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.

Oh but you are wrong. If you read onto the second paragraph it gives you rules on what to do when they become broken. "During the course of the game its possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties." the paragraph you quoted tells you that they do have to do that to maintain coherency. But the paragraph i quoted tells you you can brake the lines but you suffer having to move together next movement phase. You measure once the units have finished moving, if you move again after you have done this it is cheating

cluggy89 wrote:Oh but you are wrong. If you read onto the second paragraph it gives you rules on what to do when they become broken. "During the course of the game its possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties." the paragraph you quoted tells you that they do have to do that to maintain coherency. But the paragraph i quoted tells you you can brake the lines but you suffer having to move together next movement phase. You measure once the units have finished moving, if you move again after you have done this it is cheating

Nowhere in the second paragraph does it give you, the player, permission to break coherency. It is telling you it can happen, and what to do when/if it does, but not that you can do it. In fact, it reinforces the fact that you MUST move back as soon as possible.

Stupid arguement. You can't voluntarily move out of coherency. No one plays this way. If you do, you're cheating. At this point, I'm assuming you're just trolling. Thank the lord for ignore lists.

That's my point, this whole argument is stupid. It doesn't say you can but it implies that. Now if moving out of coherency isn't allowed then neither is the whole add to implies coherency rubbish. It does not say it so it is not a factor.

If a model is added to a unit, then it is part of that unit, and as such MUST be in coherency at the end of its movement. That's not implied, it's explicitly stated.

No it can't move out of coherency. The rules do not say the only way to brake a unit is by taking casualtys. It does say however that there are ways it can be broken. Now show me where the spyders rule states coherency. You can't there is no such rule. You don't have to like it but its legal

cluggy89 wrote:That's my point, this whole argument is stupid. It doesn't say you can but it implies that. Now if moving out of coherency isn't allowed then neither is the whole add to implies coherency rubbish. It does not say it so it is not a factor.

Wait what? If moving out of coherency isn't allowed (and it's not) what does that have to do with "add to" requiring coherency?

Deployment implies coherency, add to is deploying, add to implies coherency.

Better idea. Show me where the rules state you can place out of coherency. You can't there is no such rule. You don't have to like it, but it is not legal.

What so now implications are allowed again?!? geez wish you guys would make up your mind. And the lack of anything about coherency is a FACT that coherency has nothing to do with it. Like i said if it did mean it it would have been stated

cluggy89 wrote:No it can't move out of coherency. The rules do not say the only way to brake a unit is by taking casualtys. It does say however that there are ways it can be broken. Now show me where the spyders rule states coherency. You can't there is no such rule. You don't have to like it but its legal

The Spyder's rules doesn't need to state it. If the model is part of the unit, it MUST end its movement in coherency. There is no option! It must be in coherency. It is explicitly stated in the Unit Coherency rules.

No. It hasn't even moved yet. Read the rules again. Say you add the base 20inchs away from the rest of the unit. The newly created scarabs will still be classed as in coherency until its finished moving then check for coherency. Then it will have to move to get back into coherency on its next movement phase. That iz the rules as written. Im sick of this silly argument when none of you can back up what you've said about adding meaning coherency. I have showed you there are no such rule but are still adamant your right when you have nothing backing it up. Im leaving this now so take care. Il see you in another post lol

I would welcome you to place you Scarab Swarms out of coherency. You can spend the turn they are created and each subsequent move doing absolutely nothing except moving them into coherency.

Then when I assault one of you out of coherency bases and move a different unit within 6" of a different out of coherency base, I wipe your entire Scarab Swarm unit.

Good times.

Cluggy - every single time, EVERY time a unit is ever added to / joined by / "with" another model it MUST be in coherency.

Find permission to be out of coherency, when context (you know, that thing that tells you how to parse a sentence correctly, and is a required part of the English language that the rules are written in) tells you otherwise.

cluggy89 wrote:What so now implications are allowed again?!? geez wish you guys would make up your mind. And the lack of anything about coherency is a FACT that coherency has nothing to do with it. Like i said if it did mean it it would have been stated

Fine. Show the rule that permits a unit to move or deploy out of coherency. So where "add to" permits being out of coherency. An example? FAQ ruling? Anything? As much as you want us to prove "add to" is explicitly meant to add to unit coherency we are expecting similar, prove your argument.

rigeld2 wrote: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.

