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.

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.