Switch Theme:

dead walk again DG Strat  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

As much as we may want this rule to require all added models to be in coherency of the pre-existing models, I don't see it in the text. As long as when you finish adding models to the unit from your special rule that all models in the unit are in coherency, you are golden.

Oddly, this means it can be impossible to add models to a 5 model unit spread out to maximum coherency if you cannot add enough models to put all the models in the unit within the necessary distance of 2 other models.
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Its clear cut, simple stuff. It says roll seven d6s not roll a d6 seven times, however you wish it otherwise. Then you count the 3+s and grab that many poxwalkers. You are then adding models back to a unit: the BRB requires that models added back be in coherency with the unit.

If you only have one D6 you can still follow the rules by rolling seven times and tallying the results rather than actioning each result as it happens, much like what you would have to do for a charge or psychic test. Sorry that your counter argument fails.


Ok, lets say you roll 7 dice, and you get 7 models back. Are you really saying those models must be set up simultaneously ? Thats impossible.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Its clear cut, simple stuff. It says roll seven d6s not roll a d6 seven times, however you wish it otherwise. Then you count the 3+s and grab that many poxwalkers. You are then adding models back to a unit: the BRB requires that models added back be in coherency with the unit.

If you only have one D6 you can still follow the rules by rolling seven times and tallying the results rather than actioning each result as it happens, much like what you would have to do for a charge or psychic test. Sorry that your counter argument fails.

Yes, it is clear cut

I roll the first d6 of 7, as nothing says all seven must be rolled at the same time.
I then see if it is a 3 plus. If it is I place a model, as nothing states I wait to see how many 3 plus I roll before I start placing.
My unit is still the same unit it was before, as nothing - despite your claims otherwise - used the word "original" or "existing" or similar so this unit is still THE unit. Any model within the unit is an eligible "target" for the next model to be added in coherency of.

And I repeat for every model. As I place each poxwalker, as I can do this sequentially because again, NOTHING states simultaneous action, it is IMMEDIATELY part of the unit. It is immediately a model you can be in coherency of in the unit.

Sorry that your argument only works if you make up rules that don't exist.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





The way I see it, the rule works breaks down if you only measure coherency to and from models that are on the table before adding new models.
Take this example:
One model remains and you roll 7d6s and score 7 3+
Is coherency measured as you place the 7 models as if the unit is less than 5 models or more than 5 models? Using the interpretation that coherency must be meausred to a model on the table before placing new models then you have to place the models as if the unit has less than 5 models, so the end state of a unit of 8 models wouldn't need to be placed meeting the coherency requirements for a unit with more than 5 models.
Alternatively, you have one model and are adding 7, so you know you need to place them in cohenecy for a unit with more than 5 models, but this is impossible since each model must be within 2" of 2 other models, but there is only 1 original model. You can't place any of the new models.

Either way you end up breaking rules, the only way the rule can work is if each model added to the unit is considered part of the unit as it is placed, and coherency for subsequently placed models can be measured to any model in the unit, not just those that were on the table before new models were added.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





Given that there is clearly a discrepancy in the interpretation of this rule I have emailed the 40k rules team requesting that this be covered in a subsequent faq.

The reason why I think this is to be interpreted in the 1st interpretation of being free to string out as far as possible within coherency rules is 2 fold,

1. In 8th edition, when this specific ability was not a strat but a default unit ability it was faq'd to prohibit this and specified that had to be added in coherency of a pre-existing model only. However in 9th they appear to have taken steps to include and adopt those very specific wordings from 8th faq's into the core rules and this hasn't been done in this case. The rulebook rule does not specify either way leading us to guess whether once you place a model does it count as part of the unit or does it only count when all models are placed.

2. As previously stated by @Aash, coherency rules are different for the size of the unit. If you have a poxwalker unit that had been reduced to 5 and then you play DWA you are automatically moving into 2" of 2 models setup restriction because the unit will become greater than 5 models. What happens if you play it on a unit of 4 or less. If it is simultaneous placing models then you get to place all the models making the unit bigger than 5 but still in the coherency of the 5 or less ruleset which I think is definitely wrong and against RAW.

I really appreciate all responses but I really don't see any clear wording in the rules that states placement is simultaneous. I believe as soon as you place a model it becomes part of the unit therefore every subsequent model can be placed in coherency of the last placed model and this does not contravene the rulebook rule on setting up new models. (currently)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/22 08:21:47


 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

 p5freak wrote:

Ok, lets say you roll 7 dice, and you get 7 models back. Are you really saying those models must be set up simultaneously ? Thats impossible.


