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.

After enemy shooting on a unit with an IC attached, the IC was more than 2 inches seperated from the unit.
In that unit's next movement phase, does the player have the option to declare that the IC detaches from that unit, thus removing the need of the unit and IC to regain coherency?

I cannot find a mention of this specific situation in the BRB.
The section on IC's state then an IC can leave a unit during it's movement phase.
The section on unit coherency states that a unit must use it's move to regain coherency.

My thinking is that when you declare you want to seperate the IC at the beginning of the movement phase there is no longer one unit but two, so neither has a forced move?

Well, you can only join or leave a unit in the movement phase so I don't think that shooting changes that. Page 48 says that the IC follows the usual rules for coherency, and those rules say that if a unit is brought out of coherency from casualties they must move to restore it in their next movement phase.

I suppose that if the IC was the only one out of coherency then you could simply move it first and have it leave the unit and everything would be fine.

Monster Rain wrote:I suppose that if the IC was the only one out of coherency then you could simply move it first and have it leave the unit and everything would be fine.

That was actually the situation, sorry, I didn't make that clear.

If you were playing against me, that's what I think would be best.

I'm sure someone will disagree any minute.

Nivoglibina wrote:That was actually the situation, sorry, I didn't make that clear.

I'm sure it was clear. I've only had one cup of coffee this morning.

Nivoglibina wrote:
My thinking is that when you declare you want to seperate the IC at the beginning of the movement phase there is no longer one unit but two, so neither has a forced move?

You can't do this because the rules don't say that you can.

The IC rules dictate exactly how a character can leave its squad. The character has to move, but the squad doesn't count as moving if none of them move as well. The character still has to move at the speed of the slowest model, however.

I've read the rule, so what you are saying I must move the IC back to it's unit before I can move him away again?
Maybe the fluff is that he has to shake hands with all the members when saying goodbye :-D

Nivoglibina wrote:I've read the rule, so what you are saying I must move the IC back to it's unit before I can move him away again?

That's correct. He'll be forced by the coherency rules to move back into coherency with his unit. He can then leave them on the following turn.

Maybe the fluff is that he has to shake hands with all the members when saying goodbye :-D

Or simply that he's checking that what's left of the unit is still ok before heading off on his own. But really, the fluff is irrelevant.

That's correct. He'll be forced by the coherency rules to move back into coherency with his unit. He can then leave them on the following turn.

So you're saying the IC is then "bound" to the unit for an extra turn due to this situation?

I know, I was trying to be funny

But you bring something new into this; the IC cannot even leave the unit in the same turn I regain coherency? Why would that be so?

If the IC is the only one out of coherency, doesn't it moving out of the unit return the unit to coherency?

Monster Rain wrote:If the IC is the only one out of coherency, doesn't it moving out of the unit return the unit to coherency?

That's what I thought too. I know the unit coherency rule says move back, but my thought was if I use the rule for IC's leaving a unit, that coherency rule would not come into play as it's 2 units right then and there.

The IC, moving away, is restoring the units to a state of correct coherency.

FlingitNow wrote:So you're saying the IC is then "bound" to the unit for an extra turn due to this situation?

Yup. Because you check coherency after movement, not during... so simply moving the IC back to within 2" and then away in the same movement won't cut it. He is forced by the coherency rules to move back into coherency... so you move him in, and then when all models in the unit have finished movement, the unit has regained coherency. On the next turn, (assuming coherency isn't lost again) he is free to act as normal.

Monster Rain wrote:If the IC is the only one out of coherency, doesn't it moving out of the unit return the unit to coherency?

It would, if the IC had an allowance to just move away. But he has compulsory movement (regain coherency) that he must perform before he can move off on his own.



To break it down:
- The unit takes casualties during (for example) the enemy shooting phase, and removed casualties cause the IC to be out of coherency with the unit.
- The IC is, at this point, still a part of the unit as IC's can only leave a unit by moving away from them during the Movement phase. In fact, the rules specifically forbid leaving a unit during the Shooting and Assault phases (page 48, 6th bullet point)
- As the unit is out of coherency, it is forced by the coherency rules to regain coherency in its next movement phase. (page 12, second paragraph)
- In the unit's next movement phase, there is therefore a standing compulsory action that the unit must take (Must regain coherency). This takes priority over any voluntary action of the unit.

So the IC, as a part of the unit at the time that it lost coherency, is bound by the rule forcing the unit to regain coherency. He can't move off on his own, as he has no opportunity to do so until coherency is regained.