With very few exceptions (ex., Vindicare Assassin) it is almost entirely a voluntary choice.

rigeld2 wrote: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.

Fluff. And yes, it is completely permissible to deploy a unit to 4 corners of your deployment zone. There is absolutely nothing in the rules preventing a player from doing that. There are very specific rules about what a player must do in the subsequent Movement and Shooting (Run) phases regarding that unit though.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ToBeWilly wrote:If a model is added to a unit, then it is part of that unit, and as such MUST be in coherency at the end of its movement. That's not implied, it's explicitly stated.

No. Models found to be out of coherency during the movement phase must move to be in coherency. They must continue to move (and even Run) in subsequent phases until they are in coherency. The rules allow for a unit to be out of coherency for multiple turns.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:Better idea. Show me where the rules state you can place out of coherency. You can't there is no such rule. You don't have to like it, but it is not legal.

The Scarab Hive rule for one. Deployment for another (outside of a explicit placement instructions).

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:I would welcome you to place you Scarab Swarms out of coherency. You can spend the turn they are created and each subsequent move doing absolutely nothing except moving them into coherency.

Yes that is exactly what would happen.

-Yad




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Cluggy - every single time, EVERY time a unit is ever added to / joined by / "with" another model it MUST be in coherency.

Find permission to be out of coherency, when context (you know, that thing that tells you how to parse a sentence correctly, and is a required part of the English language that the rules are written in) tells you otherwise.

I disagree. You have in effect created a new game mechanic to describe how a model must be placed when 'added to' a unit on the table. A mechanic not supported by the rules, but rather by assumptions and wishful thinking. I would suggest that there is a gap in the rules brought to light by the Scarab Hive rule about how this [add to] is to occur. As it stands now it is perfectly legal to place a newly created scarab anywhere on the table.

-Yad

OK then, if you are not allowed to use context, unlike the rest of the ruleset, then "Add to" does nothing whatsoever.

Not assumption. Not wishful thinking. Context. This thing that lets us know how to play the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:OK then, if you are not allowed to use context, unlike the rest of the ruleset, then "Add to" does nothing whatsoever.

Not assumption. Not wishful thinking. Context. This thing that lets us know how to play the game.

So it's your way or the highway then? I don't think it's as black or white as that. 'Add to' is simply a verbal designation, an assignment, you make at the time you are placing the model.

-Yad

No, its if you dont allow context to be used, the same as every other rule in the rulebook, then you dont have a functioning rule any longer.
Every single time you increase the size of a unit midgame, you do so by having a model in coherency. So the extraordinary claim is that you are allowed to place a model ANYWHERE on the table and claim you have added it to the unit 71" away.

Good luck with persuading anyone that context doesnt apply in real life, no mater the attempted sophistry on a forum

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, its if you dont allow context to be used, the same as every other rule in the rulebook, then you dont have a functioning rule any longer.
Every single time you increase the size of a unit midgame, you do so by having a model in coherency. So the extraordinary claim is that you are allowed to place a model ANYWHERE on the table and claim you have added it to the unit 71" away.

No, you do not do so by having a model in coherency. You do so by following the rules as written that describe how you place the model. It's only extraordinary because you call it that. It is what it is, just roll with it and wait for the FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Good luck with persuading anyone that context doesnt apply in real life, no mater the attempted sophistry on a forum

Seriously? When did I try to make an argument that context doesn't apply in real life? I thought we were discussing toy soldiers in a game.

-Yad

As in, when playing a game.

The rukes as written do require coherency, and claiming that the ONLY time you can apparently add outside of coherency is nit extraordinary means you dont know what the term means.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As in, when playing a game.

The rukes as written do require coherency, and claiming that the ONLY time you can apparently add outside of coherency is nit extraordinary means you dont know what the term means.

Just to be clear, does your rulebook and/or Necron Codex actually state that any Scarab base added via the Hive rule must be done in coherency with the nominated Scarab unit? Does it explicitly say that? Because I don't see any of that language in the Scarab Hive rule in my Codex or the main rulebook. If you think that you and by extension all of us, are supposed to infer that, then what's to stop somebody, namely me, from inferring that the lack of such language makes it completely reasonable to create the 'conga line'. Even more so given that there are other instances where explicit instructions are given as to where newly 'created' models are placed.

