you do repeat as if it were true) and is counter to how the game mechanics work.

Again, show how the all the Scarabs are created together and if you insist on using the start of the Movement phase as a limiting factor, prove the start of the Movement phase is, as you say, a specific single moment in time (game or otherwise).

The rules specifically allow you to place the new scarab out of coherency and with the unit. You nominate the unit you are adding to before you place it. It then lets you put the new scarab anywhere you choose on the board as it defines no actual limitations, just that it be placed.

We know that the new scarab is with the unit because we nominated that unit.

It's bad RAW, but it's RAW. It is no more likely to stand the test of time than Pain Tokens on Beasts or 2 attacks from Nemesis Falchions, but it is what it is.

The first time you perform an action after another, you are no longer at the start (point 0) but part way through the turn.

The start is one instant. Entirely backed up by consistent GW FAQ rulings on your ability to perform "start of turn" powers when arriving from REserve. Please find anything that supports duration - i notice a slight lack so far.

No, I have stated that logic-wise it is instantaneous. Try looking at the other examples to see what I mean - the code tags for example. The explanation isnt fabulous here, as you seem to struggle with the concept that the placements are independent of eachother, and you cannot use the placement-that-hasnt-happened-yet, logicaly, to create coherency to the unit.

Every individual model has to be in coherency with the original unit, as otherwise you have not placed it with the unit but somewhere on the table. It is only "after" all have been placd that the new scarabs can be considered for coherency purposes, not before.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Every individual model has to be in coherency with the original unit, as otherwise you have not placed it with the unit

There's no actual rules to support this. Please cite a page number or something if you're going to continue claiming it.

It's with the unit because you picked the unit it's part of before rolling anything.

So you support that you can GoI a Landraider then?

I've already given my explanation for what "add to" in 40k parlance means. Its a little thing called Context.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you support that you can GoI a Landraider then?

A character can not be in the same unit as a vehicle. That is actual rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I've already given my explanation for what "add to" in 40k parlance means.

And it was unfounded since it wasn't based on any existing rule.

Actually the rules for GoI talk about the unit the Libby is "with". You know, that same language that you are trying to claim ahs anything to do with Scarabs?

You were claiming that "with" is anywhere on the table, therefore by that "logic" yuou can GoI a LR the libby is inside of. You cant, which should PROBABLY give you the clue that "add to" doesnt mean "anywhere on the table", but has a contextual meaning within 40k.

OK, since every word must have an associated "rule" fully internally defining its meaning in 40k terms, please find the rules for the following words:

1) The
2) And
3) Of
4) As

Once you've done that feel free to post again. Or you could perhaps understand that context and synonyms have a use in 40k. Feel free to disagree, but every time you do you will be asked to provide rules backing up your contention that40k is fully internally defined. Over to you.

The rules specifically allow you to place the new scarab out of coherency and with the unit. You nominate the unit you are adding to before you place it. It then lets you put the new scarab anywhere you choose on the board as it defines no actual limitations, just that it be placed.

And again where do the rules state that a unit covers the entire board? Page number and quote please.

Ghaz wrote:

The rules specifically allow you to place the new scarab out of coherency and with the unit. You nominate the unit you are adding to before you place it. It then lets you put the new scarab anywhere you choose on the board as it defines no actual limitations, just that it be placed.

And again where do the rules state that a unit covers the entire board? Page number and quote please.

The rules don't state that a unit is confined to a particular area. They state that units are collections of models. If model X is out of coherency with models A, B, C, then X hasn't left the unit, it is simply out of coherency.

A unit is a set of models. The Tomb Spider rule allows you to add one model to that set. There are no stipulations on where it must be placed or whether it must be placed in coherency. In fact, because there are rules that specifically mention models added to a unit must be in coherency, we can reason that without such a rule, newly added models do not need to be placed in coherency. Otherwise, those rules that require coherency are meaningless.

Or simply redundant. You know as well as I that GW *loves* redundancy in rules.

"add to" a unit has as much meaning as "with" a unit. Both rely on you understanding context

Coherency rules along with the rules for independent characters joining and leaving units give a pretty good definition that a unit doesn't cover the entire board. Now provide some rule that backs up your claims that it does.

Ghaz wrote:Coherency rules along with the rules for independent characters joining and leaving units give a pretty good definition that a unit doesn't cover the entire board. Now provide some rule that backs up your claims that it does.

There are no rules that limit models to any area (although they do exclude them from being within 1" of a model in another unit). If you have an example of a rule that defines a boundary in which the unit must exist, please share it. For example, independent characters that want to join a unit have a physical restriction on their area. The IC must be within 2" of a model in the unit in order to be considered part of the unit.

However, non-independent characters do not have any such limitations. There are no rules that models must be within 2" of another model in their unit in order to be considered part of the unit. The coherency rules are rules of movement, not rules of the set. When a model is out of coherency, he is not considered to have left the unit, he is considered out of coherency.

Therefore, I suppose the rule you're looking for that "a unit cover[s] the entire board" would be implicit in the coherency rules. A model that is part of a unit and more than 2" away from another model in that unit must attempt to reestablish coherency.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually the rules for GoI talk about the unit the Libby is "with".

The rulebook defines what it means for a character to be with a unit. They can never be "with" a vehicle.

They also cannot arbitrarily be "with" any other unit they are not in coherency with at the end of the Movement phase or declared with prior to deployment. The rules are very clear about what units characters can be said to be "with". You own the rulebook, you can read them yourself on page 48, which you should do if you want to continue your argument from this analogy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You were claiming that "with" is anywhere on the table

I never made that claim. You are lying, which is poor form in a debate. This combined with the glibness of your last post on trivial definitions is concession. Even though you have conceded, I'll continue the explanation for other readers.

What I actually claimed is that there is no rule stating where the newly formed scarab needs to go. This is not just my claim, the rules do not mention anything about where the scarab needs to go only that it needs to exist. "Add one base to the unit." This is as close as the rules come to telling us where the new scarab needs to go.

We know which unit the new scarab belongs to; nominating that unit occurs prior to the dice roll and adding to that unit comes after.

Why do people keep arguing over "with" when that word is not used in the rule?

Actually page 48 never, ever defines a character joined to a unit by using the phrase "with". You have a rulebook, I suggest before making rules up you try a little harder at reading it. That's why people were able to claim, incorrectly, that a libby is "with" the tank.

So, nil to you on that point.

I did not lie, I extended your contention ("with" is not defined, and presumably neither is "add to" when we use the real rules) to its conclusion - that with (or add to) means anywhere on the table. That isnt "poor form ina debate", nor is it concession, it is called "defining your argument, to show how absurd your argument is" - to whit, very absurd.

Your claim requires that we devolve rules in a vacuum, with no knowledge of context. Given 40k is context driven, and not internally defined as you appear to be claiming, this is an absurd claim with no merit.

Again: your claim flounders due to ignorance of context, and relies on a false claim that 40k is intenrally fully defined. It isnt, your argument is refuted.

I'd like to see what Yakface has to say about this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The first time you perform an action after another, you are no longer at the start (point 0) but part way through the turn.

Please provide a reference in the rules. You keep repeating this as fact with out any basis.

The start is one instant. Entirely backed up by consistent GW FAQ rulings on your ability to perform "start of turn" powers when arriving from REserve.

I fail to see how a RULE that limits the ability of models coming in from Reserve validates the start of the Movement phase is an instant.

[quote
Please find anything that supports duration - i notice a slight lack so far.

So your assumption is that you can place the scarabs anywhere as long as they are in coherency at some point before you have to move (to avoid being forced to move into coherency).

Nos' is that you can't place them where they would be out of coherency if nothing else happened that turn - IE independent of any other scarab stands being created.

Does that boil down correctly? Or did I miss something by trying to simplify arguments?

The raw states that the creation of the scarabs happens at the same time (ie start of the movement phase) and the only limitations are that the unit your adding to has to be within 6" of the spyder(s) creating them, nothing states they have to be created in coherency... Unless there is something im missing

Context and logic (the way I read it) says that adding a model to a unit requires coherency,

I know thats the way ive been playing them, with the created scarabs maintaining unit coherency. but the way its written you could say they get placed anywhere... Doesnt make any sense seeing as the created scarab comes from the spyder itself

The simple fact is that there are no rules governing where the scarabs go, other than the simple rules that models cant be placed on impassible terrain and such.

I say the new bases go anywhere so long as the model fits there, because they are placed before they move and the movement rules require them to move into coherency. As an aside, placing a unit out of coherency is not 'cheezy' or game breaking, as there is a penalty to being out of coherency.

Others say the added bases go anywhere IN COHERENCY with the original unit. Coherency as a rule is NEVER mentioned when adding models to a unit or the similar example of subtracting models from a unit via casualties.

In fact, the classic way units lose coherency revolves around CHANGING THE NUMBER OF MODELS IN THE UNIT VIA A GAMEPLAY MECHANIC. Does that not sound familiar to what a spyder does?

I say measuring exactly 2 inches out in front of a unit, to maximize the distance the new base is placed to allow for turn 1 charges, is not 'cheezy' but cheating. When you are allowed to check for coherency is very specific... during the units movement. When the unit is not moving, you cant start putting down 2 inch measuring devices where ever you like.

Logicly, saying adding scarabs require the entire unit to still be in coherency is similiar to saying removing scarabs require the entire unit to still be in coherency, and we should all know that is false.

MJThurston wrote:I'd like to see what Yakface has to say about this.

I think he's smart enough not to step in this pile of scarab dung.

FAQ will say.. in coherency of the scarbs or more likely "within 6" of the producing spyder and in coherency of the scarabs its joining"

Wow, no rule for where they go! Really. If there has to be a unit of scarabs 6" from a spyder....... you don't know where they go?

I think I said this before. Not saying you can put them anywhere is not giving you permission to put them anywhere. It doesn't say in the rules that if I roll a d6 at the end of the game any roll 1 or better means I win.

Its legal. Starting with the first unit you place the first couple of bases within 2 of the front, then the next unit goes within 2 of the new 2. So on with the next unit. Giving you around 8 to 10 inches closer to your opponent. So a 28in charge with a 1 fleet, and a 34in charge with a 6 fleet. Now, I do believe this to more then likely be FAQed.

TGA - done replying to you. Apparently you dont ave to prove duration, but my proof of instant is simply "a rule" you can ignore?

No. BRB FAQ states you cannot perform any "start of turn" actions you have when you appear from Reserves, which SUPPORTS the concept that "start" actually MEANS start, and not somehwat close to the start but not actually the start, but for TGAs benefit we'll consider it the start - start.

Given context "Start" is a single instance, as anything beyond that point is no longer the start

Page and reference to counter this, as YOU are making the extraordinary claim. Some proof from you would be helpful.

You are still also utterly failing to understand what Independent means in this context, as well

ALL of the SPyders actions are independent of each other, thus each criteria HAS to be fullfilled independently of eachother. You cannot use the knowledge of another action otherwise you are again implementing a sequence when no sequnce has been allowed.

