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.

That's not what that interpretation means.
A single model unit cannot be out of coherency with the rest of his unit (which is what the movement rules forbid).

An IC that has no units within 2" of him has no units within coherency distance.

Please don't put words in my mouth. If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I you move and nothing is within 2", then by definition you have moved out of coherency distance.

This interpretation would mean that any unit that is reduced to a single model is always going to be out of coherency. So which way do they move to regain it?

No, it doesnt, because you are mixing up coherency *distance* and coherency, and conflating the two terms

Coherency distance is 2", and you are told to move away form the unit by more than that amount. Which is entirely possible.
Coherency is a concept requiring units of more than one model to remain within 2" of at least one other model in the unit. This is not the same as coherency distance

rigeld2 wrote:That's not what that interpretation means.
A single model unit cannot be out of coherency with the rest of his unit (which is what the movement rules forbid).

Hence my comment earlier in the thread about a double-standard to that argument.


IC's, while joined to another unit, are a part of that unit. They leave it by moving out of coherency with it. So if a single model can not be out of coherency with the rest of the unit (which, obviously, he can't, because there is no 'rest of the unit'), an IC who is the sole survivor can't leave the unit.

Hence my conclusion earlier that either the IC can not leave the unit once it is destroyed, or he doesn't have to leave it as he is no longer a part of it because it no longer exists.

There is simply no support in the rules whatsoever for the IC to leave a unit that no longer exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency distance is 2", and you are told to move away form the unit by more than that amount. Which is entirely possible.

The IC is the only surviving member of the unit. He can not move more than 2" away from himself.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency distance is 2", and you are told to move away form the unit by more than that amount. Which is entirely possible.

The IC is the only surviving member of the unit. He can not move more than 2" away from himself.

He doesn't have to.

He has to move out of coherency distance with the unit.

Do you not see the difference?

Insaniak - the test is that he has to move out of coherency distance of someone who was in the unit he joined.

rigeld2 wrote:He has to move out of coherency distance with the unit.

Do you not see the difference?

There is no difference. He can't move out of coherency distance with the unit, because he's the only member of the unit left on the table.

He has to be more than 2" away from a member of the unit he joined with. which he can do.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He has to move out of coherency distance with the unit.

Do you not see the difference?

There is no difference. He can't move out of coherency distance with the unit, because he's the only member of the unit left on the table.

So IC's can never leave units?

There's a difference between moving out of coherency (which he's explicitly not allowed to do) and moving to where the unit is out of coherency distance (which he's explicitly allowed to do).

If he moves, and no member of the unit is within 2", then by definition he has moved out of coherency distance and met the requirements for the 4th bullet point on page 48 (3rd on the right side).

nosferatu1001 wrote:He has to be more than 2" away from a member of the unit he joined with. which he can do.

He can't, because he is the only member of that unit that is left on the table.

Either he is a part of the unit until he leaves it, or he's not. If you're going to claim that he's not (which the rules seem to disagree with) then we're back to him not having to leave the unit anyway... if he's not a part of the unit, then we shouldn't be considering him to be joined to them in the first place.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:So IC's can never leave units?

Of course they can... but they do so by moving out of coherency with them. Which they can't do if they're the only member of that unit that remains on the table.

There's a difference between moving out of coherency (which he's explicitly not allowed to do) and moving to where the unit is out of coherency distance (which he's explicitly allowed to do).

Whether or not that is true is a moot point, since as I mentioned before you can't measure a distance to something that doesn't exist.

There is no separate unit to measure to. There is just the IC, who is a part of the unit until he moves out of coherency with them. He can't move out of coherency with himself, and there is no other member of the unit to measure coherency distance to...

If he moves, and no member of the unit is within 2", then by definition he has moved out of coherency distance and met the requirements for the 4th bullet point on page 48 (3rd on the right side).

Which brings us back to units reduced to single models always being out of coherency.

You can't have it both ways.

Nevermind. I'm done.

Insaniak - except thats not, for the 10th time, what the rules ask.

