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: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."