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.

Akroma06 wrote:The first part which I made nice and easy to see is part of the rules.

Er... No it's not.


In fact, in the current edition you quite often are allowed to willfully break coherency. The most obvious example being casualty removal.

No, you're allowed to allocate wounds wherever you wish. That that MAY result in breaking coherency is incidental. (It happens prior to making saves, it might or might not kill a multi-wound model, etc.)

You're confusing "assigning wounds" with "removing models." The former often influences the latter, but it is not a sole determining factor, nor does it have any relevance to how models are moved or placed.

When someone is making a claim that you may not willfully break coherency, it most certainly is relevant, since it's a situation where you can choose to break coherency.

Not sure what you think I'm 'confusing' here... I wasn't listing the casualty removal process, I was pointing out that it is a situation where you can break coherency.

The simple fact is that the coherency rules only restrict placement of your models when they move. Initial deployment (while it certainly should be, and is generally assumed to be) is no more restricted by the coherency rules than casualty removal is.

Just out of curiosity, I don't see how cover is granted by spreading the unit out like that.

I get the whole intervening models thing, but that is not what the rule says at all.

It says, and I quote:

"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by
other models, it receives a 4+ cover save in the same
way as if it was behind terrain.
This does not mean that intervening models literally
stop the shots, but rather that they obscure the sight of
the firers or otherwse spoil their aim."

Given true line of sight, if I can draw a line from the muzzle of every one of my models to one of your models without the line passing through any of the 'intervening models' it does not get the cover save.

Check the section on firing through other units.

Firing through the gap between models in a unit provides a cover save to the (non vehicle or MC) target, even if they're not actually obscured.

I suppose so...

That just doesn't sit right at all... but I guess there's nothing to stop it according to RAW. That said, if you're pulling that kind of move playing against me I'd call you a WAAC player, and scoop.

WanderingFox wrote:I suppose so...

That just doesn't sit right at all... but I guess there's nothing to stop it according to RAW. That said, if you're pulling that kind of move playing against me I'd call you a WAAC player, and scoop.

Keep in mind that it's only an issue if you are going with the interpretation that coherency isn't required on deployment.

Since the vast majority of players would appear to play it that coherency is in fact required, it shouldn't really ever be an issue.

heh, forgot about this thread...

BRB page 3, units, second paragraph, discusses what a unit is, it then tellsyou in the last 2 sentences: "The different elements of the unit have to stay together to remain an effective fighting force. This is described more fully in the movement section (see page 12)."

Page 12 is the basic coherency rules that tell you just how far apart a unit is allowed to be, and then tells you that you must move to regain coherency should it be lost.

Because the definition of a unit tells you to follow the movement rules, the movement rules should apply to deployment as well(otherwise you are not following the rules for what a unit is)

Kommissar Kel wrote:Page 12 is the basic coherency rules that tell you just how far apart a unit is allowed to be,...

Not quite. It doesn't tell you that models have to be placed within a certain distance of each other, just that they have to finish within that distance when they move, and that if at any time they wind up further away, they have to move back to within that set distance as quickly as they can.

So deploying your unit out of coherency and then just moving them in once the game starts doesn't break those rules. It should... but doesn't.

1. Units are required to maintain coherency at all times during the game.

2. Exceptions to breaking coherency are listed under Unit Coherency, page 12.

3. Specific instructions to regain coherency when dealing with the above exceptions are under Unit Coherency, page 12.

Given that you MUST maintain unit coherency at all times during the game, which would include the moment you are done deploying and start the game, you cannot deploy out of coherency.

Insaniak has it.

You can wilfully break coherency when removing casualties, for one.

I would not deploy out of coherency but technically the rules don't prevent it.

Units have to maintain coherency at all times during the game with the exceptions given on page 12.

Deploying so that you start the game out of coherency breaks the rule that you must maintain coherency at all times during the game and is not one of the exceptions listed on page 12.

Brother Ramses wrote:Given that you MUST maintain unit coherency at all times during the game, which would include the moment you are done deploying and start the game, you cannot deploy out of coherency.

