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.

No I don't agree, moving out of coherency has to be more than just moving first.

As an aside if an IC leaves a unit while they are in difficult terrain does he roll with his own "move through cover" or suffer the penalty of his not so enabled unit that he just left ?

He's still a member of the unit until you check for 2" after tr unit moves. You cant just announce intent and move him. This means that until the end of that units movement, the iC is limited to the units movement - including not having MtC

Magpie wrote:No I don't agree, moving out of coherency has to be more than just moving first.

Of course it does. Which was my point.

As an aside if an IC leaves a unit while they are in difficult terrain does he roll with his own "move through cover" or suffer the penalty of his not so enabled unit that he just left ?

He leaves the unit as a part of the unit's movement. So the unit would make one roll for difficult terrain. If the IC moves away from the unit, he leaves it.

Having said that, it's reasonably common for people to play that ICs can make use of their own movement on the turn they leave the unit, which is important for ICs on bikes or with jump packs, for example. The same would apply to difficult terrain rolls.

Magpie wrote:No I don't agree, moving out of coherency has to be more than just moving first.

As an aside if an IC leaves a unit while they are in difficult terrain does he roll with his own "move through cover" or suffer the penalty of his not so enabled unit that he just left ?

You still havent addressed the point that coherency is ONLY checked after you have finished moving. Its in the definition of coherency. Thus given you "leave" by moving out of coherency, and coherncy is only checked when you finish moving....theres really only one conclusion you can make by actually following the rules.

insaniak wrote:So the unit would make one roll for difficult terrain. If the IC moves away from the unit, he leaves it.

Wouldn't that create another contradiction in that is states that when an IC leaves a unit the unit does not count as having moved but the IC is and in the difficult terrain rules, simply rolling the dice counts as the unit moving?

Magpie wrote:

insaniak wrote:So the unit would make one roll for difficult terrain. If the IC moves away from the unit, he leaves it.

Wouldn't that create another contradiction in that is states that when an IC leaves a unit the unit does not count as having moved but the IC is and in the difficult terrain rules, simply rolling the dice counts as the unit moving?

You see a contradiction, I see an exception.

Normally, the unit doesn't count as moving. Because of the difficult terrain test, however, they do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still havent addressed the point that coherency is ONLY checked after you have finished moving. Its in the definition of coherency. Thus given you "leave" by moving out of coherency, and coherncy is only checked when you finish moving....theres really only one conclusion you can make by actually following the rules.

Leaving coherency and checking coherency are two different concepts. Checking is to make sure you are/are not in coherency, leaving coherency can happen at any time and is not dependent on measurement.

The requirement is that the unit finishes the movement phase in coherency I don't see how that restricts you to checking coherency at the end, how else how would you know where to move to re-establish coherency ? The requirement to re-establish coherency is that they must move to restore coherency as soon as they have the opportunity. If models are lost in dangerous terrain the unit closes the gaps as they move or at least the subsequent models seek to close up the gaps so you are doing it as you go, before the end of the move so you would need to be monitoring the unit's coherency throughout.

What is the alternative, move the unit's models guess at your coherency and then do a check measure at the end of the movement? If so what then what happens if it isn't coherent? Is the move declared illegal and you move everything back and start again or leave the unit as is and be occupying an illegal footprint until their next movement phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:

insaniak wrote:So the unit would make one roll for difficult terrain. If the IC moves away from the unit, he leaves it.

Wouldn't that create another contradiction in that is states that when an IC leaves a unit the unit does not count as having moved but the IC is and in the difficult terrain rules, simply rolling the dice counts as the unit moving?

You see a contradiction, I see an exception.

Normally, the unit doesn't count as moving. Because of the difficult terrain test, however, they do.

No I see it as the unit and the IC have parted company and the IC's move is the IC's move and the unit's move is the unit's move, they are now two separate entities.
It is silly to suggest that a unit that doesn't move has to take a terrain test.
Otherwise if they stay as a unit until the end of the movement phase you'll never get away from them.

Magpie wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still havent addressed the point that coherency is ONLY checked after you have finished moving. Its in the definition of coherency. Thus given you "leave" by moving out of coherency, and coherncy is only checked when you finish moving....theres really only one conclusion you can make by actually following the rules.

Leaving coherency and checking coherency are two different concepts. Checking is to make sure you are/are not in coherency, leaving coherency can happen at any time and is not dependent on measurement.

How can you know you have left coherency without measuring?