Yes, it's a permissive rules base. 'Add to' in the context of the Scarab Hive rule is all the permission I need to place a scarab wherever I want. If I place it out of coherency, I'll pay for it in the subsequent Movement and Shooting phases, but I can do it. You're not breaking any rules by adding a model clear across the board. In fact you would most likely be doing yourself a disservice where you to run it that way.

As to that bit about not knowing what the word extraordinary means... that is just a cheap jab at best.

-Yad

Yad wrote:Just to be clear, does your rulebook and/or Necron Codex actually state that any Scarab base added via the Hive rule must be done in coherency with the nominated Scarab unit? Does it explicitly say that? Because I don't see any of that language in the Scarab Hive rule in my Codex or the main rulebook. If you think that you and by extension all of us, are supposed to infer that, then what's to stop somebody, namely me, from inferring that the lack of such language makes it completely reasonable to create the 'conga line'. Even more so given that there are other instances where explicit instructions are given as to where newly 'created' models are placed.

Yes, it's a permissive rules base. 'Add to' in the context of the Scarab Hive rule is all the permission I need to place a scarab wherever I want. If I place it out of coherency, I'll pay for it in the subsequent Movement and Shooting phases, but I can do it. You're not breaking any rules by adding a model clear across the board. In fact you would most likely be doing yourself a disservice where you to run it that way.

Seeing as we agree the rules are permissive, please provide the rule detailing how a model is "added to" a preexisting unit. I'm looking for verbiage that actually states you can place the model anywhere on the table, the rule that explicitly states models added to a preexisting unit can be placed anywhere on the table. Neither the Necron codex nor the BRB has such a rule.

There are fundamental mechanics of the game that happen without being explicitly defined. A unit is deployed in coherency is an example of such a mechanism. I've never played a game where someone deployed a unit out of coherency or even tried. It's beyond an accepted practice, it's an implied rule.

Dealing with the poorly worded Necron special rule is an other example. No, the rule for "add to" doesn't specify the Scarab added needs to be in coherency nor does it specify the model can be placed anywhere on the table; this omission is significant. Since the rule doesn't permit just any type of placement of the model, the assumption is the model is placed with the unit in coherency.

Although the coherency rule is defined in the Movement phase section of the rules, it established a clear precedence in terms of how the models within a unit are to be treated. The default normal behavior is the models within the unit remain in coherency throughout the game. Deviations from this established norm must be explicitly permitted. Note the rules and FAQs addressing what happens if the unit is no longer in coherency.

What you're suggesting is since the rule doesn't specifically address coherency the rule doesn't have to abide by the normal game play, thus permitting a deviation from the established game norm. Perhaps, but we're in agreement the rules for W40K are permissive, it's what is stated not omitted that matters. Granted "coherency" doesn't appear in the Scarab Hive Necron special rule, but it does in normal game play. What also doesn't appear is the ability to place the created Scarab anywhere on the table.

Yad - just to be clear, does your Necron codex define "add to" as allowing anywhere on the table?

If not then your extraordinary claim that you can do so, against all common context for ANY addition to ANY unit in ANY book midgame, has no backing.

Context. Context. Context.

And no, it was not a "cheap jab" - you are indeed making an extraordinary claim, and it isnt just because i call it that. Find ANY precedence in ANY book that lets you add / join / "with" a unit anywhere on the table. If you cannot, then your claim is out of the ordinary, BY DEFINITION, and by you stating otehrwise it owuld imply you were unaware of the term.

So when you 'add to' a unit during list building, something we all have been doing for a while, the models must be in coherency in our display case?

I mean, it even goes so far as to say that scarabs 'added to' the unit can take the unit above the starting size. It also goes on to say if the scarabs can not be placed they are lost. Note it does NOT say 'If they can not be placed in coherency they are lost.'

I agree with Yad, this is like one of the many issues that, until this codex, were not considered in the main rulebook. To write a rulebook that covers all potential abilities would make the rules encyclopedic in nature and unusable. As it stands, like deploying, adding models to a unit is not covered by the coherency rule because coherency is a movement rule along the lines of difficult terrain.