The rules ask you to move out of coherency distance with the unit you joined. The IC is a member of the unit, but he ISNT the unit itself - that is defined by the original members.

So he moves 2" away, which is the definition of coherency distance - NOT COHERENCY , this is a different concept here and one you keep on conflating, without saying why and ignoring when its explained how theyre different - and he has left the unit

Coherency is a concept which cannot, by definition, apply to single model units. Coherency is NOT coherency distance - because coherency DISTANCE is a 2" *amount*

insaniak is correct,

If you consider the IC part of the unit when there are no other parts left he would cease to be a 'part of' and be the only part. As in he is the unit at that time. As has been stated many times you cannot measure against the models that have been removed leaving only a single model unit which is as insaniak and I have clearly stated cannot move out of coherency distance with itself.

Sigh.

No, you havent proven that. You HAVE proven a lack of being able to distinguish between coherency and coherency distance (one is a process, the other a value in inches), and you are chronically perverting the rules on joining and leaving units by removing the context and claiming the IC is the unit he joined. He isnt, and never is - he is only ever a member of it.

Your interpretation is specious, as it results in an IC NEVER being able to leave a unit - an absurd result showing how badly your logic has let you down

You can keep argung, but you will remain incorrect

If coherency and coherency distance are the same, the rules are broken.

An IC must obey coherency (3rd bullet on page 48).
An IC is allowed to leave a unit by moving out of coherency distance. (4th bullet page 48)

They explicitly contradict each other if coherency and coherency distance are the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

No, you havent proven that. You HAVE proven a lack of being able to distinguish between coherency and coherency distance (one is a process, the other a value in inches), and you are chronically perverting the rules on joining and leaving units by removing the context and claiming the IC is the unit he joined. He isnt, and never is - he is only ever a member of it.

Your interpretation is specious, as it results in an IC NEVER being able to leave a unit - an absurd result showing how badly your logic has let you down

You can keep argung, but you will remain incorrect

Coherency is a process. Yes.
Coherency distance is a measurement. Yes
"moving out of coherency distance" is a process. It is in fact that process that you are ignoring.

If a unit consists of several models with an IC. That IC as a member itself can still move away from the unit because there are other members of the unit to measure against.
They're in a unit. They are all members of that unit. The IC being a member itself moves away from the unit as a whole thereby willingly revoking its membership to that unit. What is impossible about that?
What is impossible, is trying that process when the IC is the only member of that unit.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."
This states a object for reference(the whole unit) for a relative motion by the IC(a part of that unit). If the IC is the only member of the unit, this relative motion is not possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:If coherency and coherency distance are the same, the rules are broken.

An IC must obey coherency (3rd bullet on page 48).
An IC is allowed to leave a unit by moving out of coherency distance. (4th bullet page 48)

They explicitly contradict each other if coherency and coherency distance are the same.

Coherency is measured for the unit at the end of movement.
"moving out of coherency distance" is an action taken during movement. Thereby removing the IC before coherency is measured.
Yes, they are different. Your point?

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules ask you to move out of coherency distance with the unit you joined.

And if the rest of that unit is destroyed, the IC is the sole surviving member of that unit. There is no getting around that simple fact. He is a part of the unit until he leaves it. If he is the only part of the unit that remains, then he is the only part of the unit that matters for coherency.

So he moves 2" away, which is the definition of coherency distance

2" away from what...?

There is no one else to move away from. He is all that is left of the unit. The best he can do is run around in a circle screaming 'Get it off me!' until his head explodes.

Coherency is a concept which cannot, by definition, apply to single model units.

I agree. As I have already pointed out.

Coherency is NOT coherency distance - because coherency DISTANCE is a 2" *amount*

Of course it is. It's a distance that is measured to something. And if that something doesn't exist, you can't measure to it.

rigeld2 wrote:If coherency and coherency distance are the same, the rules are broken.

An IC must obey coherency (3rd bullet on page 48).
An IC is allowed to leave a unit by moving out of coherency distance. (4th bullet page 48)

They explicitly contradict each other if coherency and coherency distance are the same.