In the same way you setup your units originally... if you have big enough hands you can do it or just have the necessary amount of models available next to the unit and place them at your own pace. This element of the argument isn't really relevant as otherwise you cannot even deploy your army...

Nosferatu's point is not "clear cut" in the same way as the way I read it is not "clear cut" either, the sequencing break down by Nosferatu (i.e. resolve each and every of the seven D6 individually) is not written (despite his claim... sorry but no it is not written that you have to resolve them one by one, you just choose to interpret it as such). The stratagem tells to roll seven dices (D6) and for each 3+ a model can be brought back. It doesn't say roll a d6, if a 3+ is rolled, you can bring a model back, then roll a die again, repeat the action up to 7 time.

Stratagem;
"Use this startagem in your command phase. Select one Poxwalkers unit from your army and roll seven d6s: for each 3+, one of the units destroyed models is added back to it with 1 wound remaining. Models added back to that unit in this way can be set up within engagement range of enemy units that are already within engagement range of that unit. Each unit can only be selected for this stratagem once per battle."

If you decide to roll it one by one, it is fine, but the stratagem reads in the sequencing:
1. select a unit
2. roll 7 d6
3. for each 3+ you can bring back a model

If you have only one die, you should roll it 7 time and note how many 3+ you score before moving to the next step which would be bringing back model to the existing unit.

The contentious point is what is "existing unit"... which GW does not define it would have been helpful otherwise

But going back to that rule page 198... (sorry!) even if the existing unit is not defined, the models added are defined themselves (i.e. you know which 7 models you are adding) which means, you have to ensure that these new models are all in coherency with what is already on the table.

Now assuming you have a way to do this more than once in the same phase, let's say you have a new strat which allows to bring another batch of poxwalkers to the same unit, this would then assume that the models brought back to the unit just before are now part of the unit and you can chain up from there onward. So let's say you start with 5, add 7, all the 7 models needs to be in coherency with the 5s - if i bring another 7 (from a difference action) then it will need to be in coherency with the 12 models (and not the 5 from the beginning of the phase).
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Spoiler:
 the metil wrote:
 p5freak wrote:

Ok, lets say you roll 7 dice, and you get 7 models back. Are you really saying those models must be set up simultaneously ? Thats impossible.


In the same way you setup your units originally... if you have big enough hands you can do it or just have the necessary amount of models available next to the unit and place them at your own pace. This element of the argument isn't really relevant as otherwise you cannot even deploy your army...

Nosferatu's point is not "clear cut" in the same way as the way I read it is not "clear cut" either, the sequencing break down by Nosferatu (i.e. resolve each and every of the seven D6 individually) is not written (despite his claim... sorry but no it is not written that you have to resolve them one by one, you just choose to interpret it as such). The stratagem tells to roll seven dices (D6) and for each 3+ a model can be brought back. It doesn't say roll a d6, if a 3+ is rolled, you can bring a model back, then roll a die again, repeat the action up to 7 time.

Stratagem;
"Use this startagem in your command phase. Select one Poxwalkers unit from your army and roll seven d6s: for each 3+, one of the units destroyed models is added back to it with 1 wound remaining. Models added back to that unit in this way can be set up within engagement range of enemy units that are already within engagement range of that unit. Each unit can only be selected for this stratagem once per battle."

If you decide to roll it one by one, it is fine, but the stratagem reads in the sequencing:
1. select a unit
2. roll 7 d6
3. for each 3+ you can bring back a model

If you have only one die, you should roll it 7 time and note how many 3+ you score before moving to the next step which would be bringing back model to the existing unit.

The contentious point is what is "existing unit"... which GW does not define it would have been helpful otherwise

But going back to that rule page 198... (sorry!) even if the existing unit is not defined, the models added are defined themselves (i.e. you know which 7 models you are adding) which means, you have to ensure that these new models are all in coherency with what is already on the table.

Now assuming you have a way to do this more than once in the same phase, let's say you have a new strat which allows to bring another batch of poxwalkers to the same unit, this would then assume that the models brought back to the unit just before are now part of the unit and you can chain up from there onward. So let's say you start with 5, add 7, all the 7 models needs to be in coherency with the 5s - if i bring another 7 (from a difference action) then it will need to be in coherency with the 12 models (and not the 5 from the beginning of the phase).