To Mikhaila, I think you were being far to harsh on cluggy. The reason that TOs like yourself are a great addition to topics such as this is because regardless of how the RAW might look, you have the ability to make a statement with your tourney by saying how the rule WILL BE played, not how the RAW reads. Understanding that there is confusing RAW, and that the rules are not 100% in defining every situation exactly like they should, I would hope you keep an open mind.

For example, I am remembering Mawlocs specificly, where you stated how they would be played at your event pre FAQ regardless of what rules did or did not go into how they are placed. I believe your actions influenced GW to get that question clarified by FAQ--to the benefit of everyone as now there is no more argument. Arguments put forth by posters like Cluggy are what drives the TOs to make rulings ahead of time, so the air is clear and precedent starts to get set. Ignoring such contributions lessen us all.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Seeing as we agree the rules are permissive, please provide the rule detailing how a model is "added to" a preexisting unit. I'm looking for verbiage that actually states you can place the model anywhere on the table, the rule that explicitly states models added to a preexisting unit can be placed anywhere on the table. Neither the Necron codex nor the BRB has such a rule.

The Scarab Hive rule found in the Necron codex. This rule isn't something that requires you to infer it's meaning. Though poorly written, it's fairly straightforward in it's application. I nominate a Scarab unit within 6'' of Spyder; roll to see if the Spyder takes a wound; place a Scarab on the table thus 'adding to' the nominated unit. If I've done so in such a way as to break coherency, I must move the Scarab unit in such a way as to ensure coherency at the end of my Movement phase (even if that means Running in the Shooting phase) See, simple and it breaks no rules.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:There are fundamental mechanics of the game that happen without being explicitly defined. A unit is deployed in coherency is an example of such a mechanism. I've never played a game where someone deployed a unit out of coherency or even tried. It's beyond an accepted practice, it's an implied rule.

Wrong. You are making an assumption that this is how you are supposed to deploy a unit. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, Coherency only matters during movement. There is no link from Coherency to model placement unless explicitly defined. There really is no significant tactical advantage to deploying out of coherency. Besides, anecdotal evidence is hardly conclusive. In addition, accepted practice is a purely subjective construct. What's acceptable to one may not be to another (in general).

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Dealing with the poorly worded Necron special rule is an other example. No, the rule for "add to" doesn't specify the Scarab added needs to be in coherency nor does it specify the model can be placed anywhere on the table; this omission is significant. Since the rule doesn't permit just any type of placement of the model, the assumption is the model is placed with the unit in coherency.

Although the coherency rule is defined in the Movement phase section of the rules, it established a clear precedence in terms of how the models within a unit are to be treated. The default normal behavior is the models within the unit remain in coherency throughout the game. Deviations from this established norm must be explicitly permitted. Note the rules and FAQs addressing what happens if the unit is no longer in coherency.

What you're suggesting is since the rule doesn't specifically address coherency the rule doesn't have to abide by the normal game play, thus permitting a deviation from the established game norm. Perhaps, but we're in agreement the rules for W40K are permissive, it's what is stated not omitted that matters. Granted "coherency" doesn't appear in the Scarab Hive Necron special rule, but it does in normal game play. What also doesn't appear is the ability to place the created Scarab anywhere on the table.

So you accept that the Scarab Hive rule doesn't require newly placed scarab bases to be placed in coherency and thus must be placed in coherency. Mainly because there is no specific direction given to how the model is actually placed with respect to the nominated Scarab unit. Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

I'm going to add some clarity to your next bit, my additions are in bold: "Although the coherency rule is defined in the Movement phase section of the rules, it established a clear precedence in terms of how the models within a unit are to be treated [when Moving them]. The default normal behavior is the models within the unit remain in coherency throughout the game. [ Wrong, it is perfectly acceptable, some would say normal, for units to lose coherency throughout the game. Once again, Coherency only matters during Movement or when it's specifically required.] Deviations from this established norm must be explicitly permitted. Note the rules and FAQs addressing what happens if the unit is no longer in coherency.

A norm that is wholly created by you.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - just to be clear, does your Necron codex define "add to" as allowing anywhere on the table?

No, there is no glossary that defines 'add to'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If not then your extraordinary claim that you can do so, against all common context for ANY addition to ANY unit in ANY book midgame, has no backing.