There is no more contradiction there than there is in any other special rule that alters the normal rules.

A unit has to obey coherency. Which means that all members must finish their movement within 2" of another member.
An IC is given permission to break that rule by moving out of coherency. If he does so, he has left the unit.

If he is the unit, then there is nothing to leave. Those claiming that he has to leave a unit that doesn't exist are creating the same sort of silliness as those claiming that a transport and the embarked squad are a single unit, thus requiring the transport to embark upon itself. It's a nonsensical loop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:...and you are chronically perverting the rules on joining and leaving units by removing the context and claiming the IC is the unit he joined. He isnt, and never is - he is only ever a member of it.

If a unit only has one model in it, how many models make up the unit?

me wrote: Coherency is NOT coherency distance - because coherency DISTANCE is a 2" *amount*

This is what I said - which is correct. COherency is a process, coherency distance is a fixed number. You then responded:

Insaniak wrote:Of course it is. It's a distance that is measured to something. And if that something doesn't exist, you can't measure to it.

No, it ISNT - coherency *distance* is 2", because that is how close you need to be in order to be within coherency. However it ISNT the same thing as coherency - the addition of the word "distance" tells you it is the actual measurement in inches that you are looking at. If coherency were "everyone needs to be within 17" of each other", then an IC moving "coherency distance" would have to move 17".

You are asked to move more than coherency distance - so you substitute in what "COHERENCY DISTANCE" equates to - 2" - and the sentence now tells you you need to move more than 2" away from any member of the unit you joined - and context tells you that refers to the original members, and NOT yourself, because if it didnt then an IC could *never* leave

Are you arguing an IC can never leave, or are you agreeing context tells you who you need to be more than 2" away from?

Now, onto the measurement part, which despite showing you your error, you are still under the belief that it needs to be "to" another unit, find out that is more than 2" (or not), and then you know what to do - it doesnt.

You are asked to move so that you are more than 2" away from any members of the unit you joined (remember - this cannot include additional members, such as yourself, otherwise you could never leave any unit - which is absurd) meaning that, as long as you can prove there are no such members within 2", you HAVE complied with this.

I can prove I am more than 2" away from any original member of the unit, by measuring from myself around in a circle. You are not constrained to measuring between units, because GW worked out that this would lead to the absurd situation you are proposing - that an IC whose unit is shot from around them can never leave that unit. Simply measuring that 2" circle (well, 2" + base radius) is sufficient to satisfy the actual question that was asked - not "how far away from the original unit are you?" which is what YOU are claiming needs to be fulfilled, but "are you more than 2" away from them?" - and this can be satisfied without measuring to the unit.

Given you consistently equate coherency (the process) and coherency distance (the fixed number of inches) I dont expect this to sink in, this time, but i thought it was worth a go.

To sum up - your position is absurd, as it results in ICs never able to leave any unit, ever. It ignores the context of the rules on page 48, it ignores the difference between a process and a value, and it relies on being unable to answer a different question to the one that was actually asked

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are asked to move so that you are more than 2" away from any members of the unit you joined (remember - this cannot include additional members, such as yourself, otherwise you could never leave any unit - which is absurd) meaning that, as long as you can prove there are no such members within 2", you HAVE complied with this.

I can prove I am more than 2" away from any original member of the unit, by measuring from myself around in a circle. You are not constrained to measuring between units, because GW worked out that this would lead to the absurd situation you are proposing - that an IC whose unit is shot from around them can never leave that unit. Simply measuring that 2" circle (well, 2" + base radius) is sufficient to satisfy the actual question that was asked - not "how far away from the original unit are you?" which is what YOU are claiming needs to be fulfilled, but "are you more than 2" away from them?" - and this can be satisfied without measuring to the unit.

