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.

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.