If an IC was considered to have left the unit at any point at which he was more than 2" away from them, there would be no problem. The lost coherency would separate the character from the unit, and they would both be free to move off on their own in the next movement phase. But as it is, he has to rejoin them before he can leave.


Having said that, I would be more than happy to play it that he could simply move off. At the end of the unit's movement coherency would be restored (as the IC is no longer a part of the unit), which is really all that the rule is trying to do.

thebetter1 wrote:

Nivoglibina wrote:
My thinking is that when you declare you want to seperate the IC at the beginning of the movement phase there is no longer one unit but two, so neither has a forced move?

You can't do this because the rules don't say that you can.

The IC rules dictate exactly how a character can leave its squad. The character has to move, but the squad doesn't count as moving if none of them move as well. The character still has to move at the speed of the slowest model, however.

Disagree. P.12 under Unit Coherency:

"During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties. If this happens, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next Movement phase. If the unit cannot move for some reason in its next turn (...), then they must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity"

It may seem counter-intuitive, but moving the IC first to restore coherency, satisfies both the IC movement rules and the 'restore coherency' rules at the same time.

-Yad

Yes, the IC rules on P.48 dictate exactly how an IC can leave. By breaking coherency at the begining of that units Movement. Meaning that when it's that units turn to Move, the IC is moved first. In your scenario I see no issues with moving the IC out of the unit to restore coherency. You don't have to, at the beginning of your Movement phase, move the unit back into coherency. But you do need to move the IC first (for that unit). I'd be fine with you moving the IC to restore coherency.

"During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties. If this happens, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next Movement phase. "

I agree with this rule which simply states you have to restore coherency in your next movement phase. If the IC elects to leave the unit coherency is therefore restored. I have moved the models in such a way that unit coherency is restored (by having the IC leave the unit). It doesn't state that this has to be the first action of the phase or the first action (or even movement) of the unit as long as by the end of the phase the unit has "moved in such a way that they restore coherency".

FlingitNow wrote: If the IC elects to leave the unit coherency is therefore restored.

But he leaves the unit by breaking coherency. He can't do that if he is under a pre-existing requirement to regain coherency.

Once the unit has finished its movement, you check coherency. The IC has left the unit if he is out of coherency. Ordinarily, that isn't a problem, because he is allowed to break coherency to leave the unit... but in this particular situation, a pre-existing state has triggered a rule forcing him to regain coherency, because he was a part of the unit that was required to regain coherency.

So, the unit has moved. The IC is out of coherency. The coherency rules (because the unit was out of coherency prior to the Movement phase) require him to be in coherency... so you don't get as far as the IC counting as having left. You're in an illegal state unless it was physically impossible for the unit to regain coherency.


As an aside, while I can see the argument the other way (if the IC is out of coherency, the point at which you check coherency and the point at which the IC is considered to have left the unit are the same, so there's no problem) if you play that IC leaving status is only checked at the end of the phase (as has come up in some previous discussions) then he would be even more strongly bound by the rules to regain coherency...

Coherency is checked at the end of the unit's movement, not the end of the phase. So when the unit finishes its movement, the IC has to be in coherency because the unit was forced to regain coherency by the end of its movement and the IC doesn't count as having left until the end of the phase. At the point at which you check to see if it is in coherency (as soon as it finishes its movement) the IC is still a part of the unit. He is only separate (if you're playing IC leaving at the end of the phase) after all units have moved and the phase has ended.

Coherency is checked at the end of the unit's movement, not the end of the phase. So when the unit finishes its movement, the IC has to be in coherency because the unit was forced to regain coherency by the end of its movement and the IC doesn't count as having left until the end of the phase. At the point at which you check to see if it is in coherency (as soon as it finishes its movement) the IC is still a part of the unit. He is only separate (if you're playing IC leaving at the end of the phase) after all units have moved and the phase has ended.

I'd argue when you check coherency, yes you check it at the end of the units move but you can also check it at the end of the phase and in the enemies shooting phase. Coherency can be checked at any point. The requirement to regain coherency requires that this is acheived only by the end of the movement phase.

So yes at the end of the unit's movement, if you beleive the Character only leaves the unit at the end of the movement phase, then yes the unit would be out of coherency. The rule does not dis-allow this only that they are coherent at the end of "their next Movement phase" hence satisfied. It doesn't state that this has to occur by the end of their move only that it has to occur dduring their movement phase and as a result of their movement.

I don't get where you get that ICs leave at the end of the movement phase from anyway. It simply states that the character may leaves by moving out of coherency with eth unit during his move. So at worst that is at the end of the units move or whenever you check coherency so again there is no problem.

