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.

I'm going to excise a good bit of this to avoid a giant wall of text...

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

This is frankly quite frustrating. We can go in a circle with this one point. Seeing as the rules are permissive, what rule are you referring to that forces you to place the base in coherency? You're argument basically boils down to, "Even though it doesn't say I have too, I should."

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

No, there are three Phases in a Turn that constitutes 'general play'. Movement, Shooting, Assault. Coherency only applies to Movement. Period full stop. I rarely measure my units as I deploy them. I simply eyeball the distance. When I Move said unit I always check to be sure that I'm in Coherency because the rules REQUIRE me to be. It is entirely possible that at some point I've deployed a unit that was not in coherency.

And that's an interesting observation about how closed minded you assume most people to be. Thankfully I don't play against the Amish so I'm pretty sure I won't end up as an outcast (i.e., Shunned)

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

Oof, models in a unit must move to be in Coherency. They do not have to remain in Coherency. It really is high time you accept that. Once you can accept that a unit can be purposefully made to be out of coherency, you're a step closer to understanding that models can be deployed out of coherency. You're 'common practice' isn't worth the paper it's written on.

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

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

Asked and answered. You'd likely lose that bet. I'm curious how you can hold two contradictory notions in your head at the same time and believe each to be equally true. Namely that you think I haven't provided a rule definition of "...add one base to..." while freely admitting no such definition exists. Yet it is the lack of such a definition that allows you create a new game mechanic to deal with increasing a unit's model count.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm, I don't think I was too successful in reducing the wall 'o' text

Not too successful in doing anything to prove your points either.

I weep for the hobby...

mikhaila wrote:Not too successful in doing anything to prove your points either.

This is how you choose to contribute? Ignore.

-Yad

Config2 wrote:

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

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

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

So since there is no rule in my Eldar codex (or the BGB for that matter) that does not say I can't take a nuclear warhead that has a blast the size of the table, only hits my enemies, and is a Str D, AP 1 blast, I can use it. Sweet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld, if you want to use it as well you can. No rules says you can't.

Yad - wrong, actually, coherency applies in every phase. Check your rulebook FAQ on being out of coherency in the Shooting phase, for example, or still being out of coherency in the Assault phase. So, that would be every single phase of the game then

Find a rule saying "add to" means "add to anywhere on the table", despite every rule MIDGAME (seen that Devian? I've specified that many times now, you keep missing it and bringing up list building, as if it matters a damn) in any codex ANYWHERE only letting you place in coherency.

Deployment is not adding to a unit, so is irrelevant. List building isnt midgame, so is still irrelevant. Find a rule, anywhere, in any book, where adding to / joining with / with a unit midgame is allowed to be out of coherency.

GIven no such occasion ever occurs, by definition the claim you can do so is extraordinary and requires permission. Permission is lacking, so guess what - its not happening.

Happyjew wrote:rigeld, if you want to use it as well you can. No rules says you can't.

Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

This has become quite amusing.

People denying that coherency point to there being no definition of, "adding to" in the BRB, then ignore there own argument when trying place the base. You can't have it both ways.

Either you have to accept the context of "adding to" a unit as following all the rules for units including coherency or you do absolutely nothing because as you continue to argue, "add to" is not defined in the BRB.

rigeld2 wrote:
Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

I think Bob, the lowly Guardsman has that special ability. Either that it's seized on a 3+

Gotta love when people argue the rules without actually knowing a lick of them themselves. Where is Gwar when you need him to just talk down the misinformed to the point where they can only stare at their screen in gaunting uncertainty?

Kurgash wrote:Gotta love when people argue the rules without actually knowing a lick of them themselves. Where is Gwar when you need him to just talk down the misinformed to the point where they can only stare at their screen in gaunting uncertainty?

He is probably staring at his screen in login fail.

Ah he was banned? Well that explains things being...still remotely chaotic on YMDC.

Kurgash wrote:Ah he was banned? Well that explains things being...still remotely chaotic on YMDC.

Gwar got banned so hard, he woke up playing Squats in Rogue Trader!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was for his rather abrasive methods of talking to the folks here on YMDC?

Happyjew wrote: rigeld, if you want to use it as well you can. No rules says you can't.

Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

Actually, there is a rule that says you can't do this. You can only take units in your codex in a list. In your example case there is a rule that says that if there isn't an option to take something, you can't. For the purpose of the real topic in the tread, there is no rule saying that >if there is no rule that says you can do this then you cannot< so you can because the rule of the >game< is that you can do something as long as the rules say you can't.