Each Scarab must be in coherency with the initial unit prior to them all appearing, i.e. the position chosen must be legal before anything appears. Your method allows for prior knowledge which requires a sequence in a set of instantaneous actions.

It is pointless to keep arguing with you, as you have no rules to back up your position. None. I provide rules but you ignore them.

Before you argue again - find a RULE stating that Start has a duration. Any rule possible. Note it will also have to somehow ignore the FAQ.

Nos, while I agree 100% with you about order of operation and start of phase, I am still confused where you get the idea that the spyder puts new scarab bases specifically in coherency with the unit, but otherwise anywhere on the table you want.

We both seem to agree the rules support anywhere on the table you want, but you add the (not unreasonable) condition that it also must be in coherency with the unit. I cant seem to find anything about coherency anywhere in the rules for model placement. If you could point me to the page at least I would be thankful.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - done replying to you. Apparently you dont ave to prove duration, but my proof of instant is simply "a rule" you can ignore?

No. BRB FAQ states you cannot perform any "start of turn" actions you have when you appear from Reserves, which SUPPORTS the concept that "start" actually MEANS start, and not somehwat close to the start but not actually the start, but for TGAs benefit we'll consider it the start - start.

Given context "Start" is a single instance, as anything beyond that point is no longer the start

Page and reference to counter this, as YOU are making the extraordinary claim. Some proof from you would be helpful.

You are still also utterly failing to understand what Independent means in this context, as well

ALL of the SPyders actions are independent of each other, thus each criteria HAS to be fullfilled independently of eachother. You cannot use the knowledge of another action otherwise you are again implementing a sequence when no sequnce has been allowed.

Each Scarab must be in coherency with the initial unit prior to them all appearing, i.e. the position chosen must be legal before anything appears. Your method allows for prior knowledge which requires a sequence in a set of instantaneous actions.

It is pointless to keep arguing with you, as you have no rules to back up your position. None. I provide rules but you ignore them.

Before you argue again - find a RULE stating that Start has a duration. Any rule possible. Note it will also have to somehow ignore the FAQ.

The reason I find YMDC discussions both so interesting and so distasteful is the strict adherence to rules as written. The interesting part is how someone can twist the words. The distasteful and pointless part is that we are taking the BRB to be far more precise than it actually is.

We KNOW that this rule is could not possibly be intended to give Scarabs a first turn 40" charge range. First turn charges do not generally exist (though I'm sure someone will pop up with the 3 examples where they can with a 6" fleet roll). That is enough context to fulfil the RAI argument, agreed? So now we get down to the actual WRITTEN rules.

The BRB is writen in fairly colloquial English. From the numerous errata and FAQ we know that it is not a foolproof document. Nor is English a foolproof language.

For example, your fixation on 'the start of' being a single instant. There is no definition as such in the BRB. Nor does the English language preclude 'the start' of something to be a period of time, rather than a moment. "How far are you into the movie?" "Oh, we're still at the start". And so on. You're asking for a page and reference for something when you know that there is no such thing to support the argument one way or the other. The start of the movement phase can still allow for sequential actions if it is instantaneous. If the 'start of' the movement phase does allow for sequential actions, then this scarab tactic is legal by the RAW. However, if the start of the movement phase is indeed a single instant, that does not disallow the move.

The second part is where models can be added to the unit. I've asked twice for a page reference and got none, so I assume the sparse rules on page 92 are the only rules for deployment. The book goes into no more depth than simply 'deploy your models'. By convention (and because of the drawbacks of doing otherwise), we do put all models on the table within coherency yet there is no hard and fast rule which says this must always be the case. In fact, there are rules which do allow for models to be out of coherency with each other, and for models to be added to/removed from a unit. In the plausible case of normal units, you must attempt to be in coherency at the *end* of the movement phase. Similarly, for independent characters you can join a unit by being within coherency at the *end* of the movement phase. You repeatedly have said "Each Scarab must be in coherency with the initial unit prior to them all appearing", yet there is clearly nothing within the written rules that states this. Even so, if being added to the unit out of coherency is not legal, that still does not make the entire move illegal because....

If models are placed instantaneously, there is no point in time where you can say 'that model is not in coherency'. Coherency is defined by measuring between models' bases. If there is no base on the table, you cannot measure to it. Before the base is positioned on the table, it does not exist, and therefore is not in or out of coherency with anything. If required to place models within coherency, the best way I can see to do it within the provision of the rules is to put the base on the table, check if it is within coherency, and reposition it if not. Furthermore, 'prior knowledge' is all but a requirement considering that without prior knowledge, all additional scarab bases could be summoned onto the exact same location.

Before you start saying 'the rules support me', what are the actual rules, and actual page numbers, supporting your claim of 'Each Scarab must be in coherency with the initial unit prior to them all appearing'?

DevianID wrote:I cant seem to find anything about coherency anywhere in the rules for model placement. If you could point me to the page at least I would be thankful.

Without my BRB handy, it probably doesn't exist. There are no rules about adding a base. Therefore the ability is useless, so you can't do anything but harm your Spyders.

Or - you read "add a base to" as requiring coherency. Either way, really. Not everything has a BRB definition, some things require normal language and common sense.

Again, context tells you what "Add to" means within the context of 40k; place in coherency with. Its the only meaning we have in the game.

Same as "with", we know what it means via context

The game is NOT fully internally defined, pretending it is misses the point

Trasvi - if youre not directly quoting can you avoid hitting the quote button? Wall of text is not conducive to somenoe being bothered to read it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - done replying to you. Apparently you dont ave to prove duration, but my proof of instant is simply "a rule" you can ignore?

It's not that I have to prove duration, you have to prove your statement "the start of the Movement phase is a single instant". If it's is a rule, what rule is it? You've made it the cornerstone of your entire argument. If you can't prove it, then the rest of your argument is moot.

No. BRB FAQ states you cannot perform any "start of turn" actions you have when you appear from Reserves, which SUPPORTS the concept that "start" actually MEANS start, and not somehwat close to the start but not actually the start, but for TGAs benefit we'll consider it the start - start.

What are you talking about? Are we reading the same FAQ?

BRB FAQ, page 7 wrote:
Q: If a unit is in reserve,[i][b] and it has an ability that occurs at the start of a turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive? (p. 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherise.

How in blue hades does that support your argument that "start" is instantaneous? Also, the rule only references the [b]use of abilities of the unit arriving via Reserves not being affected by abilities used by units already on the table. If this is your idea of "proof" or "support" for your argument then you don't understand what "proof" or "support" is as the FAQ does neither.

Given context "Start" is a single instance, as anything beyond that point is no longer the start

Page and reference to counter this, as YOU are making the extraordinary claim. Some proof from you would be helpful.

I can't counter any of your "proof" since you haven't provided any? No page number, no FAQ, nor logical deduction. Nothing. You've made the single claim, over and over, that the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous and then expect me to disprove you. What's your proof? Show your work?

You are still also utterly failing to understand what Independent means in this context, as well

ALL of the SPyders actions are independent of each other, thus each criteria HAS to be fullfilled independently of eachother. You cannot use the knowledge of another action otherwise you are again implementing a sequence when no sequnce has been allowed.

If the Scarabs are created independent of each other, are the placed with the unit independent of each other? Make up your mind, either the actions of the Spyders are all simultaneous or they're not. You're truly grasping at straws in attempts to justify your argument.

Each Scarab must be in coherency with the initial unit prior to them all appearing, i.e. the position chosen must be legal before anything appears.

Now you just plain making things up!!! Where on earth is that located in the rule book?

Your method allows for prior knowledge which requires a sequence in a set of instantaneous actions.

My "method" is based on [i]your argument the all the Scarabs appear together instantaneously. All the models appear at once, the placement of which satisfies all the criteria detailed in the Scarab Hive rule: the model is place with a Scarab unit within 6" of the Sypder. Since the models all instantly appear, all are instantly with the unit.

It is pointless to keep arguing with you, as you have no rules to back up your position. None. I provide rules but you ignore them.

I'm not the one making the claim the start of the Movement phase is an instant as the cornerstone of his argument. You are. YOU need to provide the fact. YOU need to the provide the proof. YOU have done neither.

Before you argue again - find a RULE stating that Start has a duration. Any rule possible. Note it will also have to somehow ignore the FAQ.

Making a statement then demanding I prove you wrong is a petty argument at best. However, I'll capitulate. Here is my counter argument to the start of the Movement phase an instant.

There are activities that can take place at the beginning or "the start of the Movement phase" (TSOTMP). However, there is not official definition or rule that explains this sub-phase of the Movement phase. Page 9 and page 11 just mention there is a Movement phase and neither decompose the phase into separate steps or sequences. As such, there is no official stance on the duration of TSOTMP though there is a general acceptance that events leading to moving a unit constitute the period know as TSOTMP. Further, nor is there an official stance on the order of multiple activities that occur at TSOTMP though, again, it's generally accepted that the Reserves special rule occurs prior to any other actions but that's not a prevalent as the duration acceptance.

There may be more than one activity that occurs at TSOTMP: Reserve rolls, wargear usage, abilities being used, etc. As noted above, there is no hard and fast rule on the order. Each activity is sequential and separate from the other and some are further resolved completely before another activity can be done. For example, the Reserves special rule must be completed prior to doing another activity thus a player couldn't bring on two of the four available units in from reserve THEN have a Farseer cast Fortune on a unit. Reserves must be completed prior the Farseer using a power, thus all four units must be deploy prior to the Farseer casting Fortune.

Models and units can use abilities or wargear in what ever order, barring specific rules, the player desires. Also, the results of one activity may lead to different actions being taken. For example, a Farseer is used to Fortune a Banshee unit, however, the power failed. The player can use his other Farseer and attempt to Fortune the Banshees. Another example, since the player's Banshees didn't not make their Reserve roll, the player decides to use a Farseer to Guide his Fire Warriors.

This inherent cause and effect nature to the activities shows TSOTMP is not a single instance in time, some period of time fleeted the movement any action was taken. It is a period of time with an ebbing and flowing duration responding to the current conditions: a player may not have any Reserve rolls to make nor any abilities or wargear to use; or on the player may have eight units to roll for Reserves, several models with wargear to use, and a few models with abilities to use. All of these can happen during the period know as TSOTMP.

If all these things happened instantaneously, the inherent cause and effect couldn't happen. All things would happen simultaneously instantly with no ability to adjust to conditions (cause and effect). The outcome of one activity could not affect an other activity. Having all things happen at one single instance doesn't make sense game-wise and is not supported by the rules.

So, before you decide to counter my argument, defend your argument. What logic is there to support the notion TSOTMP is a single instance in time?

As pointed out - I have no interest in "debating" with you any longer.

Instantaneous and Independent is all that is required, and I believe I have shown this. It is pointless attempting to argue wth you as you just dont seem to (or refuse to) understand the argument.

I have said my piece, and am entirely confident in how the FAQ will answer this (same as how they are likely to FAQ mindshackle on single models / ICs)

nosferatu1001 wrote:As pointed out - I have no interest in "debating" with you any longer.