If it's only a problem once you have finished deploying and started the game, then the coherency rules would simply require you to move to regain coherency, not stop you from deploying that way to begin with.

Again, there is nothing on that page that prevents you from placing them that way to begin with. The rules simply force you to move into coherency as soon as you can.

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Given that you MUST maintain unit coherency at all times during the game, which would include the moment you are done deploying and start the game, you cannot deploy out of coherency.

If it's only a problem once you have finished deploying and started the game, then the coherency rules would simply require you to move to regain coherency, not stop you from deploying that way to begin with.

Again, there is nothing on that page that prevents you from placing them that way to begin with. The rules simply force you to move into coherency as soon as you can.

Except you are not losing unit coherency during the course o a game as stated as being one of the exceptions, you are starting the game out of coherency which is not listed as one of the exceptions.

Deploying out of coherency is not losing unit coherency during the course of the game.

Brother Ramses wrote:1. Units are required to maintain coherency at all times during the game.

2. Exceptions to breaking coherency are listed under Unit Coherency, page 12.

3. Specific instructions to regain coherency when dealing with the above exceptions are under Unit Coherency, page 12.

Given that you MUST maintain unit coherency at all times during the game, which would include the moment you are done deploying and start the game, you cannot deploy out of coherency.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry can't figure out how to quote anyway, the last bit of the quote says it all. Also rooming casualties is not wilful with wound allocation as the roll decides who dies

Exactly removing casualties is different it is not a choice but something that is forced. If I have a conga line of 10 marines with the Flamer guy in the middle, and he is 2" from either member of his squad and he dies because I took 12 wounds and failed the one that I was forced to allocate to him then nothing I did was willfull but yet I am forced out of coherency, my next turn I have to move back into coherency if possible.

Brother Ramses wrote:Units have to maintain coherency at all times during the game with the exceptions given on page 12.

You can deploy out of coherency, because it tells you that you have to maintain coherency at all times during the game, but you deploy before you start the game.

Look at the scenarios for deployment on P. 92-93 "Start the game! Once deployment has finished, the player that chose his deployment zone first starts game Turn 1 with his first player turn."

DeathReaper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Units have to maintain coherency at all times during the game with the exceptions given on page 12.

You can deploy out of coherency, because it tells you that you have to maintain coherency at all times during the game, but you deploy before you start the game.

Look at the scenarios for deployment on P. 92-93 "Start the game! Once deployment has finished, the player that chose his deployment zone first starts game Turn 1 with his first player turn."

And if you start the game out of coherency, you are not maintaining coherency at all times. Starting the game out of coherency is also not one of the exceptions given for breaking coherency. The only way you can maintain coherency at all times, down to the nanosecond that you start the game, is to also deploy in coherency.

The rules force you to try to get back into coherency, if you are out of coherency.

You do not have to "maintain coherency at all times." when you deploy, as you only "have to maintain coherency at all times during the game"

Deployment is not "Druing the game" so you can, in fact, deploy out of coherency.

DeathReaper wrote:The rules force you to try to get back into coherency, if you are out of coherency.

You do not have to "maintain coherency at all times." when you deploy, as you only "have to maintain coherency at all times during the game"

Deployment is not "Druing the game" so you can, in fact, deploy out of coherency.

So are you maintaining coherency at all times during the game, by purposely starting the game out of coherency? The only way to maintain coherency at all times during the game, even the very moment when you start the game, is to deploy in coherency.

As I have mentioned in another thread, there is no RAW that requires that you deploy in coherency. However there is RAW that you must maintain coherency during the game. That RAW prevents you from deploying out of coherency because by doing so you are not maintaining coherency during the game, in this case, right when the game starts.

you can deploy, within your deployment zone, and coherency restrictions are not in play at this time, since you only "have to maintain coherency at all times during the game"

you can willingly break coherency through casualty removal.

If I had a squad of 30 all in a line, and 10 of them get killed, are you saying I have to remove them from the end of the line instead of the middle?

Because remove casualties lets you willingly break coherency by removing any models you want to remove.

DeathReaper wrote:you can willingly break coherency through casualty removal.

Not 100% accurate - taking casualties isn't a voluntary act, neither is failing saves.