There are several places here you are going wrong so I'll take them on at a time.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You are asked to move so that you are more than 2" away from any members of the unit you joined

This is almost correct. The rule says "An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it"
You must move the IC(a part of the unit) in relation to 'the unit'(the unit as a whole) in a manner that ends it's movement over 2" away from it.

nosferatu1001 wrote: (remember - this cannot include additional members, such as yourself, otherwise you could never leave any unit - which is absurd)

This is simply not true. The IC is to move in relation to the unit as a whole. If it is only one part of several within the unit it can do this.

nosferatu1001 wrote: meaning that, as long as you can prove there are no such members within 2", you HAVE complied with this.

This is also incorrect, even by your already incorrect reasoning. Being over 2" away and moving over 2" away are not the same. Being over 2" away from anything that does not exist is also not possible to prove. Proving that you moved over 2" away from something that does not exist is even less possible(if it is possible to be more impossible).

nosferatu1001 wrote: I can prove I am more than 2" away from any original member of the unit, by measuring from myself around in a circle.

I would be very confused if you started to measure a circle around yourself during a game but.. j/k
Seriously... Dude... You can not be 2" or more away from anything that does not exist. You also can not be within 2" of any non-existing thing. You are on a path of insanity here.
You are measuring two inches around the IC checking to see if the rest of the unit is there. The rest of the unit does not exist. Things that do not exist are nothing. You are finding a whole lot of nothing within 2". Therefore the non-existing unit is there... in the nothing...It is the nothing... (a white padded room awaits down this path)

nosferatu1001 wrote: You are not constrained to measuring between units, because GW worked out that this would lead to the absurd situation you are proposing - that an IC whose unit is shot from around them can never leave that unit

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. I feel I again need to point out this is your creation because you insist that the IC will remain part of the unit for any length of time after the unit is wiped out. I am of the opinion that it will cease to be a part of the unit when there is no unit to be a part of. I am just pointing out the big holes in your theory.

I can be more than 2" away from the nonexistant unit, by proving I am not within 2" of the unit - and if no elements of the unit are within 2" of me, I have proven this

Again, you are WRONG in asserting you must measure between units. That is NOT what the question is asking you to do

Do you not understand that I can prove that NO ELEMENT of the unit is within 2" of me by proving that nothing is within 2" of me? You serioulsy cannot understand how rediculously simple a premise this is?

Yes, I cannot measure how far away you are - as you dont exist

I CAN measure and show you are NOT within 2", because there is no element of the unit within 2" - because you dont exist

You are arguing the former point - the rules do not ask you to do this, therefore stop arguing this point, it remains wrong and wil continue to be wrong no matter how many times you keep repeating it like it is something that actually matters one iota - it doesnt!

The rules ask you to move more than 2" away from the unit. If, after moving, there is no element of the unit within 2", then I have fulfilled what the rule actually asked for.

You can keep making up requirements that are not in the rules, and you will continue to be corrected. So how about you call it a day?

Or how about you answer my question:

insaniak wrote:If a unit only has one model in it, how many models make up the unit?

nosferatu1001 wrote:I can be more than 2" away from the nonexistant unit, by proving I am not within 2" of the unit - and if no elements of the unit are within 2" of me, I have proven this

Again, you are WRONG in asserting you must measure between units. That is NOT what the question is asking you to do

Do you not understand that I can prove that NO ELEMENT of the unit is within 2" of me by proving that nothing is within 2" of me? You serioulsy cannot understand how rediculously simple a premise this is?

Yes, I cannot measure how far away you are - as you dont exist

I CAN measure and show you are NOT within 2", because there is no element of the unit within 2" - because you dont exist

You are arguing the former point - the rules do not ask you to do this, therefore stop arguing this point, it remains wrong and wil continue to be wrong no matter how many times you keep repeating it like it is something that actually matters one iota - it doesnt!

The rules ask you to move more than 2" away from the unit. If, after moving, there is no element of the unit within 2", then I have fulfilled what the rule actually asked for.

You can keep making up requirements that are not in the rules, and you will continue to be corrected. So how about you call it a day?

You cannot measure every direction within 2", that is a technical impossibility. I'm afraid your absurd stance requires and equally absurd answer at this point.

You cannot actually determine that nothing exists within that 2" without measuring an infinite number of times.