"Leaving coherency and checking coherency are two different concepts. Checking is to make sure you are/are not in coherency, leaving coherency can happen at any time and is not dependent on measurement. "

Explain how you are leaving coherency without measuring to ensure you HAVE left coherency.

Either there is something I am not getting, or this is really a relatively simple concept. You check whether your units are in coherency or not at the end of the movement phase. It doesn't matter if a unit leaves coherency at some point during the movement phase, because the movement of other models may then restore the coherency. If you check for coherency as each model moved, then you would constantly be moving in and out of coherency. After all movement has been completed, you check to see if a unit is on coherency. If not, then an IC has left the squad. If, so then he is still with the squad.

Either way, the question regarding whether the IC can ever regroup still remains murky. Does the IC actually leave the unit at the end of the next movement phase, as he is out of coherency, and therefore have the ability to regroup next movement phase? Or, does the IC stay a part of a non-existent unit, since ICs are prohibited from leaving a unit while falling back?

It isnt murky - when you check to see if the IC is in coherency, at the end of its movement, you find it isnt. It is therefore not part of a unit.

I fyou take the line "cannot leave..." to mean any casuation, then you are prohibited from killing the last model attached to an ICs unit, as that will also cause the IC to leave the unit (at some point in the future)

Nosferatu1001, your second statement doesn't really make any sense. A model dies whenever it dies - this is not restricted in any way. You are taking the line that is in question and applying in it a way that is totally illogical, and has no support whatsoever in the rules.

Your first statement is normally 100% accurate - if an IC is not within 2' of a unit, he is not incoherency with that unit. However, as discussed, an IC cannot leave a unit while falling back. Your answer does not give any indication as to which of these rules should take precedence, and why it should do so.

This is an interesting example that if you follow RAW to the absolute letter, the rules are somewhat broken. It ties in well with http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/433068.page this thread about moving units away from ICs to detach them.

People are arguing about when to measure coherency, and how to move ICs in order to maintain it, but Page 48 of the BRB, third bullet point:

An IC can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency with it.

That's it in full. It doesn't say anything about the start, middle, or end of the movement phase. So a rules lawyer could argue that if an IC is the first to move when it's attached to a unit, it immediately moves out of coherency if it moves more than 2" before the rest of the squad moves. The rest of the squad follow it to maintain coherency and they can't rejoin the IC, because as the other thread demonstrates: There is no provision in the rules for a squad joining an IC (The IC needs to move to join the squad) unless the IC has gone to ground - but that last bit appears to be a completely different argument according to the other thread.

I wouldn't use the above argument because it is blatantly stupid. I play for fun, although there appear to be a lot of people on the forum who don't and seem to play so they can argue with someone over rules interpretations for a game of toy soldiers. But following RAW to the absolute letter, the above argument does seem to hold water.

But for the original question in the thread, I personally would say that they would fall back if the unit is destroyed, but will be able to test to regroup so long as there isn't an enemy unit within 6". If someone argued with that while I was playing, I would let them have their way and just not bother playing that person again, I've got better things to do.

Happy Pig, I basically agree with the way you would play it, and would play it the same way myself. I was simply curious if there is some short of support for which rule should be primary, instead of us being nice guys to our opponents (since with ATSKNF, I am unaffected either way). I am all for the more congenial and, in my opinion, fairer ruling. Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion thus far.

Dukal wrote:Nosferatu1001, your second statement doesn't really make any sense. A model dies whenever it dies - this is not restricted in any way. You are taking the line that is in question and applying in it a way that is totally illogical, and has no support whatsoever in the rules.

Yes, it does. If you are claiming that an involuntary leaving of a unit is prohibited, then killing the last member of a unit while an IC is locked in combat is prohbited, because this WILL cause the IC to leave the unit at some point, and, if the combat is prolonged enough this will occur during combat.

Or, you read the correct context which is all about voluntary joining and leaving, and realise it is a restriction on choosing to leave.

Dukal wrote:Your first statement is normally 100% accurate - if an IC is not within 2' of a unit, he is not incoherency with that unit. However, as discussed, an IC cannot leave a unit while falling back. Your answer does not give any indication as to which of these rules should take precedence, and why it should do so.

I've explained it already, and pointed out how the rules are constructed. You've just ignored it.