So... you are wrong.

Also...

No, I can be fun to play against. Just not when I am mad at you.

Config2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote: rigeld, if you want to use it as well you can. No rules says you can't.

Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

Actually, there is a rule that says you can't do this. You can only take units in your codex in a list. In your example case there is a rule that says that if there isn't an option to take something, you can't. For the purpose of the real topic in the tread, there is no rule saying that >if there is no rule that says you can do this then you cannot< so you can because the rule of the >game< is that you can do something as long as the rules say you can't.

So... you are wrong.

Also...

No, I can be fun to play against. Just not when I am mad at you.

The concept of sarcasm was lost on you here I take it.

No it was not. But it seems to not have been followed by you.

The first statement:

So since there is no rule in my Eldar codex (or the BGB for that matter) that does not say I can't take a nuclear warhead that has a blast the size of the table, only hits my enemies, and is a Str D, AP 1 blast, I can use it. Sweet.

was sarcastic. It was that was to refute my point.

The second statement:

Awesome, thanks. Ard Boys finals here I come! Gotta remember to take someone that can seize on a 4+ tho.

was also sarcastic, but was really just a repeat of the first statement.

So yes, they were using sarcasm to refute the point I made. SO... without resorting to sarcasm, I offered my rebuttal.

See another good example is the fact that I ignored the sarcasm in your statement, because I don't need to consider it as it is only used to taunt me.


So... you are wrong.

Find a rule saying "add to" means "add to anywhere on the table", despite every rule MIDGAME (seen that Devian? I've specified that many times now, you keep missing it and bringing up list building, as if it matters a damn) in any codex ANYWHERE only letting you place in coherency

Nos, Nos, Nos... why must you apply 'add to' in the same conotation as 'place.' Adding a model to a unit is a simple thing, done lots of times. Saying that 'add to' changes defination "midgame" undermines your argument, as we both agree that 'add to' has no rule defination. The simple fact that the rulebook even USES 'add to' in areas other than MIDGAME as you put it, means that your conception of 'add to' is not completely accurate.

Perhaps you should divorce 'add to' from model placement for this discussion. The scarab entry first says you 'add to' the scarabs, exceeding the units maximum size. THEN we have a brief snip about placement. Now we have rules for placement, do we not? Namely, models may not be placed on impassable terrain or within 1 inch of the enemy.

Thus, I am not trying to say 'add to' by itself means 'anywhere on the table' I am trying to say all 'add to' does is change the number of bases in the unit... which is all 'add to' ever does. PLACEMENT of said added base, however, has rules which dictate where the models can be placed. Just like DEPLOYMENT has rules where models can be deployed on the table. Both PLACEMENT and DEPLOYMENT, as rules that do not use movement, are likewise not subject to coherency rules brought with movement.

You also bring up an interesting point with coherency out of the movement phase--namely if you are found out of coherency, you must run in the shooting phase and potentially assault in the assault phase to recover coherency. The thing you missed, however, is that you CHECK coherency during that units move, and if you are still not in coherency at the end of the movement phase you sacrifice your shooting phase.

Example. A squad moves, and is legally placed. In that squads shooting phase, before they act, a friendly unit scatters a blast and kills a unit. The unit is now out of coherency. However, that unit does not have to run, because it was in coherency in its movement phase. Now, I dont have the faq handy, so if I misremembered it please let me know.

Also Nos, riddle me this. Using the scarab rules about placement, because the Necron Codex does talk about it, assume the scarabs are completely boxed in, and no base could be placed 'in coherency' as you would like it to be. Can a scarab base still be legally put down? Because it says 'If the base can not be placed,' and with the rules for placing models in the rulebook, we know this means not on impassable or within 1 inch of the enemy. The necron codex does not say 'If the base can not be placed in coherency with the scarab unit.'

Interestingly throughout that wall of text you were not able to cite any way to, "add to" a unit. Guess no created Scarab Swarms being "added to" for you.

Thats because they (as in GW) did a bad job writing the codex. They should have said "place in coherency" but they said "add in" (no established rule: basically a Good Luck Players! from GW)

So again, your TO will not let you do this most likely, but in casual games, Go right ahead.

Interestingly throughout that wall of text you were not able to cite any way to, "add to" a unit. Guess no created Scarab Swarms being "added to" for you.

Actually, I have many times before.