Instantaneous and Independent is all that is required, and I believe I have shown this. It is pointless attempting to argue wth you as you just dont seem to (or refuse to) understand the argument.

I have said my piece, and am entirely confident in how the FAQ will answer this (same as how they are likely to FAQ mindshackle on single models / ICs)

As you pointed out, you are giving up because you realized how flawed your argument was. You were simultaneously trying to have the scarabs be created sequentially and simultaneously. You are trying to pick and choose parts of rules that benefit your argument.

No, i was not, do not lie about my posting. Independent (the logical term, i.e. independent events which do not take into consideration other events) can indeed be simultaneous with other independent events

You do realise you do this all the time, when you roll more than 1 dice? Each result is rolled effectively instanteously, in terms of when the result appears, and each result is unaware of the other result and not influenced by it

Sorry if that concept bypasses you.

If you add a reanimation protocol marker to a necron unit, would you measure 2 inches wherever you want? You are adding to the unit right? The marker needs to be in coherency to be added to the unit?

Nos, its not like I feel scarabs shouldnt be in coherency, its just adding to a unit and being in coherency with a unit are unrelated... Coherency is a movement rule. Adding bases is a spyder and ghost ark rule, and furthermore not also a movement rule. Rules already exist that make units lose coherency. Why is the spyder and ark rules not a rule like removing casualties that can break a units coherency?

Really.... adding to a unit has no rules for where they are placed? I think the word adding is enough. If you can't add them to the unit you don't make any. So...... If they are not in coherency they are not made.

Isn't that clear!

MJThurston, there is a logic break there.

'adding to' does not equal 'in coherency with.'

If part of a unit is out of coherency, are they still part of their unit? Yes they are.

You are adding a new base to a unit.

Bases of a unit can be out of coherency.

You can add a new base to a unit out of coherency.

Yet context tells you what "adding to" means.

UNless you can prove that your unit is everywhere on the table, of course.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, i was not, do not lie about my posting. Independent (the logical term, i.e. independent events which do not take into consideration other events) can indeed be simultaneous with other independent events

You do realise you do this all the time, when you roll more than 1 dice? Each result is rolled effectively instanteously, in terms of when the result appears, and each result is unaware of the other result and not influenced by it

Sorry if that concept bypasses you.

Once you've proven the Scarab Hive rolls are, indeed, all rolled together we can begin to debate the merits of your argument of instantaneous and independent. Yes, yes, you don't want to debate this but the foundation of your argument is all the the events at TSOTMP happen simultaneously. If you can't prove that, the rest of your argument continues to be moot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet context tells you what "adding to" means.

Unless you can prove that your unit is everywhere on the table, of course.

The unit does exist "everywhere on the table," there are no rules that limit the physical area your unit encompases. Unless you're going to argue that a unit that is out of coherency (for whatever reason) is no longer part of a unit, this must be true.

A better way to put it is that a unit can exist anywhere on the table biccat. Minor correction.

I'd have assumed start of the turn would be enough to see the rolls have to be done 'At the same time'' as everything at the start of the turn would have to happen at once and not in an order chosen by the player otherwise once one roll was done it would no longer be the start.

Thus they have to be rolled and the models placed as if they were all put down at once, not allowing a conga line but around the existing at the start of the turn scarab bases.

To say you can roll and deploy them across the table feels very wrong.

Yep, thats the common understanding of the word "start", one that is apparently missing across the pond.

Nos I agree with you about start "across the pond"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yep, thats the common understanding of the word "start", one that is apparently missing across the pond.

No, it's not! The common understanding of the use of "start" (particularly as a noun) is the beginning of something with a nebulous period of time. "The start of the race", "I started a book", "The football team started out slow but came out the second half with a vengeance...." Each of these has a different duration relative the context.

Again, you insist you're correct without supporting your claim. You STILL haven't shown how the start of the Movement phase is a a moment in time. Until you do, you're wrong.

That start of the race - what, that thing signalled by the starting gun, that instant of time where it starts?

You have yet to show a single element of proof for a single thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That start of the race - what, that thing signalled by the starting gun, that instant of time where it starts?

You have yet to show a single element of proof for a single thing.

Or the start of a NASCAR race, or the start of a marathon, or the start of the boat race around the world. Are you suggesting the mere moment of the gun going off signifies the racers are now in the middle of the race?

Sigh...you expect me to disprove you without ever presenting an argument.

Guys hate to tell you but you are all right lol
(a) no current rule stops this
(b) it is clearly open to an abuse that none of us think was intended

BUT

(c) none of us know what the designer intended as the same rule set has the neat RP description which was not cut and pasted here so ...

Clearly we don't know what was intended so live with it until GW deign to tell us what they actually meant in an FAQ in 1-2 months time. Don't fall out or waste time in fruitless arguments.

Despite the beasts 6/fleet/12 as an opponent bring on 5-6 scarabs too early rather than 15-20 when you should.

I have played with scarabs old dex and will new dex but if you send them at me this way too early I will deploy clever and win :evil:

DevianID wrote:Nos I agree with you about start "across the pond"

In that sense its a verb, not a noun like it is in 'Start of the Movement Phase'. So it is completely different.

Pucadubh wrote:(c) none of us know what the designer intended as the same rule set has the neat RP description which was not cut and pasted here so ...

Clearly we don't know what was intended so live with it until GW deign to tell us what they actually meant in an FAQ in 1-2 months time. Don't fall out or waste time in fruitless arguments.

I am in complete agreement with this, none of us know what they meant by it, just wait for the FAQ

I do enjoy the fact that the 40K community seems to be trembling in fear at Scarabs now LOL ( and about damned time they have always been awesome ).
Wait till Nurglings and Ripper swarms get their new rules hehe

Nurglings - Diseased bite.
A unit which takes a wound in combat from nurglings takes a number of poisoned hits equal to the men remaining in the unit at the start of each movement phase, armour saves allowed as normal. Any ICs attached to the unit catch the disease as well, even if they didn't suffer a wound (and vice-versa, if an IC is the only one to take a wound, he passes the contagion on to his unit, and any unit he subsequently joins)

Hyperbole again TGA? SHock

Did I say middle? Nope, I said not-the start. You are "in" the race as in the race has started - the start has come and gone.

Very, very simple. Oh, and I'm not asking you to disprove me - as you havent managed to so far - I'm asking you to prove your side even slightly - a different tack maybe. Irt would be helpful....

nosferatu1001 wrote: I'm asking you to prove your side even slightly - a different tack maybe. Irt would be helpful....

Considering you have done nothing to prove your side either, that's a little rich.

But, to go over some of the points that other people have made:

1) The 'start of the movement phase' is, in practice, 'before any models have moved'. Before you ask me for a page number, there is none, but there is none supporting your view either. Considering it to be a single point in time in which all actions are made simultaneously and without knowledge of each other is incorrect.
To show a few ways in which some actions taken at TSOTMP are sequential/dependent on one another I'll quote some of TGA's nice examples from above:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:There may be more than one activity that occurs at TSOTMP: Reserve rolls, wargear usage, abilities being used, etc. As noted above, there is no hard and fast rule on the order. Each activity is sequential and separate from the other and some are further resolved completely before another activity can be done. For example, the Reserves special rule must be completed prior to doing another activity thus a player couldn't bring on two of the four available units in from reserve THEN have a Farseer cast Fortune on a unit. Reserves must be completed prior the Farseer using a power, thus all four units must be deploy prior to the Farseer casting Fortune.

Models and units can use abilities or wargear in what ever order, barring specific rules, the player desires. Also, the results of one activity may lead to different actions being taken. For example, a Farseer is used to Fortune a Banshee unit, however, the power failed. The player can use his other Farseer and attempt to Fortune the Banshees. Another example, since the player's Banshees didn't not make their Reserve roll, the player decides to use a Farseer to Guide his Fire Warriors.

Also, the simple act of placing models on the table necessitates prior knowledge of the positions of all other units, since otherwise you could theoretically bring two models onto the table at exactly the same position. Obviously this cannot happen, ergo you must know the position of one unit before you begin placing the other.

2) The rulebook has no clear rules for adding models to a unit. We're talking about RAW here, not RAI, and there are quite obviously no instructions on how to do this - no instructions that models must be placed within coherency. We know that it is possible for models to exist as part of the same unit, outside of coherency (hence, the coherency rules in the movement section). 9 times out of 10, placing models out of coherency would be a dumb thing to do, but there is provision in the rules for such a situation to occur. Further to this, the coherency rules only dictate the need to be in coherency at the end of the movement phase, not the start.

3) And lastly, if we accept both of your flawed premises that all the scarabs come onto the table simultaneously AND be in coherency, that still does not prevent the conga line. If they all appear simultaneously they must therefore be in coherency simultaneously.
Proof by contradiction:
IF a scarab in the conga line is not in coherency
=> coherency is measured from the base of a model
=> if you are measuring from the base of the model, that model is on the board
=> being out of coherency means the scarab is placed on the board, and there are no scarabs within 2" of it
=> that scarab has been placed before other scarabs
CONTRADICTION: all scarabs are placed simultaneously therefore this situation cannot occur.

I still can not believe this is still going on.

Everyone here should understand what add to means.

This is not a game of who can make up the silliest explanation for every one to use.

The rule says add to, and if you can't then they don't get made. A unit is defined as being in coherency. There is only 1 way, (1 WAY) to lose coherency and that is to lose a model to combat. Be it shooting or assault that will take you out of coherency. You can never move your models outside of coherency if they are in coherency. If they are outside of coherency then they must move to get in coherency.

On rules. For you to do something it must be spelled out in black and white. You can't add or subtract from rules to make them work your way. Does the rule say you can put them anywhere on the table? No it does not. It does say add though!

Now this is where I'm seeing some of you looking to cheat someone. Yes I said it. You are looking to cheat people. Last turn of a game and your opponent owns 1 more table quarter/objective or is tied with you. On your last turn you make scarabs and put them in the table quarter or near an objective to take it away from them. Now you are claiming that your scarabs are part of the unit across the table and that they take away a point from them to win or tie a game.

No sir, you are wrong and this is not a way to play a game vs a friend or during a tournament.

But see, if you are putting the scarabs down either one at a time or all at once, they will be in coherency either way.

MJThurston wrote:I still can not believe this is still going on.

Everyone here should understand what add to means.

This is not a game of who can make up the silliest explanation for every one to use.

The rule says add to, and if you can't then they don't get made. A unit is defined as being in coherency. There is only 1 way, (1 WAY) to lose coherency and that is to lose a model to combat. Be it shooting or assault that will take you out of coherency. You can never move your models outside of coherency if they are in coherency. If they are outside of coherency then they must move to get in coherency.

On rules. For you to do something it must be spelled out in black and white. You can't add or subtract from rules to make them work your way. Does the rule say you can put them anywhere on the table? No it does not. It does say add though!