My apologies if you feel like I have ignored something, but I really think there has not been a clear explanation. Let's look at it like this:

An IC joins a 10 man squad, making for most purposes an 11 man squad (transport capacity, shooting targets, morale tests, etc are all based on being a singular, 11 man squad). The 11 man squad loses 10 of its members during the shooting phase, leaving just the IC alive. The IC, as a member of a squad which has just lost over 25% of its members, must take a morale test. Falling it, the IC falls back.

Now, at the beginning of the player's next movement phase, the IC must continue to fall back (as the IC has not left the squad yet according to most interpretations on this board, and the squad is at below 50% strength). At the end of the movement phase, the IC is more than 2' away from anyone in the squad. Normally he would leave the squad. The question that continues to be unanswered is whether he may leave, since an IC cannot leave a squad while falling back. There is no indication in the rules that this applies only to voluntarily leaving a squad, as you seem to suggest Nos. If the prohibition from leaving the squad only applies to voluntarily moving away then you are correct, and I would argue that outcome is the correct one as well. However, there is no evidence that the rule only applies to voluntary situations.

Nos, please ignore your argument regarding the hypothetically immortal last squad member, as it really does not have any bearing on the specific question I am asking. I apologize if I am constraining your response, but I think that that argument is simply a straw man that has no support at all. I am not saying that involuntarily leaving a squad is never permitted. I am saying that involuntarily leaving a squad while falling back may be impermissible due to the prohibition on leaving a squad while falling back.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Leaving coherency and checking coherency are two different concepts. Checking is to make sure you are/are not in coherency, leaving coherency can happen at any time and is not dependent on measurement. "

Explain how you are leaving coherency without measuring to ensure you HAVE left coherency.

By the fact that there is no longer any models with which you can be coherent ? How do you measure to nothing?
Sure in some cases you may not be aware that the unit has left coherency until you measure but that doesn't change the fact that is has left coherency.

A coherency check can also be taken at the start of the movement phase as the rule for coherency requires the unit to return to coherency in the movement phase and as you say how will you know without measuring?

While it is not clear I'd also suggest that units falling back must attempt to restore coherency, as the rule for TRAPPED stipulates that you can move around things so long as you stay in coherency. This would mean that you have to measure the coherency in the assault phase. If the moment at which the IC has left the unit is guided by when the measurement is taken, the leaving has actually already taken place but as the IC can only leave in the movement phase I suppose it carries over until then and his move starts with him not part of the unit.

This is supported by the INATFAQ that say the IC is considered part of the unit until the start of their next turn.

This is also supported by the special rule FEARLESS:

"However, as long as a fearless
character stays with a unit that is not fearless, he loses
this special rule. If a unit that is falling back suddenly
gains this rule, it will automatically regroup at the
beginning of its next Movement phase, regardless of all
normal restrictions on regrouping"

How else would a unit suddenly gain the special rule other than the members all dying and leaving the IC ? For example an IC and a single remaining model of the unit he joined are falling back, the remaining member dies so there for the IC is now released as part of the unit and regroups automatically at the start of the next movement phase. That seems to imply that the IC regains its independent status as soon as the unit no longer exists.

Tyranids falling back into synapse gain fearless. Nothing to do with an IC.

Dukal - again, your example is pointless. It doesnt add anything.

IN THE CONTEXT of the rules, "leaving" and "joining" are voluntary actions, for the most part - so you either read this as disallowing voluntary joining or leaving, which works, or you believe it refers to any joining or leaving, in which case you get an immortal last squad member.

There is no option here. You either read it as the context tells you, in which case it refers to a choice of joining or leaving - and then the rules work. Or, you decide that the rule suddenly refers to any join / leave action, in which case you also arent allowed to kill the last member of a unit while in close combat.

Magpie - measuring to something that doesnt exist is easy - you are not in coherency with them, automatically. You're reading issues into very clear rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Magpie - measuring to something that doesnt exist is easy - you are not in coherency with them, automatically. You're reading issues into very clear rules.

So why did you ask "Explain how you are leaving coherency without measuring to ensure you HAVE left coherency." I'm not reading in issues I am answering your question.

And I agree, the unit no longer exists, you are no longer in coherency ergo you are no longer part of the unit.
To suggest that an IC remains part of something that no longer exists is just silly.

It occurs to me that while I've been arguing over the timing of the IC leaving the unit, I hadn't addressed the actual issue.

To whit, I have to agree that the idea of still counting the IC as a part of the non-existant unit the following turn is a little silly.

Yes, he can technically only leave the unit at the end of the phase... but if the unit's no longer there, that's good enough for me.