Ramses... quote (with a page number please) where it says you must maintain coherency at all times during the game because I can't find it for the life of me.

The only coherency rules I can find state that you must end your movement in coherency, or as close to coherency as possible.

Akroma06 wrote:Exactly removing casualties is different it is not a choice but something that is forced. If I have a conga line of 10 marines with the Flamer guy in the middle, and he is 2" from either member of his squad and he dies because I took 12 wounds and failed the one that I was forced to allocate to him then nothing I did was willfull but yet I am forced out of coherency, my next turn I have to move back into coherency if possible.

If you have a conga line of 10 marines that are all identical, you don't allocate wounds... and can still choose to remove the one in the middle.

rigeld2 wrote:Not 100% accurate - taking casualties isn't a voluntary act, neither is failing saves.

Choosing which models to remove is.

Brother Ramses wrote:Units have to maintain coherency at all times during the game with the exceptions given on page 12.

You keep saying this as if it's an actual rule.

It's not.

Have another look at page 12. All it says is that units must finish their movement in coherency, and that if they do get broken up during the course of the game they must move as quickly as possible to regain coherency.

There is no rule that flat out states that units have to 'maintain coherency at all times' as you keep stating, nor is there a 'list of exceptions' on page 12.

You have to remove casualties if you fail saves/aren't allowed any so its not willfull. Either way I believe that suffing casualties is one of the few ways you are allowed to be out of coherency, but you have to move as fast as possible to restore coherency.

Akroma06 wrote:You have to remove casualties if you fail saves/aren't allowed any so its not willfull.

You choose where to remove them from, though.

Either way I believe that suffing casualties is one of the few ways you are allowed to be out of coherency, but you have to move as fast as possible to restore coherency.

Indeed you do. But the point all along has been that the rules only prohibit you from being out of coherency after the game has started. You have to finish your movement in coherency. You have to regain coherency if something causes you to lose it. But the rules stop short of requiring it from the start. Nothing prevents a unit being deployed out of coherency during the deployment phase. The rules on deployment are vague at best... they don't really tell us how to deploy at all. Just where to deploy.

So as far as the deployment rules are concerned, so long as the model is placed in the appropriate area of the board, you're good to go. There is no stipulation in either the deployment rules or the coherency rules to deploy a unit in coherency. The coherency rules don't mention deployment at all, just movement, and the need to regain coherency if you don't have it.

So, while nobody is going to actually play it that way, so far as the rules are concerned it is perfectly legal to deploy a unit out of coherency... but as soon as the game starts, they will have to start to move to regain coherency.

The only thing I have to respond to this thread is...



I would expect any TO to take one look at a player stringing 12 ork boys all the way across the table in front of his three loota squads for cover saves and say "Feth that, they need to be in coherency."

The reason 5th ed plays smoother and faster is that some things were simplified keeping common sense and flow in mind. I don't think it is too much of GW to ask the players for some of the same. To quote Azcalam and the BGB pg 2, "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important".

D.Azrinae wrote:The only thing I have to respond to this thread is...



I would expect any TO to take one look at a player stringing 12 ork boys all the way across the table in front of his three loota squads for cover saves and say "Feth that, they need to be in coherency."The reason 5th ed plays smoother and faster is that some things were simplified keeping common sense and flow in mind. I don't think it is too much of GW to ask the players for some of the same. To quote Azcalam and the BGB pg 2, "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important".

Yep. I sure would. And to make the situation even easier to deal with I just added it to the FAQ for the next GT so that the stupid situation doesn't even come up, and minimal time is wasted.

[D.Azrinae, you seem to have missed about half of the content of this thread. Nobody is suggesting that stringing the unit out like that should actually be allowed, or attempted.

insaniak wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:You have to remove casualties if you fail saves/aren't allowed any so its not willfull.

You choose where to remove them from, though.

Very true but you are forced to remove them. So without playing the merry-go-round game and not getting here I will just say that it is both willfull and unwilfull.

In either case you can't deploy out of coherency since you are willfully putting your models out of coherency. There is nothing forcing you to split them up that way so it has to be willfull.