You can however measure between two models, determine the distance and check if it's more or less than 2".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Permission granted when joining the unit

Find where that permission was removed. Or dont you get what permissive ruleset means? I gained permission to be a member of the unit when i joined it. Find the RULE, for once this thread, which denies that. I

The IC has permission to be a part of a unit. When that unit is removed, what is left for the IC to be part of or joined to? The IC can be part of the unit. By definition it can not BE the unit.

Key point: The Unit is not simply a concept. It is actually a finite number of models on the table that can be removed. When they are removed the IC can no longer be "a part of that unit" as it is gone.

If I have a cup and I put water in it: If I remove the water, do I still have a "cup of water"?

If I have a bunch of grapes, and I leave only the stem. Do I still have a bunch of grapes?

If have an IC and I join a unit with it: If I remove the unit, do I still have an IC in a unit?

Wait - you can't measure a 2" radius circle around a model? That's a technical impossibility?

Insaniak - sigh. One. And I've answered, already, why that isnt important. Twice now.

Determining if he has left the unit he has joined requires you seeing if people other than him are around. Context tells you this, unless you wish to ignore it. If you dont ignore it, you have declared an IC can never leave a unit.

Nemesor - what, I cannot measure a 2" circle around my base and work out that nothing is contained within it? Really? that is your argument?

Actually gobsmacked at how idiotic a statement you just made. Truly.

Here - try it out. Make a circle, radius 2"+base radius, and place it over your model. You have just measured a 2" circle. Make it out of clear plastic and you can indeed see that nothing is within coherency distance

Again: I am not required to measure to another unit. I have to show that I have moved more than 2" away from a unit - therefore if I measure 2" around my model, and find it does not contain a unit, I have fulfilled this requirement.

Your last statemetns are ignored, as you are still not arguing using any rules. PLease try some, it would be helpful to making your argument the slightest bit relevant to anything

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - sigh. One. And I've answered, already, why that isnt important. Twice now.

Determining if he has left the unit he has joined requires you seeing if people other than him are around. Context tells you this, unless you wish to ignore it. If you dont ignore it, you have declared an IC can never leave a unit.

Nemesor - what, I cannot measure a 2" circle around my base and work out that nothing is contained within it? Really? that is your argument?

Actually gobsmacked at how idiotic a statement you just made. Truly.

Here - try it out. Make a circle, radius 2"+base radius, and place it over your model. You have just measured a 2" circle. Make it out of clear plastic and you can indeed see that nothing is within coherency distance

Again: I am not required to measure to another unit. I have to show that I have moved more than 2" away from a unit - therefore if I measure 2" around my model, and find it does not contain a unit, I have fulfilled this requirement.

Your last statemetns are ignored, as you are still not arguing using any rules. PLease try some, it would be helpful to making your argument the slightest bit relevant to anything

Where in the rulebook are we allowed to take measures like this, in fact is there any section that specifies how to measure? I kind of recall something... Can somebody illustrate me?

Measuring between units is defined.

This isnt asking you to measure between units, it is asking you to measure to see if you are more than coherency distance away from units, which CAN be by measuring to the unit OR it can be by proving you are outside of 2" of any unit, by showing no unit is within 2" of you, by showing the 2" space is empty of any unit

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - sigh. One. And I've answered, already, why that isnt important. Twice now.

Yes... and I've pointed out why that interpretation is absurd.

If the unit only has one model in it, then that one model can not move out of coherency distance with the unit.

So either the IC can never leave the unit., or he is no longer considered joined to the unit since they no longer exist.

If you're going to still consider him a part of the unit and require him to physically leave the unit, then he can't leave as he can't move further than 2" away from himself. You can't have it both ways.

Again: I am not required to measure to another unit. I have to show that I have moved more than 2" away from a unit - ...

Except that in this particular case, the unit you are required to have moved away from is the unit that consists solely of the model that is moving.

Therefore, if you measure 2" around your model you accomplish nothing at all. He hasn't moved 2" away from the unit. He is the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Measuring between units is defined.