Now this is where I'm seeing some of you looking to cheat someone. Yes I said it. You are looking to cheat people. Last turn of a game and your opponent owns 1 more table quarter/objective or is tied with you. On your last turn you make scarabs and put them in the table quarter or near an objective to take it away from them. Now you are claiming that your scarabs are part of the unit across the table and that they take away a point from them to win or tie a game.

No sir, you are wrong and this is not a way to play a game vs a friend or during a tournament.

Let's wait for the FAQ and live with it in the meantime, I know it's broken (and I also played Scarabs last time out) so while we all know that's what the game designer didn't mean, they didn't copy and paste the RP rule so honestly .... we haven't a clue what they did mean and I for one as a long time scarab fan am dying to know what I should be doing this edition ( but also know what I shouldnt be doing ).

MJThurston wrote:I still can not believe this is still going on.
The rule says add to, and if you can't then they don't get made. A unit is defined as being in coherency. There is only 1 way, (1 WAY) to lose coherency and that is to lose a model to combat. Be it shooting or assault that will take you out of coherency. You can never move your models outside of coherency if they are in coherency. If they are outside of coherency then they must move to get in coherency.
On rules. For you to do something it must be spelled out in black and white. You can't add or subtract from rules to make them work your way. Does the rule say you can put them anywhere on the table? No it does not. It does say add though!
Now this is where I'm seeing some of you looking to cheat someone. Yes I said it. You are looking to cheat people. Last turn of a game and your opponent owns 1 more table quarter/objective or is tied with you. On your last turn you make scarabs and put them in the table quarter or near an objective to take it away from them. Now you are claiming that your scarabs are part of the unit across the table and that they take away a point from them to win or tie a game.
No sir, you are wrong and this is not a way to play a game vs a friend or during a tournament.

I'm sorry if it appears like I'm the kind of person who would abuse the rules in such a manner. I'm not. I'm fully aware that the possibility of this action will be FAQ'd out of existence, and that attempting it would be a bit of a jerk move. I don't play Necrons at all. However, I feel that by the letter of the rules the action is legal. Perhaps by pointing out the exact clauses in the rules which allow this to occur, we can guide the FAQ and errata to the most elegant solution, and prevent situations like this from occurring in the future.

In all likelihood, if someone tries to pull this move in a store or tournament, this debate won't even surface. A player will simply roll for his scarabs one by one and place them in a conga-line, and most people won't know the sections in the rules which (possibly) prevent this, beyond thinking 'damn that can't be allowed'.

And now, to be a rules lawyer/jerk:
A unit is never defined as being in coherency. A unit may never voluntarily leave coherency during game play, which is a very (subtly) different thing. The rules say "during the course of play, it is possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties". This can be from close combat or ranged shooting due to wound allocation. However, another way a unit could lose coherency is if an independent character moves leaves the unit.
I hadn't considered the possibility of 'adding to' a unit to contest objectives. I was attempting to prove that the scarabs would all be in coherency before they began their moves. The point I was trying to make is simply that (beyond a measure of common sense) deploying or placing units on the board is never defined, and that even if the placement of scarabs was somehow to be independent of each other whilst being simultaneous, this omission still allows for a conga-line. I agree that this is the most tenuous point of my claim, but it is also the least relevant. In the conga-line situation it only appears if the contradictory situation that the scarabs being placed both exist (for purposes of measuring coherency from the scarab) and don't exist (for purposes of measuring coherency to the scarab) at the same time. This phenomenon shall henceforth be known as Schrodinger's Scarab Paradox.

MJThurston wrote:
There is only 1 way, (1 WAY) to lose coherency and that is to lose a model to combat. Be it shooting or assault that will take you out of coherency.

ummmm wrong BRB pg 12 " During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, USUALLY because it takes casualties"

this ability doesn't fall into the usual catagories, you are failling to see the rules that are laid out stark naked in front of you, the rule clearly states that the unit getting the Scarabs has to be within 6" of the Spyder, NOTHING about unit coherency

The word "with" has no rules definition, but has a contextual meaning.

"Add to' has the same one.

Why is there argument over what the word "start" means?
Here's the definition...


Verb:
Come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.

Noun:
The point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning of something.


Ergo the "Start of the Movement Phase" is a 'particular point'. Anything after this is during the movement phase, not the "start".

The lot of you can spend hours arguing over what it means in terms of RULES AS WRITTEN!!!, but we all know it's a reasonable well-defined concept...

Additionally, the following argument:

"Or the start of a NASCAR race, or the start of a marathon, or the start of the boat race around the world. Are you suggesting the mere moment of the gun going off signifies the racers are now in the middle of the race? "

Is an argument with no value, because the middle is "At an equal distance from the extremities of something; central."

Mesothere wrote:Why is there argument over what the word "start" means?
Here's the definition...


Verb:
Come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.

Noun:
The point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning of something.


Ergo the "Start of the Movement Phase" is a 'particular point'. Anything after this is during the movement phase, not the "start".

You've shown where start begins (a particular point in time or space) but neither definition provided states the start is solely instantaneous. Neither definition defines duration. We're not debating the origin of the start of the Movement phase (as noun, BTW) but the nebulous duration of the abstract concept.

The lot of you can spend hours arguing over what it means in terms of RULES AS WRITTEN!!!, but we all know it's a reasonable well-defined concept...

We do? We're left to debate it since it's neither defined by the rules nor will defined by other means. What can be expressed is there are several actions that can take place at the start of the Movement phase separate and independent from each other yet the results of one action can affect the events of an other action. Thus, at a minimum, we know the start of the Movement phase isn't instantaneous. The duration, on the other hand, isn't so well defined but generally understood to be that time prior to moving units.

Additionally, the following argument:

"Or the start of a NASCAR race, or the start of a marathon, or the start of the boat race around the world. Are you suggesting the mere moment of the gun going off signifies the racers are now in the middle of the race? "

Is an argument with no value, because the middle is "At an equal distance from the extremities of something; central."

Another definition plucked out of the ether used to defend your argument without consideration of definitions: for example: I have a stick consisting of four segments, A B C D, aligned in a row such A-B-C-D. The middle two segments are B and C. I can also state, if the start of the race is the gun going off and the end of the race is the moment of crossing the finish line, the period of time in between is the middle.

The start of the race is the initial period of the race where the racers begin running. Once the racers are running it becomes past tense ie the race has started so if you have a number of things that happen during the beginning of the movement it is before any movement and since it it only referring to one period in time, it all happens at the same time.

cluggy89 wrote:The start of the race is the initial period of the race where the racers begin running. Once the racers are running it becomes past tense ie the race has started so if you have a number of things that happen during the beginning of the movement it is before any movement and since it it only referring to one period in time, it all happens at the same time.

You haven't defined the period of time for the start of the race. Yes, the race has started but that doesn't indicated the start of the race is completed.

For example, if I'm running a marathon race, I start the race with eight minute miles for the first eight miles. My pace slow to nine minute miles s I run the middle eight miles and I finish the race with a ten minute mile pace. Yes, I've started the race but the start of the race, for me, is defined as the first eight miles. Another example, earlier in the season USA Today reported the Oklahoma State Cowboys started the football game flat against Kansas but came to play in the second half. In that example, the start of the football game was the first half.

The thing is, yes, the start of the Movement phase is referring to one period in time, it's the duration that isn't defined. Started is the past tense of start but not the past tense of the start of the Movement phase. The start of the Movement phase is a noun, as you pointed out, a period of time, not an action that has a past tense.

Just forget about the definition of TSOTMP. We know from other actions, psyker powers etc that some actions within TSOTMP are determined by the prior outcome of other actions. That is enough to show that the start of a phase is a period in time that lasts exactly as long as it needs to for all actions to occur.
For instance, the rules in the Imperial Guard book for determining orders have a very specific way of determining Special Orders, that is sequenced and depends on the results of prior orders issued in the same 'Start of the Shooting Phase'.

I see what your saying but to me, the start or the movement phase is the period from when your opponents turn has been completed (and after all start of your turn events have passed) till the first model that moves at all in your army. I don't know if its because i played alot of MTG but that is how i see the turn sequences when you include in start/end of phases
i know its not the same game but in my head it just seems logical

"Edited for glaring misspellings and use of correct abilities."

Im with TGA on this one regarding scarab placement. The only argument that should matter to this is the wording of Reanimation Protocols. RP specifically states the necrons that come back with RP must be placed in cohesion with the pre existing unit, not counting any models being placed by RP. Scarab placement from Tomb Spiders however has neither condition, therefore you dont have to place them in coherency or with the targeted unit.

as previously mentioned before, a unit is a collection of models with no fixed distance. the rules on units do not say a unit can only occupy a 5 inch square for example. the only conditions to a unit is they can not be voluntarily moved out of unit coherency, which is covered in the cohesion rules. A unit can exist out of cohesion from the placing or removing of models to a unit. Only condition Cohesion cares for is that if a unit is not in cohesion, it must move so that the unit is in coherency if at all possible, meaning that even if all models in a unit move directly towards the center point of all individual models and is still not in coherency, then its not in coherency and must move closer together during your next movement phase. Being out of coherency does not prevent you from being a unit.

Therefore as a result of the above, even if you place the scarabs on the other end of the table, they are still part of the unit they are created for, however doing so would serve no purpose. however as the rules are written you are allowed to do so. Is this how the rules were intended? im going to assume that is not how it is intended. The wording means a heck of alot in 40k, the wording is exactly why Writhing Worldscape will not work with Temporal Snares but will with the Quake rule.

Should this tactic be used in a friendly game? no, its a tactic for competitive play. if your playing a friendly game, then don't do it, easy as that. In tournaments you should be aware of all tactics such as this to know how to deal with it. If you cannot stand the competitive nature of tournament play (after all prizes are on the line) then don't play in them, or just forfeit against the army using the tactic, or just deal with it. After all if your group is just a friendly gaming environment, its very easy to just refuse to game with said player and play with another one who will play a simple friendly game.

Is the tactic cheesy? no. why? because its allowed by the rules as written. Is this tactic going to be valid for long? probably not, everyone is expecting to to be clarified to most likely end up being worded exactly like RP is.

"Add to" has a very well defined contextual meaning, which disagrees with the "place it anywhere" concept

TheGreatAvatar wrote:If the Spyders create the scarabs instantly and simultaneously, how does that prevent a conga line? Once all the models appear (simultaneously) in the conga line, with at least ONE model in coherency of the unit, all will be in coherency instantly. Otherwise, each model is created and place in coherency those permitting a conga line.

Even with that ruling, you could get about a 10" jump. Each unit of spyders creates 3 bases and places them 2" (in coherency with the original unit) . The next does the same, and finally the last one does it. Figuring 1.5" bases with 2" coherency, we are talking a 9" jump. Now move 6" fleet an average of 3.5" and charge 12" and scarabs can go 30" from your start line on the first turn. That doesn't leave them a lot of space to deploy anything...