Ramses, I will do it again for you. How many bases do you have? Now, take that number, and... ADD 1 TO IT. Or do you need a rule saying you can add models to squads all of a sudden? Cause apparently you are telling a lot of people they dont know how to add?

And as I pointed out, if you are going to arbitrarily say that, "adding to" is not defined in the BRB and therefore is not bound by the coherency rules then also have to say that, "adding to" is not defined in the BRB and therefore you have no permission to, ".....ADD 1 to it".

You can't exclude it from being bound to the coherency rules by lack of being in the BRB amd then champion it as a defined action when it isn't in the BRB.

DevianID wrote:Ramses, I will do it again for you. How many bases do you have? Now, take that number, and... ADD 1 TO IT. Or do you need a rule saying you can add models to squads all of a sudden? Cause apparently you are telling a lot of people they dont know how to add?

Actually, I have models on bases, not just bases - bases would be proxying. Is this rule forcing me to proxy? Most tournaments don't allow proxying, so does that mean this ability can't be used in tournaments?

then also have to say that, "adding to" is not defined in the BRB and therefore you have no permission to, ".....ADD 1 to it".

You right, you would need something, in a codex perhaps, maybe a special rule or a unit entry, that lets you add to a unit.

This will probably be FAQ'd to work just like placing Necron Warriors who reenter play via a successful Reanimation Protocols roll (i.e. they need to be placed in coherency with a base that existed at the beginning of the turn) and that is how we have been playing it.

Yad wrote:I'm going to excise a good bit of this to avoid a giant wall of text...

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

This is frankly quite frustrating. We can go in a circle with this one point. Seeing as the rules are permissive, what rule are you referring to that forces you to place the base in coherency? You're argument basically boils down to, "Even though it doesn't say I have too, I should."

As I pointed out in my previous post, there is a general perception a unit must always stay in unit coherency. Yes, this is derived from the rules defined in the Movement phase, but other rulings, including the FAQs, support this perception applies to other phases of the game. I used the idea of deployment as an example of how this general perception applies to all aspects of the game, not just Movement.

What you're saying is since the rule doesn't state the model has be placed in unit coherence it can be place anywhere on the board. Mind you, the rule also doesn't state the model CAN be placed anywhere on the board. Now, general perception dictates the model is placed in coherency with the unit. Yes, I know it's not a rule but, per my previous post, it's a well established perception. Models are deployed in coherency, models move in coherency, models run in coherency, models assault in coherency, models fall back in coherency. Yes, there are times the unit is not in coherency, when models are removed from the table. Given all the precedence surrounding this general perception, it's easy to see how the created Scarab model must be placed in coherency with the unit.

What precedence is there for adding a model to a unit such the added model is not in unit coherency? Is there a general perception permitting this? A common method of play? A BRB example? Codex support? FAQ? A WD battle report? Ever? Beyond this thread (and those derived from this thread), I've never seen it suggested.

When you go against general perception you need to have substantial proof or at least a well accepted precedence to justify the deviation. You haven't provided it. There is no rule permitting you to place a model just anywhere on the table.

Well written Great Avatar. I agree with your point. GW most definitively sees units as a formation of models, and the only time they expect an occurrence of being OOF is from taking casualties. This is the best use of RAI i have seen and is well applied.
I wiill however point out that YAD is by RAW correct. It is a dickish move to abuse this oversite by GW, but legal. That being said, there are a lot of things I could point out that is bad RAW.

The reason I'm posting is I have an interesting hypothetical to raise, brought on by this mess. Lets say I have a largish unit of scarabs spread out really wide. They take some damage and loose all but 2 models, choosing to leave the 2 on the farthest end from each other. They are out of coherency, but that's legal. Now, a Tomb spider 'adds' one scarab. No matter where I place it, it will be out of coherency from part of the unit. Can I add a scarab out of coherency?

I would say it needs to be in coherency with 1 of the 2 remaining scarabs.

Im bored. Saw this thread was still going on. Thought id chime in again. Adding a model is permitted as its a action in the special rules of a codex that takes precedence over those in brb. Also in no definition of add in any language/context (coz i know how much you love context) defines there is a minimum distance for two(or more) objects to be compiled to form a sum sum of total objects. And to stop someone saying but it doesn't say how to place it... It does. It tells you in the spyders rules to place the base

Wrong, specific overrides general is how the rules work. Try again

Config - actually the rules of the game are permissive and not restrictive as you claimed, so your entire argument is null. Otherwise I win on a 2+ on 2D6, because no rule says I dont.