So how do you ensure 7 new models are in coherency with what was already on the table if what was already on the table is only one model. Coherency rules for 6+ models says you have to be in coherency of 2 models, but there was only one on the table?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/22 08:08:49


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




1) I see nothing stating it is not immediately part of the unit once placed. Claiming you place X and only then, al, at once creates a number of issues.

And as pointed out, requiring to be placed on coherency of a model already on the table eas part of 8th and has been deliberately removed from9th

As above. There are no rules requiring simultaneity, and the word "existing" which was being used by many simply does not exist.

I've shown RAW how sequential placement is allowed and permitted. You have not show it is not permitted.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) I see nothing stating it is not immediately part of the unit once placed. Claiming you place X and only then, al, at once creates a number of issues.

And as pointed out, requiring to be placed on coherency of a model already on the table eas part of 8th and has been deliberately removed from9th

As above. There are no rules requiring simultaneity, and the word "existing" which was being used by many simply does not exist.

I've shown RAW how sequential placement is allowed and permitted. You have not show it is not permitted.


I agree with your first point - the rule is not clear on either sequencing.

But for the coherency - you're just ignoring page 198 which is actually pretty clear about... you're just ignoring it. Up to you to ignore a core rule... You shown a RAI sequencing of a stratagem, not really RAW. Where does it say that you have to resolve it one-by-one? Nowhere, as nowhere is says you should resolve it in one go. Although there is more history that the latter was implied, but it becomes RAI at that moment.

@Aash it become tricky but yes definitely a scenario where you might not be able to do so... if they're on 25mm base you can double rank, on 32mm it is harder to have all 7 models within 2" of the lonely first one!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/22 08:30:00


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 the metil wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) I see nothing stating it is not immediately part of the unit once placed. Claiming you place X and only then, al, at once creates a number of issues.

And as pointed out, requiring to be placed on coherency of a model already on the table eas part of 8th and has been deliberately removed from9th

As above. There are no rules requiring simultaneity, and the word "existing" which was being used by many simply does not exist.

I've shown RAW how sequential placement is allowed and permitted. You have not show it is not permitted.


I agree with your first point - the rule is not clear on either sequencing.

But for the coherency - you're just ignoring page 198 which is actually pretty clear about... you're just ignoring it. Up to you to ignore a core rule... You shown a RAI sequencing of a stratagem, not really RAW. Where does it say that you have to resolve it one-by-one? Nowhere, as nowhere is says you should resolve it in one go. Although there is more history that the latter was implied, but it becomes RAI at that moment.

@Aash it become tricky but yes definitely a scenario where you might not be able to do so... if they're on 25mm base you can double rank, on 32mm it is harder to have all 7 models within 2" of the lonely first one!


The problem isn’t that all 7 models need to be within 2” of the one pre-existing model, it’s that for a unit of 6+ models ( and this unit is 8 models, 1 original and 7 new) then the coherency rules require models are within 2” of TWO other models, and this is not possible if you only have to measure coherency to pre-exiting models (there is only one pre-existing model).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/22 08:35:57


 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

Aash wrote:

The problem isn’t that all 7 models need to be within 2” of the one pre-existing model, it’s that for a unit of 6+ models ( and this unit is 8 models, 1 original and 7 new) then the coherency rules require models are within 2” of TWO other models, and this is not possible if you only have to measure coherency to pre-exiting models (there is only one pre-existing model).


True! It's not like this needed already some clarification!
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander




I could have sworn that GW came out in a Dev commentary and stated explicitly that Chaining units around was NOT intended gameplay, and they will be blocking it's practice.....am I making this up or did it actually happen?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could have sworn that GW came out in a Dev commentary and stated explicitly that Chaining units around was NOT intended gameplay, and they will be blocking it's practice.....am I making this up or did it actually happen?


It did happen. It's why the coherency rules were changed for units of 6+ models. That's how GW blocked the practice. It's not really pertinent to this discussion though.

I'd say the core rulebook rules are ambiguous enough for either interpretation to be correct. I'd lean towards the one allowing models to be placed in coherency with other models already placed that phase though due to the lack of specificity otherwise. The RP rules do suggest a different interpretation but since GW can't write rules properly it's difficult to even figure out what RAI could be here.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could have sworn that GW came out in a Dev commentary and stated explicitly that Chaining units around was NOT intended gameplay, and they will be blocking it's practice.....am I making this up or did it actually happen?