Look, i agree that the scarabs should work by being placed in coherency with the unit is it being "added" to, however it doesnt say that, but i will play it this way. However, because it doesnt say they ignore other created models for the purpose of placement (like RP does) then the rules allow a Daisy Chain effect going forward.

you cannot enforce a *no congo line becuase the unit is out of coherency* if they are placing at least 1 model in coherency with the original unit and the rest in coherency to that one, and so on and so forth, fitting the requirements of the rules as written. If they did not want it to go forward like that they would have written it like RP

Also, measuring 2 inches anywhere you like when placing scarabs is premeasuring, and cheating. Coherency is a movement rule, measuring 2 inches away from your existing scarab unit to place a new base as far forward as possible is not a movement rule.

No measuring when placing scarabs!

Been over that, and shown you that you were wrong.

If you are required to place something in coherency, then you are required to measure. So if, as I contend, "Add to" means "in coherency" (which it does, given context) then given you are required to add in coherency, you MUST measure.

But Nos, you even just said that its 'iffy' that 'Add to' means 'place in coherency.' So how am I demonstrated wrong? You are supporting measuring coherency between an existing model and a model that does not yet exist. That is not allowed!

Also keep in mind I am talking about measuring 2 inches BEFORE the new scarab base is on the table. AKA, take a 2 inch marker, mark out 2 inches around each base in the entire unit of existing scarabs, each and every one, and after premeasuring each and every location on the board you can, THEN place the new model.

I am demonstrating that your cry "pre measuring is illegal!" is wrong. The rulebook explicitly states you must measure when required to do so, and if you are required to be in coherency you must measure for coherency.

Reread RP, and note you must do exactly that. Reread chaos less daemon summoning and note the requirement to be within 6" for a unit that isnt even there yet. Reread Mordraks Gknight summoning and note the coherency requirement. Your postulate makes this impossible to fulfill - good job your postulate is fundamentally wrong.

Measuring is EASY, and yes you can measure 2" from any model if you so wish. Same as whne choosing to move you cna measure 6 / 12 / 24" in any direction you wish.

RP, daemon summoning, teleport homers, ect, all tell you that you CAN measure.

The way you are playing 'add to' you are assuming you can measure.

Permissive rule set and all, the examples you give all give permission to put new models within x inches.

Spyders, on the otherhand, have radically different rules. You are trying to use coherency rules, movement rules, which say models that are moving must stay within 2 inches, gives your spyders permission to measure 2 inches from an existing scarab unit.

Edit: Mordrak reads 'Place a new ghost knight within coherency of Mordraks unit.' Such wording does not exist for scarabs. I wish it did.

Devian - did you actually bother to check the rules before posting? Page 61, lesser daemon summoning, says you are wrong.

There is a requirement to arrive within 6". ABSOLUTELY nothing states you CAN measure, however you MUST measure because otherwise you risk breaking a rule.

MOrdrak states place in coherency - so you must measure

Your postulate is entirely, 100% incorrect. There is NO requirement to say "you can measure this" - simply being unable to fulfill the rule (or risk not fulfilling it, rather) is enough to REQUIRE you to measure.

So, if "add to" means "in coherency with", and context says it is this meaning, then you MUST measure.

DevianID wrote:RP, daemon summoning, teleport homers, ect, all tell you that you CAN measure.

The way you are playing 'add to' you are assuming you can measure.

Permissive rule set and all, the examples you give all give permission to put new models within x inches.

Spyders, on the otherhand, have radically different rules. You are trying to use coherency rules, movement rules, which say models that are moving must stay within 2 inches, gives your spyders permission to measure 2 inches from an existing scarab unit.

Edit: Mordrak reads 'Place a new ghost knight within coherency of Mordraks unit.' Such wording does not exist for scarabs. I wish it did.

Question, so how would you know if they are in coherency when placed?

curtis wrote:Question, so how would you know if they are in coherency when placed?

Until the Movement phase is over, you do not. Which is one of the reasons I disagree. ^^

...except you do, bvecause you MUST measure to ensure they are in coherency. Given ghost knights can appear in any phase you MUST ensure they are in coherency, so you MUST measure.

It's too bad that GW developers don't play test new rules, no wait, they do. Tards!

When GW writes NEW rules, they really don't think about 'how' the rules can be exploited.
For example, I knew a guy (Shawn Chavez) who played against Andy Chambers once, back in 3rd edition.
Andy charged Kharn into a unit of marines with an Apothecary, the Apothecary used his narthecium to "CURE" Kharns Frenzy.
It half his attacks, and everyone but Andy laughed. Afterward, Shawn was given the title of "Cheeses Christ"

The point of this story is, GW doesn't think of ways to power play. Have you ever read of a Battle report were one army was over the top?
If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Just my two cents.

Nos, ghost knights have different placement rules than scarabs. If they wanted scarabs to be placed in coherency, then they need to say placed in coherency. Your argument about ghost knights only undermines your position on scarabs.

So, people who disagree with nos -

What does "add to" in this context mean? Would you mind defining that?

How many bases were in the unit before? 'Add' 1 more 'to' that.

Nos, you are taking rules from a completly different codex and fitting them around necrons. add to simply means another model joins the group, the whole prospect that it also means they have to be in coherency is absurd. Nowhere does it state that this is the case.

Sorry, I just don't see how "add to" could possibly not also mean "with" which is used to mean "in coherency" or "joined to" (eg. the IC rules)

Devian - no, they do not. In coherency with == add to. You do the exact same thing.

Do you see the point that your argument that you cannot premeasure is entirely false?

just because "add to" should mean in coherency with doesnt mean it does. if it did it would read " add to and maintain unit coherency" there are seperate thing with completly seperate meanings.

cluggy89 wrote:just because "add to" should mean in coherency with doesnt mean it does. if it did it would read " add to and maintain unit coherency" there are seperate thing with completly seperate meanings.

No, if "add to" means within coherency you don't need to state "and maintain unit coherency" because it already means that. If "add to" does not include coherency, and the writers intended coherency to be a requirement, then they would have to state such.

Add to == with == joined to == in coherency.

if you can state Anywhere that "add to" means in coherency i will apoligize and concede. there is more than enough evidence in the rules to prove that this is legal. you cannot provide me evidence for your case because there is none, and the lack of evidence on your behalve just fortify mine even more. Untill this is FAQ'd this will continue to be a legal strategy.

cluggy89 wrote:if you can state Anywhere that "add to" means in coherency i will apoligize and concede. there is more than enough evidence in the rules to prove that this is legal. you cannot provide me evidence for your case because there is none, and the lack of evidence on your behalve just fortify mine even more. Untill this is FAQ'd this will continue to be a legal strategy.

There are no rules to define add. Therefore you cannot use the ability at all. Have fun with that.

The only rules we have for a model to join a unit is the IC rules. The only time an IC is said to be a part of a unit is when? When it is within 2" of said unit.

cluggy89 wrote:if you can state Anywhere that "add to" means in coherency i will apoligize and concede. there is more than enough evidence in the rules to prove that this is legal. you cannot provide me evidence for your case because there is none, and the lack of evidence on your behalve just fortify mine even more. Untill this is FAQ'd this will continue to be a legal strategy.

Find a rule stating what "add to" means.

Oh wait, there arent any. However every single piece of evidence we have for what the context means is coherency.

So no, it isnt a legal tactic, and it never will be - not at any tournament i can see being run, anyway

nosferatu1001 wrote: However every single piece of evidence we have for what the context means is coherency.

All the evidence I read says no such thing.
There will probably be FAQ/errata to agree with you, but otherwise. . .

Page 12 states it is entirely possible for units to be out of coherency during their turn and gives you rules for resolving it.

Of course it also states that it is only relevant when moving the unit.


/shrug

Every single time you add something to a unit it must be in coherency - including ICs.

"Add to" out of coherency would have to be explicit, and it isnt. It needs to be FAQ'd, if only to stop people from seriously trying to use this "tactic"

Oh, I understand your point. 100%.

I just do not read 10 models each 2 inches apart from each other (line or not) as out of coherency.

However I DO read 9 models added to a unit such they are in coherency with each other but NOT the initial unit as being "added to" the original unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:However I DO read 9 models added to a unit such they are in coherency with each other but NOT the initial unit as being "added to" the original unit.

Bolded the party I do not recall reading.

Why does the original unit even matter?

(Again, I get it. You are saying that adding models to the unit are not models that you can add to. I do not see that in text. If you add a model to a unit, it is part of that unit. Actions are done in serial unless literally spelled out otherwise, due to the nature of the rules - this is explicit in the Movement phase, which include the beginning of the phase. This is why Synapse can be a pain.)

"At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Canoptek Spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Canoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a D6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. This can take......."

So while people are trying to dismiss the RAW that the ability takes place at the start of the movement phase for each Canoptek Spyder because as someone said, "I can't place them all simultaneously" this does not give you permission to not treat them as if they are not done simultaneously.

The main point in the RAW above is that you nominate a unit to place the possible new Scarab Swarm. This is specifically done at the start of the Necron Movement phase. However with the conga line tactic being proposed by the OP and supported by others, the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth are not eligible to be chosen as the nominated unit to create the proposed conga-line.

The reason why they are not eligible goes back to the RAW that they did not exist at the start of the Movement phase. Once that first Scarab Swarm has been added, you are no longer at the the start of the Movement phase. If you propose to place the second unit within coherency of the first generated Scarab Swarm you are breaking the RAW of the rule the unit must be nominated at the start of the Movement phase. You are nominating a unit that did not exist at the start of the Movement phase.

Yes, you are not simultaneously rolling for 9 Canoptek Spyders, unless you had 9 arms to do so at exactly the very same moment. However you are not given any permission to not treat them as if you didn't roll them simultaneously. In the event that you were able to manage a simultaneous 9 Canoptek Spyder roll, you would have to nominate a Canoptek Scarab unit within 6". If the scenario was described as the OP put, the one unit within 6" would be the only unit able to be nominated and the only unit the new Scarab unit could be attached.

Conclusion: No Scarab Swarm conga line. That is the RAW.

Is it worth pointing out that a UNIT of Canoptek Spyders can produce ONE Canoptek Scarab base regardless of how many Spyders are in that unit? Guess I'm going back to the OP question about conga-lining 9 bases when at most in one turn three units of Spyders can create three bases.

Using Brother Ramses quote from above, a UNIT (i.e. 1, 2, or 3 Spyders make up ONE unit) can create ONE Scarab base per turn at the start of their Movement phase. I realize that the previous paragraph states that a Canoptek Spyder (singular) not locked in CC can create a swarm. And I can see how this could be interpreted as each Spyder in the unit. But the second paragraph does seem to be explicit that the UNIT creates ONE swarm as opposed to each Spyder in the unit creating a swarm.

*Edit for idiocy* My bad, I misread the quote and thought it was Spyders and not Scarabs that were nominated. Ignore.

Brother Ramses wrote:

"At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Canoptek Spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Canoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a D6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. This can take......."

So while people are trying to dismiss the RAW that the ability takes place at the start of the movement phase for each Canoptek Spyder because as someone said, "I can't place them all simultaneously" this does not give you permission to not treat them as if they are not done simultaneously.