That strikes me as a bit amusing. In essence you're saying that since there is no definition of what 'add to' means I'm going to make one up because I don't like the alternative.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Context. Context. Context.

Look, I don't think that the intent of this rule was allow the 'conga line'. However, at no point have either of you sufficiently demonstrated that the rules prohibit you from:

A.) Deliberately deploying a unit out of coherency.
B.) Equate 'add to' with forcing you to place a model in coherency

I've read through you attempts to infer some additional meaning to this rule through Context. But that really boils down to your subjective interpretation as opposed to what's actually written.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And no, it was not a "cheap jab" - you are indeed making an extraordinary claim, and it isnt just because i call it that. Find ANY precedence in ANY book that lets you add / join / "with" a unit anywhere on the table. If you cannot, then your claim is out of the ordinary, BY DEFINITION, and by you stating otehrwise it owuld imply you were unaware of the term.

While I have no issue with you thinking/stating that my claim was extraordinary, it is a cheap shot to suggest that I don't understand the meaning of the word. As to precedence, you can look no further than Deployment. You can deploy a unit out of coherency. You'll pay for it in the Movement [and possibly Shooting] phases, but you can do it.

-Yad

ARGUE ARGUE ARGUE!!!

REFUTE POINT REFUTE POINT REFUTE POINT!!!

Right now in the RAW, the congo line can be created (However, what is more extraordinary is that it works as a tactic)

In the FAQ, I cannot imagine this being allowed, so please, stop arguing about the IMPLIED meanings and the SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS.

In 40k, it is important to remember (especially in our day and age) that if there is no rule explicitly saying something is NOT allowed, than it is.

Also, it is important to remember that in casual play, it is up to your house rules. In a tournament, your TO will most certainly veto this (as being able to place scarabs wherever is a dangerous weapon).

Good luck with your argument, I personally have already used this technique to win many battles.

Config2 wrote:In 40k, it is important to remember (especially in our day and age) that if there is no rule explicitly saying something is NOT allowed, than it is.

Actually it's the inverse. If you can't find a rule allowing it, it is not allowed.

Also, it is important to remember that in casual play, it is up to your house rules. In a tournament, your TO will most certainly veto this (as being able to place scarabs wherever is a dangerous weapon).

Good luck with your argument, I personally have already used this technique to win many battles.

So... you admit that a FAQ will likely nuke the tactic, you go on to say that a TO would ban it... but you use it anyway to beat other people?

Cool story bro - you must be fun to play with.

Config2 wrote:ARGUE ARGUE ARGUE!!!

REFUTE POINT REFUTE POINT REFUTE POINT!!!

FUN FUN FUN It's an aspect of YMDC that I enjoy.

Config2 wrote:Right now in the RAW, the congo line can be created (However, what is more extraordinary is that it works as a tactic)

In the FAQ, I cannot imagine this being allowed, so please, stop arguing about the IMPLIED meanings and the SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS.

Nah, this is YMDC after all. I do agree with you about the FAQ though.

Config2 wrote:In 40k, it is important to remember (especially in our day and age) that if there is no rule explicitly saying something is NOT allowed, than it is.

Uh-oh

Config2 wrote:Also, it is important to remember that in casual play, it is up to your house rules. In a tournament, your TO will most certainly veto this (as being able to place scarabs wherever is a dangerous weapon).

Good luck with your argument, I personally have already used this technique to win many battles.

Cheers!

-Yad

Yad wrote:
The Scarab Hive rule found in the Necron codex. This rule isn't something that requires you to infer it's meaning. Though poorly written, it's fairly straightforward in it's application. I nominate a Scarab unit within 6'' of Spyder; roll to see if the Spyder takes a wound; place a Scarab on the table thus 'adding to' the nominated unit. If I've done so in such a way as to break coherency, I must move the Scarab unit in such a way as to ensure coherency at the end of my Movement phase (even if that means Running in the Shooting phase) See, simple and it breaks no rules.

There is the first problem: you've assumed "adding to" permits you to place a model anywhere on the table. Seeing as the rules are permissive, what rule are you referring to that allows such placement. Your argument basically boils down to: it doesn't say I can't.