You are not making this up. It did happen but in 8th edition. I haven't seen anything to suggest that in 9th.
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 nurgle86 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could have sworn that GW came out in a Dev commentary and stated explicitly that Chaining units around was NOT intended gameplay, and they will be blocking it's practice.....am I making this up or did it actually happen?


You are not making this up. It did happen but in 8th edition. I haven't seen anything to suggest that in 9th.


From Faction Focus: Genestealer Cults on Warhammer Community:

No more will long convoluted chains of Imperial Guard squads or Gretchin mobs cover the entirety of a player’s backfield. These rules mean that squads operate more like coherent formations in the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/22 13:10:28


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander




So in this case, RAI is valid?
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Ghaz wrote:
 nurgle86 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could have sworn that GW came out in a Dev commentary and stated explicitly that Chaining units around was NOT intended gameplay, and they will be blocking it's practice.....am I making this up or did it actually happen?


You are not making this up. It did happen but in 8th edition. I haven't seen anything to suggest that in 9th.


From Faction Focus: Genestealer Cults on Warhammer Community:

No more will long convoluted chains of Imperial Guard squads or Gretchin mobs cover the entirety of a player’s backfield. These rules mean that squads operate more like coherent formations in the game.


This refers to the 9th Ed coherency rules and the change from previous editions regarding units of 6 or more models in conjunction with the morale phase removal of models out of coherency. There is no suggestion that forming a chain of models by following the 9th edition rules is against the rules (eg by forming a chain of 2 ranks). Of course then you run a risk of breaking coherency if you remove a single model as a casualty. But to say that following the coherency rules when adding models to a unit with this strat or similar is disingenuous.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/22 14:29:36


 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

Yeah so the chaining up is not the issue here as you could legitimately do it in the move phase by just respecting the coherency rule. It is harder to do than in 8th and more risky but that's it.

It is the bringing back model and can it bypass the core rule I've quoted that is the question here. Some will argue that the DWA stratagem can be sequenced one roll at a time and thus each model brought back is an individual sequence, and others see it as rolling the dices first, then bringing the models back as 2 separate sequences. The later will mean that even if you bring 10 models, all 10 will need to be placed in coherency with the unit that they are being added to (even if you place them one-by-one).

The former interpretation allows to consider each models added back as an individual sequence which means the model M-1 is added to the unit and the model M can now consider it as part of the unit it is added to.

Necrons have a wording that allows that as it is clearly written that each model is a unique sequence, whilst DWA is not clearly written as such, which in my view means it cannot do it like that (appreciate this is my view and my reading, but nothing is shown as the resolution of the stratagem can be broken down in the sequence needed to allow the stringing up).
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




Aash wrote:
The way I see it, the rule works breaks down if you only measure coherency to and from models that are on the table before adding new models.
Take this example:
One model remains and you roll 7d6s and score 7 3+
Is coherency measured as you place the 7 models as if the unit is less than 5 models or more than 5 models? Using the interpretation that coherency must be meausred to a model on the table before placing new models then you have to place the models as if the unit has less than 5 models, so the end state of a unit of 8 models wouldn't need to be placed meeting the coherency requirements for a unit with more than 5 models.
Alternatively, you have one model and are adding 7, so you know you need to place them in cohenecy for a unit with more than 5 models, but this is impossible since each model must be within 2" of 2 other models, but there is only 1 original model. You can't place any of the new models.

Either way you end up breaking rules, the only way the rule can work is if each model added to the unit is considered part of the unit as it is placed, and coherency for subsequently placed models can be measured to any model in the unit, not just those that were on the table before new models were added.


The original unit is one model, so coherency is within 2" of one model. After the seven are set up, it's a unit of 8, but the stratagem doesn't ask you if they're in coherency after set up, only that placed models are coherent with the original unit (and the original unit size is 1) At the end of the morale phase, coherency is checked again, and all models will need to be within 2" of another two models.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Its clear cut, simple stuff. It says roll seven d6s not roll a d6 seven times, however you wish it otherwise. Then you count the 3+s and grab that many poxwalkers. You are then adding models back to a unit: the BRB requires that models added back be in coherency with the unit.