Correct. IF the Scarabs "logically" appear simultaneously, then placing the models sequentially is moot.

The main point in the RAW above is that you nominate a unit to place the possible new Scarab Swarm. This is specifically done at the start of the Necron Movement phase. However with the conga line tactic being proposed by the OP and supported by others, the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth are not eligible to be chosen as the nominated unit to create the proposed conga-line.

Two things: 1) if all the Scarabs are created at once, they all appear at once, i.e., simultaneously. As you just pointed out, just because the models are placed down on the table sequentially doesn't "give you permission to not treat them as if they are not done simultaneously." (Brother Ramses). All the models appear instantly, thus, all are in unit coherency.

You haven't used any logic to show that it is permitted.

You are bound by the rules to compromise between the game mechanic of doing something simultanaeous for all the Canoptek Spyders and the real life limitations required to carrry out the action. Instead you are choosing to disregard what the game mechanics tell you to do and creating a sequence not supported by the RAW to justify the conga line.

Per the RAW, a Necron player is nominating a Sacarab unit within 6" at the start of the Necron Movement phase. Note that is the Necron Movement phase and not the Spyder's Movement phase.

When your second Canoptek Spyder goes to nominate the same Scarab unit, the Necron player is bound to treat that Scarab unit as if it was still a Scarab unit of one base because as all Canoptek Spyders attempting to create an additional Scarab base are doing so simultaneously and thus nominating that single base Scarab unit simultaneously.

What you are proposing under the guise of simultaneously placing them in coherency is bs. You are nominating a Scarab unit within 6" and then placing. However you then nominate the new two base Scarab unit with your second Spyder and place the base. That is not following the RAW at all. You are nominating the newly created second, third, fourth, etc, and etc Scarab units when they did not exist at the start of the Necron Movement phase which is the RAW.

By all means, please explain how you are nominating a Scarab unit, that now has an additional one or more bases after the start of the Necron Movement phase.

Per the RAW, a Necron player could be compelled to have every Canoptek Spyder nominate which Scarab unit within 6" it will be attempting to create a new Scarab Swarm at the start of the Necron Movement phase and that single base Scarab unit will be where you have to add the new units because that is the only unit that was nominated.

Justify how you are joining a unit that you did not nominate at the start of the Necron movement phase.

Brother Ramses wrote:You haven't used any logic to show that it is permitted.

You are bound by the rules to compromise between the game mechanic of doing something simultanaeous for all the Canoptek Spyders and the real life limitations required to carrry out the action. Instead you are choosing to disregard what the game mechanics tell you to do and creating a sequence not supported by the RAW to justify the conga line.

Per the RAW, a Necron player is nominating a Sacarab unit within 6" at the start of the Necron Movement phase. Note that is the Necron Movement phase and not the Spyder's Movement phase.

Ummm, okay. I never stated a model has its own Movement phase. The player has the Movement phase. Not sure where you're going with that line of argument.

Per the RAW, the player nominates a Spyder to create a Scarab for a Scarab unit within 6" of the Spyder, thus, up to nine Scarabs can be generated. As pointed out in many of the previous posts, the issue is whether or not the Scarabs are created sequentially (I believe the wording of the rules support this opinion) or the Scarabs are all created simultaneously. Again, as noted in several of the previous posts, I'm a firm believer the Scarabs are created sequentially, increasing the size of the Scarab unit incrementally, thus permitting the conga line.

The argument regarding simultaneous placement has been hashed out, again, see the previous posts.

However, since you want to hash it out again, I'll oblige you a few more posts.....

So, for purposes of the rest of this argument, I'm assuming all the Scarabs are created simultaneously instantly at the start of the Movement phase......

When your second Canoptek Spyder goes to nominate the same Scarab unit, the Necron player is bound to treat that Scarab unit as if it was still a Scarab unit of one base because as all Canoptek Spyders attempting to create an additional Scarab base are doing so simultaneously and thus nominating that single base Scarab unit simultaneously.

If you're trying to state the second and subsequent Spyders must treat the same Scarab unit with the same number of models in the unit prior to the Spyders creating Scarabs. In other words, if the Scarab unit start the phase with three models, all the Spyders treat the Scarab unit with three models.

What you are proposing under the guise of simultaneously placing them in coherency is bs. You are nominating a Scarab unit within 6" and then placing. However you then nominate the new two base Scarab unit with your second Spyder and place the base. That is not following the RAW at all. You are nominating the newly created second, third, fourth, etc, and etc Scarab units when they did not exist at the start of the Necron Movement phase which is the RAW.

Actually, I am following the RAW. If all the Scarabs are created simultaneously, i.e. instantly, and all the Scarabs are added to the unit simultaneously, i.e. instantly, THEN, when all the models "appear" simultaneously, i. e. instantly, by the RAW all the models are in coherency.

So, a Scarab unit starting with three Scarabs in two inch coherency:

S1 S2 S3

now has three Scarabs simultaneously, i. e. instantly, created for it by three Spyders:

S1 S2 S3 Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

The instant the created Scarabs (Sc*) appear they are part of the Scarab unit and are in unit coherency.

Again, just prior to the Scarabs are created:

S1 S2 S3

Now, instantly after the Scarabs are created:

S1 S2 S3 Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

Sc1, Sc2, and Sc3 are instantly part of the unit and, per RAW, are in unit coherency.

By all means, please explain how you are nominating a Scarab unit, that now has an additional one or more bases after the start of the Necron Movement phase.

Per the RAW, a Necron player could be compelled to have every Canoptek Spyder nominate which Scarab unit within 6" it will be attempting to create a new Scarab Swarm at the start of the Necron Movement phase and that single base Scarab unit will be where you have to add the new units because that is the only unit that was nominated.

Right, that's just what I showed. The Scarabs are created and added to the Scarab unit in unit coherency.

Justify how you are joining a unit that you did not nominate at the start of the Necron movement phase.

I'm not sure what you mean. Each Spyder nominates a Scarab unit to add a Scarab, then the Scarabs are created and added to the Scarab unit all instantly.

All instantly joined and in coherency to the unit that was nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase, NOT joined and in coherency to the unit that was not nominated and only created by the addition of new Scarab bases.

In your example above, Sc2 and S3 are not being placed within coherency of the unit that you nominated at the start of the Necron Movement Phase. You nominated the unit with three Scarab bases, not four. To follow the RAW, Sc2 and Sc3 would have to be placed so that they are within coherency to join the 3 Scarab base unit that was originally nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

...................... Sc2
SC1 SC2 SC3 Sc1
.......................Sc3

Would be legal as the created units are all within coherency of the unit nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

Find a rule stating what "add to" means. Oh wait, there arent any. However every single piece of evidence we have for what the context means is coherency

So when you 'Add up to 5 additional marines to a squad' when making a list, said marines must be in coherency before the game begins?

Gee, context is a real problem at times....

Is this list creation? No. So a rule covering list creation probably doesnt apply.

OK Nos, so there are examples of 'Adding to' a unit, but you dont like that, and say they dont count.

But before you said the rules never define 'Add to?' Whats the point then, when I have shown that is not the case?

You keep insisting on coherency, but 'Add to' does not have coherency in its conotation. Coherency (as said ad nausem) is a movement rule only. It has nothing to do with 'adding to' a unit. It also has nothing do to with subtracting from a unit. Coherency also can be broken during a game.

In addition there are rules from other books that define what distance new models are placed in (Coherency distance) yet such additional rules are absent from the Spyder. Thus the Spyder is different from them and does not work the same way.

No, there examples of "add up to" duing list creation. Adding to is not add up to, the context is entirely different.
Thats the point: context. Context. Context.

Coherency does have coherency as a connotation. Its how you ADD an IC to a unit, for a start.

Absence of redundancy does not alter context, you shoudl know this by now.

but IC are different because they can exist outside of another unit, scarabs can't so of course there rules are going to be different, (unless the rest of them get killed of course). you cant take rules from one thing and add it to another simply because you dont like the idea of it. if it was supposed to be in coherency it would say "in coherency" since there is nothing to do with coherency in the rules it is legal. add to means add another number of objects to a pre-existing number of object. nothing in the term "add to" refers to how close they have to be.

In 40k it does. Every time an IN CONTEXT use of "add to", "join" etc is used, it ALWAYS means "in coherency with". This is called "implication" - EVERY time you get a chance to add members to a unit, EVERY time you do so in coherency.

It is not legal, neither RAW nor RAP - certainly not in ANY event I run or with any TO i have spoken to currently will allow this. Of course GW can FAQ it to allow consistent turn 1 charges anywhere on the board, but you know what? I find that *very* unlikely, giving the Scout Shunt ruling.

Play it that way if you wish, in pickup games, just dont expect it to fly anywhere meaningful.

nosferatu1001 wrote:In 40k it does. Every time an IN CONTEXT use of "add to", "join" etc is used, it ALWAYS means "in coherency with". This is called "implication" - EVERY time you get a chance to add members to a unit, EVERY time you do so in coherency.

It is not legal, neither RAW nor RAP - certainly not in ANY event I run or with any TO i have spoken to currently will allow this. Of course GW can FAQ it to allow consistent turn 1 charges anywhere on the board, but you know what? I find that *very* unlikely, giving the Scout Shunt ruling.

Play it that way if you wish, in pickup games, just dont expect it to fly anywhere meaningful.

Must be the spirit of the season, but I have been agreeing with you on more subjects then not lately Nos.

The other thread was locked, but the Command barge issue regarding negating the immobilized result, but not the wrecked comes to mind when you point out turn 1 shenaningans. GW has shown a predilication to not allowing fast out skimmer occupants to not survive for a first turn assault ala DE shock prows ramming to crash after moving flat out for 42" assaults.

Once or twice in a blue moon, clearly. We should immediately open a jaws / lance / etc thread again, just to get it back to normal

nosferatu1001 wrote:Once or twice in a blue moon, clearly. We should immediately open a jaws / lance / etc thread again, just to get it back to normal

Nos, I agree with you on the Jaws point, but I have to agree with Ramses on Lance/etc. (Let me know when you two are "duking it out" again...)

For one it doesn't say anywhere in brb about "add to" in ic section it says join... Can you give me a page numbers, quotes anything to suggest your side is right so far all I've saw is you saying your correct. Your lack of evidence is evidence in itself that this is legal.

Find a rule stating that "add to" has a different context to "join" or "with" or any other synonym for "add to the unit, in coherency with" and youd have a point.

Youre claiming the EXTRAORDINARY ability to place the model anywhere on the table, so how about some proof

And, unless GW says you can do it, NOWHERE that matters will let you do it.

Just because something is implied does not automatically make it so unless backed up with evidence to back it up. And besides i have proven it. The LACK of anything mentioned about coherency means coherency is NOT a factor. If it was it would be stated. And if add to meant coherency it would appear in rulebook/FAQ/codex as such.

cluggy89 wrote:Just because something is implied does not automatically make it so unless backed up with evidence to back it up. And besides i have proven it. The LACK of anything mentioned about coherency means coherency is NOT a factor. If it was it would be stated. And if add to meant coherency it would appear in rulebook/FAQ/codex as such.