This isnt asking you to measure between units, it is asking you to measure to see if you are more than coherency distance away from units, which CAN be by measuring to the unit OR it can be by proving you are outside of 2" of any unit, by showing no unit is within 2" of you, by showing the 2" space is empty of any unit

Actually it does... sigh... when tells you to move the IC out of coferency distance from the unit.

It dos not tell you to do this
IC ----2"+---->? is any model nearby?

or even this
IC <----measure 2"+---->Unit

it says this
IC <----move away 2"+----Unit

You believe measureing 2" around proves you moved 2" away. You are wrong. One thing moving away from another is a relative motion that can not be preformed if there is no specific place or thing to move away from.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Measuring between units is defined.

This isnt asking you to measure between units, it is asking you to measure to see if you are more than coherency distance away from units, which CAN be by measuring to the unit OR it can be by proving you are outside of 2" of any unit, by showing no unit is within 2" of you, by showing the 2" space is empty of any unit

Page 12 of the BRB shows how to measure coherency and look, they even measured 3" between two models to show that they are out of coherency. I don't see a circle measured anywhere.

How do you suppose they got 3" if they're only measuring 2" in a circle from each base?

Do diagrams in the rule book not count as RAW now?

ND - nope, you still cant read others posts. Shock.

Coherency DISTANCE /= Coherency. One is a process, the other is a number of inches defined within the coherency rule.

Do you see the difference between the two? At all? Or does not reading the entire rule (forgetting the word "distance") count as RAW in ND world?

The IC is NOT checking coherency, he is checking he has moved out of COHERENCY DISTANCE, which isnt the same thing. At all. So, you can reference meaningless diagrams all you like, however it will remain irrelevant to tghe argument, until you finally understand your error.

Abandon - it says you must have moved out of coherency distance with the unit

It says you must have moved more than 2" away from the unit

This can be proven by measuring to the unit OR it can be proven by showing the unit is not within 2". Both of these prove that you have moved more than 2" away from any member of the unit you joined

And we're back round again, with you denying basic mathematics. Shock

Insaniak - you still keep on ignoring context. The context of the IC moving away from a unit IS the IC moving away from the members of the unit he joined originally - otherwise he can never leave, as he can never move away from himself. Your interpretation is absurd, you just dont see it because you are not applying it to the general case

The IC is ALWAYS a normal member of the unit (outside of resolving attacks, but we'll leave that for now) therefore, if you are saying he can only leave by moving away from any member of the unit, including himself, he can NEVER leave. Which is absurd, because you are ignoring the context given in the rules for joining and leaving units.

Pretty close to done here - I've explained the same basic concept abotu 20 times now,and people keep on conflating two terms together despite best efforts.

Agree to disagree, because frankly - it no longer matters, as two of the posters I lack any real need to convince, as I dont hold their opinion on rules too highly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The IC is NOT checking coherency, he is checking he has moved out of COHERENCY DISTANCE, which isnt the same thing. At all. So, you can reference meaningless diagrams all you like, however it will remain irrelevant to tghe argument, until you finally understand your error.

The diagram is part of RAW in the BRB. It is not meaningless and directly shows your method of determining "coherency distances" is wrong.

Your complete misunderstanding is based on your belief that the IC voluntarily leaving the unit is the only way the IC and unit may be separated. If the IC's existence in the game is enough to say the unit exists, then no IC can ever leave "the unit" it is a part of because the IC becomes "the unit". You keep mentioning how the IC may leave or not leave the unit. This is not the point here. The unit in question has left the game.

Though the RAW describe the IC as a normal member of the unit, there is always a clear separation between the IC and the unit it has joined.

If the destroyed unit is gone, then the IC does not need to leave it and stops being 'part of it' the moment the unit is destroyed.

If a person is with a group of friends, and those friends leave and go somewhere else, can that person leave the group of friends? No, he is alone. He has involuntarily been left. He cannot leave since he is already no longer with that group. That does not mean he is still "part of the group". He is automatically not part of that group.