If you only have one D6 you can still follow the rules by rolling seven times and tallying the results rather than actioning each result as it happens, much like what you would have to do for a charge or psychic test. Sorry that your counter argument fails.


Ok, lets say you roll 7 dice, and you get 7 models back. Are you really saying those models must be set up simultaneously ? Thats impossible.


As simultaneously as any deployment that ever takes place and that you have done countless times since whatever edition you started playing in. Nothing makes you have every model touch the table at the same instance in time, the BRB does require you to add the models back to the original unit.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/22 16:48:19


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Aash wrote:
The way I see it, the rule works breaks down if you only measure coherency to and from models that are on the table before adding new models.
Take this example:
One model remains and you roll 7d6s and score 7 3+
Is coherency measured as you place the 7 models as if the unit is less than 5 models or more than 5 models? Using the interpretation that coherency must be meausred to a model on the table before placing new models then you have to place the models as if the unit has less than 5 models, so the end state of a unit of 8 models wouldn't need to be placed meeting the coherency requirements for a unit with more than 5 models.
Alternatively, you have one model and are adding 7, so you know you need to place them in cohenecy for a unit with more than 5 models, but this is impossible since each model must be within 2" of 2 other models, but there is only 1 original model. You can't place any of the new models.

Either way you end up breaking rules, the only way the rule can work is if each model added to the unit is considered part of the unit as it is placed, and coherency for subsequently placed models can be measured to any model in the unit, not just those that were on the table before new models were added.


The original unit is one model, so coherency is within 2" of one model. After the seven are set up, it's a unit of 8, but the stratagem doesn't ask you if they're in coherency after set up, only that placed models are coherent with the original unit (and the original unit size is 1) At the end of the morale phase, coherency is checked again, and all models will need to be within 2" of another two models.


From the core rules:
A unit that has more than one model must be set up and finish any sort of move as a single group
emphasis mine

The coherency rules only apply when a unit contains more than one model, so it is impossible to only consider the unit as the pre-existing model and follow coherency rules. The newly added models need to be part of the unit in order for the coherency rules to apply at all. In addition the unit is treated as “a single group” for coherency, not two groups of “pre-existing models” and “additional models”.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/22 17:33:59


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




PoorGravitasHandling wrote:


As simultaneously as any deployment that ever takes place and that you have done countless times since whatever edition you started playing in. Nothing makes you have every model touch the table at the same instance in time, the BRB does require you to add the models back to the original unit.

I've bolded the word that does not exist in the actual rules, yet keeps getting added in

Immediately on placing the added model in coherency it is a member of the unit. No other interpretation of the actual rules exists.

   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




The rule for adding on 198 are requiring coherency, even if the unit of a single model doesn't require it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
PoorGravitasHandling wrote:


As simultaneously as any deployment that ever takes place and that you have done countless times since whatever edition you started playing in. Nothing makes you have every model touch the table at the same instance in time, the BRB does require you to add the models back to the original unit.

I've bolded the word that does not exist in the actual rules, yet keeps getting added in

Immediately on placing the added model in coherency it is a member of the unit. No other interpretation of the actual rules exists.



The models you are adding are not a part of the unit until they have been added. 198 says you add models (plural, inclusive, please stop ignoring this word and pretending it isn't there) i to coherency with the unit.

If you add a model at a time, you are not adding models that are to be added. You are adding a portion of them, which is not what that rule says to do.

If you have only one model to add from the DWA rolls, then you are adding the models to be added.

Please stop ignoring that 198 calls for "models to be added" and not "models to be added in the order and sequencing that most benefits you as a player".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/22 17:46:40


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
The rule for adding on 198 are requiring coherency, even if the unit of a single model doesn't require it.


The requirement to follow the coherency rules (which apply to units containing more than one model) when adding models demonstrates that the new models are considered part of the unit they are joining and that coherency can be measured to and from them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/22 17:59:04


 
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




Aash wrote:
PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
The rule for adding on 198 are requiring coherency, even if the unit of a single model doesn't require it.


The requirement to follow the coherency rules (which apply to units containing more than one model) when adding models demonstrates that the new models are considered part of the unit they are joining and that coherency can be measured to and from them.


No, it demonstrates that the rule demands they be in coherency.

How can a model(s) be a part of a unit when they aren’t yet added to that unit? They are added to the unit after being placed into coherency.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/23 01:18:50


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Aash wrote:
PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
The rule for adding on 198 are requiring coherency, even if the unit of a single model doesn't require it.