FlingitNow wrote: The requirement to regain coherency requires that this is acheived only by the end of the movement phase.

I was going to say 'Nu uh!'... but after rechecking, I might have to agree. I was taking the 'restore coherency in their next Movement phase' to refer to the end of the unit's movement, since it didn't specifically mention the end of the phase.

But restoring coherency at any point in the phase would satisfy the rule as written.

I think that makes it a little less cut-and-dried, but I'm still leaning towards the rules requiring the IC to move back into coherency... The point at which the unit is 'told' that it must regain coherency is the moment at which coherency is broken. At that point, the IC is still a part of the unit, and the unit is being told it must regain coherency in its next Movement phase.

Since the IC leaves the unit by breaking coherency, these two rules run into conflict.

Being able to show that the unit is in coherency (since the IC is no longer a part of the unit) at the end of the phase sort of satisfies the rule... but I think it's at best a grey area.

I don't get where you get that ICs leave at the end of the movement phase from anyway.

I don't. Some people do. I think it comes from the fact that you check if the IC is in coherency for joining the unit at the end of the phase... so people just assume that it should apply to leaving the unit as well.

I was going to say 'Nu uh!'... but after rechecking, I might have to agree. I was taking the 'restore coherency in their next Movement phase' to refer to the end of the unit's movement, since it didn't specifically mention the end of the phase.

Yeah but if you tell someone to do something on Tuesday as long as they do it by midnight on Tuesday they've satisfied your request without you specifying the end of the day or midnight. Hence "move in such a way as to restore coherency in their next movement phase must" means by the end of the movement phase as it is satisfied by this being acheived at any point in the movement phase.

I can see it is a bit of a grey area but running this way does seem to satisfy the RaW and makes sense from an RaI perspective too.

I don't. Some people do. I think it comes from the fact that you check if the IC is in coherency for joining the unit at the end of the phase... so people just assume that it should apply to leaving the unit as well.

Fair enough, I thought you were saying that this was RaW and hence my confusion

FlingitNow wrote:Yeah but if you tell someone to do something on Tuesday as long as they do it by midnight on Tuesday they've satisfied your request without you specifying the end of the day or midnight.

Sure.

But if you tell a group of people they all have to do something by Tuesday, and by midnight on Tuesday night one of them has left the group, has your request still been satisfied if the one who left didn't do what he was told to do?

But if you tell a group of people they all have to do something by Tuesday, and by midnight on Tuesday night one of them has left the group, has your request still been satisfied if the one who left didn't do what he was told to do?

That really depends on the nature of the request. Say for instance you have 9 blond people and 1 brunette person and you say you want the entire group to be blond, then the Brunette can either dye his/her hair blond or leave the group either way the entire group is now blond. In this case the request is for the unit to be coherent by the IC leaving he has made the unit coherent, I don't see how that could possibly not satisfy:

"moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next Movement phase."

The unit has moved in such a way that they are now coherent. It doesn't specify that this movement has to bring each model back into coherency only that the unit is now coherent which it is.

FlingitNow wrote:In this case the request is for the unit to be coherent by the IC leaving he has made the unit coherent, I don't see how that could possibly not satisfy:

"moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next Movement phase."

It does. And it doesn't.

Either way, as I said before I would play it the same as you anyway, so there's not really a great deal to be gained by continuing to argue semantics

Fair enough It appears this is the way most people would play it as well anyway.

If an IC joins a unit, and then for whatever reason isn't in coherency with the unit at the start of the next movement phase, then the IC is still joined to the unit and would be forced to move back into coherency normally. However, the IC ability to leave a unit by moving out of coherency seems to me to be the more specific rule and therefore an IC out of coherency could still choose to move out (further?) of coherency to leave the unit.

In other words, it seems to me that the IC, if out of coherency, must move to restore coherency if it isn't trying to leave the unit. After all, if the IC is out of coherency and leaves, then the rest of the unit would be that much closer to coherency and the IC would have done his part to minimize the number of out of coherency models.

You could always move the IC in a continuous direction that takes him into coherency to restore and then right back out to leave the unit.....LOL!

Brother Ramses wrote:You could always move the IC in a continuous direction that takes him into coherency to restore and then right back out to leave the unit.....LOL!

We already covered that. It doesn't work.

Thanks for all the answers everyone, I think I've seen all relevant RaW arguments.
I'm also happy with Insaniak saying:

Having said that, I would be more than happy to play it that he could simply move off. At the end of the unit's movement coherency would be restored (as the IC is no longer a part of the unit), which is really all that the rule is trying to do.