So you're falling back on the literal definition of add to?

Can you show me in the rules where "add to" is defined? I'll wait.

Try a dictionary. That is my point. Nowhere in any description of add does distance come into the equation.

The dictionary definition doesn't help you in this case - it doesn't give you any rules for placing a new base on the table. Since there are no rules allowing you to place a new base, then you can't - you roll at the risk of wounding your spider, but get nothing out of it, sorry.

Or, you can realize that context matters and "add to" means, with respect to 40k rules, the same thing as "with" and "joins" which means "in coherency".

Really? Add- to increase or combine to form a sum... Since the rule states add one base to the canoptek scarab unit... I think it does

So how do you place that base? The rule says:

"On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the conoptek scarab unit "

I don't see any rules dictating placement... Hum. If only there was some context or other rules we could lean on to figure this problem out.

The base can move and act normally this turn.... The scarab base is still placed... Doesn't this just tell you to place the base... It doesn't say coherency... Hum

Actually it says nothing about placing the base. It implies it, but according to you, implications and context are inadmissable.

"On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the conoptek scarab unit "

I don't see any rules dictating placement... Hum. If only there was some context or other rules we could lean on to figure this problem out.

So like deployment then? (no coherency mentioned there unless I missed it)

Also, just because an ability does not have a range does not mean the ability HAS to have a range. "Place on the table" still works as well as "Place on the table within coherency" and "Place on the table within 6 inches"

In addition, where does the rules ever compare 'add to' to 'join?' I have seen several times people trying to link the two, BUT the conotation is very different. If the two are used interchangably in the rules then that would be something to go on, but I have not seen such a direct link. Page number if you find it please?

What?!? Codex; necrons. Pg 46 wargear. Scarab hive. Paragraph 2 nominate a canoptek scarab unit within 6" and roll a D6. on a 2-6, add one base to the canoptek scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. This can take the unit above its starting size. On a roll of a one THE SCARAB BASE IS STILL PLACED. This tells you exactly how to place it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Did i say context is not permissible? Nope don't think i did chief. What im saying is the rules for joining are not the same as adding. Why take a rule that is Exclusive to independent characters and impregnate it into the spyders rules when there is nothing telling you to do so

Brother Ramses wrote:All instantly joined and in coherency to the unit that was nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase, NOT joined and in coherency to the unit that was not nominated and only created by the addition of new Scarab bases.

In your example above, Sc2 and S3 are not being placed within coherency of the unit that you nominated at the start of the Necron Movement Phase.

Incorrect. Sc2 and Sc3 join the unit instantly with Sc1. Maybe you're not understanding what instantly means. The moment all three Scarab models appear they satisfy all the requirements for unit coherency with the Scarab unit.

You nominated the unit with three Scarab bases, not four. To follow the RAW,

What RAW? You keep mentioning RAW without siting the supporting rule.

Sc2 and Sc3 would have to be placed so that they are within coherency to join the 3 Scarab base unit that was originally nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

You yourself stated the Scarabs are placed instantly simultaneously with the Scarab unit. My previous example shows the three Scarabs join the originally nominated unit from the start of the Movement phase.

...................... Sc2
SC1 SC2 SC3 Sc1
.......................Sc3

Would be legal as the created units are all within coherency of the unit nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

SC1 SC2 SC3 Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

Would also be legal as the created Scarabs (not units, btw) are all within coherency of the unit nominated at the start of the Movement Phase.

DevianID wrote:

"On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the conoptek scarab unit "

I don't see any rules dictating placement... Hum. If only there was some context or other rules we could lean on to figure this problem out.

So like deployment then? (no coherency mentioned there unless I missed it)

Yes. There is nothing in the rules that forces you to deploy a unit in coherency at the start of the game. You'd most likely waste the next couple of turns being forced to move into coherency. Aside from the actual scenario deployment rules themselves, there is nothing stopping you from doing it.

-Yad

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:All instantly joined and in coherency to the unit that was nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase, NOT joined and in coherency to the unit that was not nominated and only created by the addition of new Scarab bases.

In your example above, Sc2 and S3 are not being placed within coherency of the unit that you nominated at the start of the Necron Movement Phase.

Incorrect. Sc2 and Sc3 join the unit instantly with Sc1. Maybe you're not understanding what instantly means. The moment all three Scarab models appear they satisfy all the requirements for unit coherency with the Scarab unit.

You nominated the unit with three Scarab bases, not four. To follow the RAW,

What RAW? You keep mentioning RAW without siting the supporting rule.

Sc2 and Sc3 would have to be placed so that they are within coherency to join the 3 Scarab base unit that was originally nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

You yourself stated the Scarabs are placed instantly simultaneously with the Scarab unit. My previous example shows the three Scarabs join the originally nominated unit from the start of the Movement phase.

...................... Sc2
SC1 SC2 SC3 Sc1
.......................Sc3

Would be legal as the created units are all within coherency of the unit nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

SC1 SC2 SC3 Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

Would also be legal as the created Scarabs (not units, btw) are all within coherency of the unit nominated at the start of the Movement Phase.

As much as you want it work, you still fail at following RAW. While all three new Scarab unts are created instantly and simultaneously, they are still created individually by Spyders, regardless if said Spyders are all in a unit or not.

So while you think you are placing them instantly and within coherency, you are still basing the first Scarab as means to determine placing the second and third Scarab bases, not the unit nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

Considering that you dismiss the RAW regarding the start of the Necron Movement phase as being interpretative to what you think is the start of the Necron Movement phase to allow your tactic just shows your argument lacks and real basis within the rules. Changing the rules to make your argument work does not work very well.

At this point, it appears that we are arguing 2 completely seperate rules issues here.

The first, as Ramses and the Great Avatar are discussing, is that Scarabs must be placed in coherency with the original unit, BUT differ in HOW to place the new models in coherency.

The second is that coherency is or is not a requirement to place a model on the table, and BOTH Rames and TGA's arguments are therefor invalid as coherency, as a movement rule, does not apply to placing models on the table, decidely not a movement rule. The issue of whether coherency is even required must be answered first before other arguments that require coherency can be discussed.

Should we split the topic perhaps?

The second has been answered: every contextually correct usage requires coherency. Every single time you add to an existing unit you do so in coherency.

The extraordinary claim that you can place it anywhere on the table has neither precedence nor context to support it.

Brother Ramses wrote:
As much as you want it work, you still fail at following RAW.

WHAT RAW!!! YOU KEEP SAYING THIS WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE!!!!

While all three new Scarab unts are created instantly and simultaneously, they are still created individually by Spyders, regardless if said Spyders are all in a unit or not.

So, all the Spyders create all the Scarabs instantly and simultaneously, yet each Scarab is individually created by each Spyder. The placement of the Scarabs are sequential...yet instantaneous as well as simultaneous....

So while you think you are placing them instantly and within coherency, you are still basing the first Scarab as means to determine placing the second and third Scarab bases, not the unit nominated at the start of the Necron Movement phase.

If the Scarab are created individually, as you stated above, then the first Scarab placed can be used to place the second which can be used to place the third and so on. If the models are all created simultaneously then the placement of the first Scarab happens the instant the placement of the second Scarab the instant of the third and so on. This all happens together. So yes, the moment the Scarabs appear they are all placed with the unit and ware within unit coherency.

Considering that you dismiss the RAW regarding the start of the Necron Movement phase as being interpretative to what you think is the start of the Necron Movement phase to allow your tactic just shows your argument lacks and real basis within the rules. Changing the rules to make your argument work does not work very well.

WHAT RAW? Please, point out what rule as written I'm misinterpreting. Until yo can show what RAW I'm violating there really isn't as reason to continue the debate.

The second has been answered: every contextually correct usage requires coherency. Every single time you add to an existing unit you do so in coherency

Im sorry, when did we find a time you add to a unit? The ghost knights? Because they specify a distance for where the models are placed. You cant decide the scarabs are placed by ghost knight rules because you feel like it.

'Placed on the table' by itself means anywhere. 'Placed within coherency distance' means within 2 inches for infantry (4 for vehicle squads).

Find a time when you "add to", "join", are "with" a unit that doesnt involve being in coherency. Currently "add to", contextually, is in coherency with.

If you are making the *extraordinary* claim that, for the first time during a game you get to "add", "join" or place models "with" a unit but NOT in coherency, YOU must have a rules justification for it.

Its been asked for a while now. Find it.

You know, I was a little alarmed about the possiblity of Canoptek Spyder Shenanigans. But I am now okay with it. If an opponent wants to use all three of his/her heavy slots to have nine Canoptek Spyders, cool. If they wish to bunch them up within 6.0" of a unit of ten Canoptek Scarabs, fine. If the Necron player wants to conga line the Scarabs, great. I don't even mind if they play "Who Let the Dogs Out" (Baja Men) while they do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhyvNNKTCI&feature=related

This stunt (yes ..... stunt) will last until the rest of us figure out how to do our own Turn One Conga line. A line of inexpensive Fast Attack vehicles armed with flamers stretched length-ways accross the front line of our army. Insert your favorite Fast Attack vehicle here (Landspeeders, Warbuggies, ectetera). Each squad should stretch out about 15.0". Just make the distance between the models less than the size of a 40mm base. Two units like this will protect the bulk of your models from a first turn hit. Let the Necron player hit this line with Scarabs. With Entropic strike I would imagine losing at least a squad (maybe two squads). But bottom line, he'll end up with any surviving fast attack vehicles moving away and leaving the 19 Scarab bases bunched up in the open. Templates away!

Yes, the Necron player could shoot the vehicle Conga line first (before any charge). It may be helpful to have a third Fast attack unit running a secondary line behind the first. But most of their weapons are at a 24.0" range". Use any trick you can get with your army list to get extra protection for the vehicle wall (Kustom Force Field, Conceal, ectetera). Make the Necron player use up those valuable Heavy Gauss Cannon shots from their Destroyers. Put other vehicles behind your Fast Attack vehicles (Rhinos, Wartrukks). Put any of your troops (or other models with Weapon Skill ratings) that can be tied up in combat in the back.

Tyranid players will be out of luck (again) on using this tactic.

Bottom line, this really only makes a sure thing (first turn attack and tie up into a troop unit) a lot less sure. It seems that the Canoptek Spyders can only create a swarm of Scarabs if there is another unit of scarabs within 6.0". Use your templete weapons wisely the first turn and take that from the Necron player. No Canoptek Scarabs within 6.0" of their final movement means they cannot add new swarms that turn.

Maybe, just maybe, this will be fun after all ..........?

Sorry about the thread high-jack ...... back to the discussion at hand.

That might be great for you, but some codices don't have the option to take templates like they were giving them out free at the county fair. As a Dark Eldar player, I have two useable template attacks in my entire codex. The first is one shot, and doesn't deal wounds (so scarabs don't take double damage). The second is exclusive to an HQ option or a 5-man elite unit and will cost me a minimum of 60 points.