The reverse, that he is still a part of the unit until the end of the phase, would (as someone else pointed out) seem to indicate that he can never actually leave the unit... If a unit that is destroyed sill counts as being joined to the IC, he can never leave them, as ICs can't leave a unit that is falling back. He would instead have to move to regain coherency... which he can't do, as the unit is no longer on the table... meaning he would just continue to fall back.

Nos, you are argument is that the restriction that "An IC may not join or leave a unit while either he or the unit is locked in combat or falling back" (page 48 BRB) only applies to voluntarily leaving a unit. Where do you infer this context from? There is no indication that this rule only applies to voluntarily leaving a unit. If you are inferring that context, cool. I would hope that it would be ruled that way. However, there is no reason to infer that it only applies to voluntarily leaving a unit, as there is no such restriction in the rules. I am not "suddenly" deciding it applies to any join/leave action - the rule itself makes no distinction between a voluntary or involuntary join/leave action.

It's simple, let's (for the moment) assume, that an IC cannot voluntarily or involuntarily leave a unit that is falling back.
In order for the IC to be attached to a unit he must be in coherency.
In order to be in coherency, at least 1 member of the unit must be alive.
If one member of the unit must be alive, than 1 member of the unit cannot be killed, until after the IC is killed. Otherwise, the IC is no longer in coherency with said unit.

If the IC can involuntarily leave a unit that is falling back, than as soon as the unit is wiped out (save the IC) the IC is no longer attached.

Changed my mind

Dukal wrote: You check whether your units are in coherency or not at the end of the movement phase. It doesn't matter if a unit leaves coherency at some point during the movement phase, because the movement of other models may then restore the coherency.

Mostly agree.

But, there is a myth, that because you only check after the unit finishes moving, that coherency is not a factor whilst actually moving.

True, no particular models have to be coherent at any particular stage, but, coherency has to remain a possibility, or you have made an illegal move.

Lets say I have a coherent unit of 4 models.
I want to move 1 6" to the "north", 1 to the south and so on east and west.
If I do this, the unit will end up out of coherency = illegal move.
But at what point did it become illegal?

Remember, that you must move them in order to form a chain.
Checking that you have done this at the end is a mere formality, proof that you have done what was asked of you.

But, the point in question.
I have argued this one time after time and never ended up at any sort of satisfactory conclusion.

Dukal - all the way through the rules it is voluntary joining and leaving. That gives you your context. You have no clue that suddenly THIS rule is a restriction on involuntary leaving and joining

fuusa wrote:But at what point did it become illegal?

At the end of the unit's movement, since the coherency rules only require the unit to be in coherency when it finishes its movement.

Remember, that you must move them in order to form a chain.

There is no such requirement in the coherency rules. You might be getting confused with the rules for moving assaulting models.

insaniak wrote:

fuusa wrote:Remember, that you must move them in order to form a chain.

There is no such requirement in the coherency rules. You might be getting confused with the rules for moving assaulting models.

Once the unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain ... p12, unit coherency.

So, if I cannot (or at least should not) check, as I am moving, to ensure I have the potential to maintain coherency, I finish moving my unit.
Then I check.
Whoops, that guys 1/2" out of coherency, now what?

I'm going to have to move it, because I must form an imaginary chain if I can.
That means I am moving models, after I have finished moving the unit, which I only found that I had to, after checking coherency, which according to some, can't be done at that point.

If I must form an imaginary chain, I have failed as soon as I move a model in such a way as to make that impossible.

i remember reading something about when a unit that an ic is in is destroyed he just carries on without them. im not sure where... but i remember it from something...maybe 4th ed... idk

fuusa wrote:So, if I cannot (or at least should not) check, as I am moving, to ensure I have the potential to maintain coherency, I finish moving my unit.
Then I check.
Whoops, that guys 1/2" out of coherency, now what?

The world implodes.


In general practice, yes, you need to check the distance between your models as you move, as their is no mechanic provided for correcting the problem if you only discover that they are out of coherency when they finish moving.

But the unit is not actually considered to have broken coherency until[i/] they finish moving. As you move each model, you don't have to place each model within 2" of another. It's perfectly acceptable to move one model, move another model to a point 6" away, and then move other models into the gap in between. The sole requirement is that the unit [i]ends its movement in coherency.

Which means that having an IC out of coherency with the unit doesn't actually mean anything until the unit finishes moving. Until that point, the IC is not out of coherency, because coherency isn't checked (rules-wise) until the end of the movement.