Yad wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:There are fundamental mechanics of the game that happen without being explicitly defined. A unit is deployed in coherency is an example of such a mechanism. I've never played a game where someone deployed a unit out of coherency or even tried. It's beyond an accepted practice, it's an implied rule.

Wrong. You are making an assumption that this is how you are supposed to deploy a unit. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, Coherency only matters during movement. There is no link from Coherency to model placement unless explicitly defined. There really is no significant tactical advantage to deploying out of coherency. Besides, anecdotal evidence is hardly conclusive. In addition, accepted practice is a purely subjective construct. What's acceptable to one may not be to another (in general).

I don't think you read my post entirely. As I pointed out, there is some general play that is assumed and a unit must be/remain in coherency is one of those assumptions. Have you ever deployed a unit not in coherency? Ever? I dare say never. In fact, I have NEVER heard of this being done. While, in general, accepted practice is subjective, there are instances where such a global adherence to the practice makes it become a rule. Unit coherency is one example (things that happened at the start of a turn happen prior to movement is another). And you're right, the common practice of units always remain in coherency (or strive to when out of coherency) is subjective since there is no explicit rule dictating it. However, you would be hard pressed to play a game that way. I suggest you attempt such a tactic at a local game and let us know how that works out for you. Better yet, attempt it at a big tourney like Adepticon. To flat out disregard such a widely accepted practice, however right you might be, will make you an outcast.

Yap wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Dealing with the poorly worded Necron special rule is an other example. No, the rule for "add to" doesn't specify the Scarab added needs to be in coherency nor does it specify the model can be placed anywhere on the table; this omission is significant. Since the rule doesn't permit just any type of placement of the model, the assumption is the model is placed with the unit in coherency.

Although the coherency rule is defined in the Movement phase section of the rules, it established a clear precedence in terms of how the models within a unit are to be treated. The default normal behavior is the models within the unit remain in coherency throughout the game. Deviations from this established norm must be explicitly permitted. Note the rules and FAQs addressing what happens if the unit is no longer in coherency.

What you're suggesting is since the rule doesn't specifically address coherency the rule doesn't have to abide by the normal game play, thus permitting a deviation from the established game norm. Perhaps, but we're in agreement the rules for W40K are permissive, it's what is stated not omitted that matters. Granted "coherency" doesn't appear in the Scarab Hive Necron special rule, but it does in normal game play. What also doesn't appear is the ability to place the created Scarab anywhere on the table.

So you accept that the Scarab Hive rule doesn't require newly placed scarab bases to be placed in coherency and thus must be placed in coherency. Mainly because there is no specific direction given to how the model is actually placed with respect to the nominated Scarab unit. Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

No. That's not what I said. I said there is no rule specifically stating the model is required to be placed in unit coherency NOR is there a rule specifically permitting you place a model anywhere on the table. Common practice dictates the models in a unit must remain in coherency thus the model is added in unit coherency. That's what I said.

I'm going to add some clarity to your next bit, my additions are in bold: "Although the coherency rule is defined in the Movement phase section of the rules, it established a clear precedence in terms of how the models within a unit are to be treated [when Moving them]. The default normal behavior is the models within the unit remain in coherency throughout the game. [ Wrong, it is perfectly acceptable, some would say normal, for units to lose coherency throughout the game. Once again, Coherency only matters during Movement or when it's specifically required.] Deviations from this established norm must be explicitly permitted. Note the rules and FAQs addressing what happens if the unit is no longer in coherency.

A norm that is wholly created by you.

I haven't created any such norm. Again, when is the last time you deployed a unit not in coherency. I'm betting in all the games you have placed you have never deployed a unit out of coherency and that has been a LONG LONG time prior to the "norm that is wholly created by [me]."

While you continue to argue nos and I are wrong, you still haven't provided any proof you can place a newly create Scarab anywhere on the table. You haven't provided a rule definition of "...add one base to...". No page number has been sited. Hell, you haven't even provided a hint of a suggestion of a whim of a precedence.

Config2 wrote:In 40k, it is important to remember (especially in our day and age) that if there is no rule explicitly saying something is NOT allowed, than it is.

Actually it's the inverse. If you can't find a rule allowing it, it is not allowed.

Therein lies the true nature of the argument. However, since no one from GW or any other official source has said it goes either way, it is up to us, the poor, poor, players to figure it out for ourselves.