Codex creep is bad enough -- we don't need lousy rule interpretations so TFG can ruin tournaments for the rest of us.

I reviewed the Dark Eldar Codex and I have to agree, Corollax. Dark Eldar join the Tyranids in that this tactic is not viable due to not having cheap Fast Attack vehicles (with no Weapon Skill ratings) as a tripwire and too few templates.

Do you always make up your own rules or do you ever go by the book? Coherency is NOT mentioned. It is NOT a requirement for placing models. You are wrong. You keep saying find the rules where coherency isn't a part of adding. There is none that's why we are correct. Because if it was a requirement it would say so. The created scarabs are not independent characters stop giving their rules to them.

cluggy89 wrote:Do you always make up your own rules or do you ever go by the book? Coherency is NOT mentioned. It is NOT a requirement for placing models. You are wrong. You keep saying find the rules where coherency isn't a part of adding. There is none that's why we are correct. Because if it was a requirement it would say so. The created scarabs are not independent characters stop giving their rules to them.

I've been watching this part of the argument for sometime and figured since this thread just won't die I might as well as chime in since I've chimed in on just about all other aspects of this issue:

I'm on board with NOS on this.... What you're suggesting is the Necron player can place the Scarab, once created, anywhere on the table. That's not what the states. It states newly created Scarab is added to the existing unit. Adding to implies in unit coherency. Do you scatter the models to the four corners of the table when you deploy a unit? The rules do not specifically state a unit must be deployed in unit coherence yet you'd be hard pressed to suggest otherwise, let alone actually attempt such a thing.

As NOS pointed out, your interpretation is so far removed from normal game play you need to show where in the rules it permits such an action.

Pg 94 arriving from reserves. States that they move onto the table. So they'd pretty much be in coherency unless specifically moved out.
Pg 95 deep strike. Rules tell you to place 1st model then others in base contact with the first. No problem there. The rules don't say anything about having to be deployed in unit coherency so They don't have to be. And seeing as how you can't measure coherency until the end of the movement phase how on earth do you check that without cheating by pre- measuring?

That's talking about coming in from reserves. When deploying there is no requirement to deploy in coherency, but if you tried it you would be called out.

If you're required to do something (deploy in coherency) you are allowed to measure.

So you're asserting you are not allowed to measure coherency during deployment?

Give me a page number where is says deploy in coherency. Please... I can wait

cluggy89 wrote:Give me a page number where is says deploy in coherency. Please... I can wait

Okay, np. I'll just bring my tape measure and if you deployed 2.01 inches apart you're going to have a crappy movement phase.

Hm not really a page number. Its okay il wait longer.

Can you cite somewhere that you can voluntarily break coherency?

I understand you can break coherency by removing models during the shooting phase, but that's not strictly voluntary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'm still stuck on your assertion that you can deploy out of coherency. A unit out of coherency "loses its cohesion as a fighting force" so coherency is implied in deployment.

cluggy89 wrote:Give me a page number where is says deploy in coherency. Please... I can wait

It's an interesting idea that fails as soon as you try to play a game vs. argueing on forums. Especially in a tournament. Any TO is going to look at you, and tell you that if they are part of a unit, to place the models in coherency with the unit you adding the newly made model to.

Of course you can move out of coherency. Youvcheck it after moving. If you can't move out of coherency why have it there? Im not saying you'd want to but you can. That's the reason why its at the end of the movement.
And to prove it. Pg 48 4th buliten point. "An idependant character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it"
so i conclude if you cannot brake coherency by moving. No independent character could ever leave a unit.

You check it after moving and the rules say that you must end in coherency.

ICs are explicitly allowed to leave coherency.

cluggy89 wrote:Of course you can move out of coherency. Youvcheck it after moving. If you can't move out of coherency why have it there? Im not saying you'd want to but you can. That's the reason why its at the end of the movement.
And to prove it. Pg 48 4th buliten point. "An idependant character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it"
so i conclude if you cannot brake coherency by moving. No independent character could ever leave a unit.

And are scarabs independent characters? No. So you proved nothing.

I never said they were. And where in the rules does it say you have to end in coherency? All it says is if there not in coherency they have to move in such a way to restore it next movement phase


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then again if you say that rule is exclusive to independant characters. Then surly the rules on joining are exclusive to independent characters. Which throws out the idea that they have to be created in coherency altogether.

cluggy89 wrote:And where in the rules does it say you have to end in coherency? All it says is if there not in coherency they have to move in such a way to restore it next movement phase

BRB page 12, under Unit Coherency, first paragraph, second sentence.
"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"."
there is no option here. You have to end movement in coherency. Which means you must measure, and if you are not in coherency, the units movement hasn't ended.

Oh but you are wrong. If you read onto the second paragraph it gives you rules on what to do when they become broken. "During the course of the game its possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties." the paragraph you quoted tells you that they do have to do that to maintain coherency. But the paragraph i quoted tells you you can brake the lines but you suffer having to move together next movement phase. You measure once the units have finished moving, if you move again after you have done this it is cheating

cluggy89 wrote:Oh but you are wrong. If you read onto the second paragraph it gives you rules on what to do when they become broken. "During the course of the game its possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties." the paragraph you quoted tells you that they do have to do that to maintain coherency. But the paragraph i quoted tells you you can brake the lines but you suffer having to move together next movement phase. You measure once the units have finished moving, if you move again after you have done this it is cheating

Nowhere in the second paragraph does it give you, the player, permission to break coherency. It is telling you it can happen, and what to do when/if it does, but not that you can do it. In fact, it reinforces the fact that you MUST move back as soon as possible.

Stupid arguement. You can't voluntarily move out of coherency. No one plays this way. If you do, you're cheating. At this point, I'm assuming you're just trolling. Thank the lord for ignore lists.

That's my point, this whole argument is stupid. It doesn't say you can but it implies that. Now if moving out of coherency isn't allowed then neither is the whole add to implies coherency rubbish. It does not say it so it is not a factor.

If a model is added to a unit, then it is part of that unit, and as such MUST be in coherency at the end of its movement. That's not implied, it's explicitly stated.

No it can't move out of coherency. The rules do not say the only way to brake a unit is by taking casualtys. It does say however that there are ways it can be broken. Now show me where the spyders rule states coherency. You can't there is no such rule. You don't have to like it but its legal

cluggy89 wrote:That's my point, this whole argument is stupid. It doesn't say you can but it implies that. Now if moving out of coherency isn't allowed then neither is the whole add to implies coherency rubbish. It does not say it so it is not a factor.

Wait what? If moving out of coherency isn't allowed (and it's not) what does that have to do with "add to" requiring coherency?

Deployment implies coherency, add to is deploying, add to implies coherency.

Better idea. Show me where the rules state you can place out of coherency. You can't there is no such rule. You don't have to like it, but it is not legal.

What so now implications are allowed again?!? geez wish you guys would make up your mind. And the lack of anything about coherency is a FACT that coherency has nothing to do with it. Like i said if it did mean it it would have been stated

cluggy89 wrote:No it can't move out of coherency. The rules do not say the only way to brake a unit is by taking casualtys. It does say however that there are ways it can be broken. Now show me where the spyders rule states coherency. You can't there is no such rule. You don't have to like it but its legal

The Spyder's rules doesn't need to state it. If the model is part of the unit, it MUST end its movement in coherency. There is no option! It must be in coherency. It is explicitly stated in the Unit Coherency rules.

No. It hasn't even moved yet. Read the rules again. Say you add the base 20inchs away from the rest of the unit. The newly created scarabs will still be classed as in coherency until its finished moving then check for coherency. Then it will have to move to get back into coherency on its next movement phase. That iz the rules as written. Im sick of this silly argument when none of you can back up what you've said about adding meaning coherency. I have showed you there are no such rule but are still adamant your right when you have nothing backing it up. Im leaving this now so take care. Il see you in another post lol

I would welcome you to place you Scarab Swarms out of coherency. You can spend the turn they are created and each subsequent move doing absolutely nothing except moving them into coherency.

Then when I assault one of you out of coherency bases and move a different unit within 6" of a different out of coherency base, I wipe your entire Scarab Swarm unit.

Good times.

Cluggy - every single time, EVERY time a unit is ever added to / joined by / "with" another model it MUST be in coherency.

Find permission to be out of coherency, when context (you know, that thing that tells you how to parse a sentence correctly, and is a required part of the English language that the rules are written in) tells you otherwise.

cluggy89 wrote:What so now implications are allowed again?!? geez wish you guys would make up your mind. And the lack of anything about coherency is a FACT that coherency has nothing to do with it. Like i said if it did mean it it would have been stated

Fine. Show the rule that permits a unit to move or deploy out of coherency. So where "add to" permits being out of coherency. An example? FAQ ruling? Anything? As much as you want us to prove "add to" is explicitly meant to add to unit coherency we are expecting similar, prove your argument.

rigeld2 wrote:Can you cite somewhere that you can voluntarily break coherency?

I understand you can break coherency by removing models during the shooting phase, but that's not strictly voluntary.

With very few exceptions (ex., Vindicare Assassin) it is almost entirely a voluntary choice.

rigeld2 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'm still stuck on your assertion that you can deploy out of coherency. A unit out of coherency "loses its cohesion as a fighting force" so coherency is implied in deployment.

Fluff. And yes, it is completely permissible to deploy a unit to 4 corners of your deployment zone. There is absolutely nothing in the rules preventing a player from doing that. There are very specific rules about what a player must do in the subsequent Movement and Shooting (Run) phases regarding that unit though.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ToBeWilly wrote:If a model is added to a unit, then it is part of that unit, and as such MUST be in coherency at the end of its movement. That's not implied, it's explicitly stated.

No. Models found to be out of coherency during the movement phase must move to be in coherency. They must continue to move (and even Run) in subsequent phases until they are in coherency. The rules allow for a unit to be out of coherency for multiple turns.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:Better idea. Show me where the rules state you can place out of coherency. You can't there is no such rule. You don't have to like it, but it is not legal.

The Scarab Hive rule for one. Deployment for another (outside of a explicit placement instructions).

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:I would welcome you to place you Scarab Swarms out of coherency. You can spend the turn they are created and each subsequent move doing absolutely nothing except moving them into coherency.

Yes that is exactly what would happen.

-Yad




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Cluggy - every single time, EVERY time a unit is ever added to / joined by / "with" another model it MUST be in coherency.

Find permission to be out of coherency, when context (you know, that thing that tells you how to parse a sentence correctly, and is a required part of the English language that the rules are written in) tells you otherwise.

I disagree. You have in effect created a new game mechanic to describe how a model must be placed when 'added to' a unit on the table. A mechanic not supported by the rules, but rather by assumptions and wishful thinking. I would suggest that there is a gap in the rules brought to light by the Scarab Hive rule about how this [add to] is to occur. As it stands now it is perfectly legal to place a newly created scarab anywhere on the table.

-Yad