The requirement to follow the coherency rules (which apply to units containing more than one model) when adding models demonstrates that the new models are considered part of the unit they are joining and that coherency can be measured to and from them.


No, it demonstrates that the rule demands they be in coherency.

How can a model(s) be a part of a unit when they aren’t yet added to that unit? They are added to the unit after being placed into coherency.


None of what you've written prevents placing a group of models on the table that will be in coherency by a chain away from a single model.

"This model is in coherency because those other two models are in coherency with the existing model."

Edit: Because especially consider the case of having a unit of five models on the table. You're going to add one model. Does that new model have to be within 2" of one model or two models?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/23 02:12:41


 
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




Page 189 requires that you add models to the unit. Models that you add aren't part of the unit until you add them, which means you aren't "adding models to the unit" like pg 189 tells you to, you've added some of the models, which there is no permission to do.

For coherency, the unit you are adding a model to is a unit of 5, so you would check to see if one model is in coherency. In the morale phase, you would then check to make sure it was in range of 2 models as at that point it would be a unit of 6.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Page 189 requires that you add models to the unit. Models that you add aren't part of the unit until you add them, which means you aren't "adding models to the unit" like pg 189 tells you to, you've added some of the models, which there is no permission to do.

For coherency, the unit you are adding a model to is a unit of 5, so you would check to see if one model is in coherency. In the morale phase, you would then check to make sure it was in range of 2 models as at that point it would be a unit of 6.


You're claiming that you don't have to add a model in coherency when the rules say that add the model in coherency of the unit. That's what you're claiming by saying that it's possible to "add a model in coherency with the existing models" and then discover that the new model isn't in coherency in the final unit.

You're adding a model to five models, which is going to require following the rules for six models when you add the model. The six model unit has to be in coherency.

If you add five models to a five model unit, it's going to be the same principle--the ten model unit has to be in coherency.

So why are you trying to do something you don't have permission to do?
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 solkan wrote:
You're adding a model to five models, which is going to require following the rules for six models when you add the model. The six model unit has to be in coherency.

If you add five models to a five model unit, it's going to be the same principle--the ten model unit has to be in coherency.
I concur. Nothing I see in the rules requires anything other then when you are done adding models to the unit that the whole unit needs to be in coherency and not with Engagement range of enemy models (specific special rules excepted). There is no check as you add each individual model. There is no the starting unit has 5 or less models so I only need to be in coherency of 1 other model no matter how many models I add. The end unit must be in coherency or you cannot add models that way. If you cannot add models without being in coherency that any models that can't meet the rule cannot be added at all.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




London

Quoting (again) the exact Wording of page 198:

"Some rules allow you to add models to a unit during the battle; such models must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to."


By adding one or X (being more than 1) models, you must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are added to. This means (without any lose interpretation) that when you have an existing unit of 7 models and you add 5 to them via the usage of one stratagem (so one sequence), all 5 needs to be in coherency with the 7 starting model.

If you are adding to the same unit, 5 time one model (necron reanimation for example) every time you add a model, you consider the prior model to be part of the existing unit.

Yes with DWA you are more than likely to deploy your models one at a time (some argues you can do more if you have your 10 fingers and big enough hands), but it is one action in the same way as when you deploy a unit or move a unit: you can move then one at a time but needs to follow some rules (such as coherency etc.).

When adding models to an existing unit, you cannot consider the models you are currently adding part of the unit, because they were not there when you started to add models back to the unit.

Edit @Aash/others in regards of what happens if you cannot place all the models in coherency with the unit they are added to... just a bit later in that same page, same paragraph we have a clear answer:
"Sometimes there will be insufficient room to set p all the models from a unit, or it will not be possible to set up all the models so that they are in unit coherency. When this is the case, any models that cannot be setup are considered to have been destroyed."

So... if you have 1 model left and add more than 4 models and cannot have the new models within 2" of 2 or more models from the unit they are added to, you then have the extra models destroyed up to be of a size of 5 man unit.
If you try to string up your models, and the models at the end of the chain are not in coherency, then they are destroyed...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/23 09:00:28


 
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander




If you do this, just out of curiosity, what is the intended purpose? If you did indeed find a way around a specific rule, how would you even begin to find an advantage with this? Any models out of coherency at the end of the turn at out right destroyed, so you couldn't even use it to snag multiple objectives, right?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: