Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.