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 not sure what the current arguement is as I dont want to backtrack and read everyones comments. To OP : Each unit of Spyders creates the scarabs at the same time, being the movement phase, but because you switch to different squads of spyders for creating scarabs, this happens: Squad 1 adds their scarbs in unit coherency, then squad 2 adds their scarabs, also able to use the now created scarabs from squad 1 and squad 3 is able to add theirs to the scarbs created by 1 and 2. This creates a +2" addition of movement with coherency per squad of spyders, not 6" per squad.

When the faq comes out, I wouldnt be surprised if they are considered all created at once, and forcing the created scarabs to use the scarabs in the squad from the previous turn only. Until then, the +6" coheerency rule will stay.

I'm not sure what the last poster said as I don't want to backtrack and read their comments. To last poster: I feel like what you had to say was an uninformed opinion.

I like jaytester's example. It occurs to me that if you were of the belief that you couldn't add bases to a unit of scarabs that would end up being out of coherency with the unit, you would also logically have to conclude that you could not add bases to a unit that had suffered casualties as jaytester described. Is there anyone who can make an argument against said thought experiment? Otherwise, it seems to me that either side will now have "extraordinary" situations that arise from their argumentation.

cluggy89 wrote: It tells you in the spyders rules to place the base

But... a base isn't the same thing as a model of a scarab swarm. Placing a base is a proxy, and proxies aren't allowed in tournaments.

I like how asinine you can take a rule to show how asinine people are being.......hahahahaha!

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
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.

Once again I disagree (no surprise there). There are very specific rules concerning when a unit must remain in coherency. Any 'general perception' you allude to is yours and yours alone (i.e., esoteric in nature, not supported by actual rules). You have created this perception to fill in a gap in the rules that was brought to light by the Scarab Hive rule.

TheGreatAvatar wrote: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.

If the rules don't state you are required to place the model in coherency with the nominated unit, but it does state that you place the model. Where does that leave you? Anywhere on the board. Perception is relative to the observer.

1.) Models have to be deployed in coherency. False It's generally a good idea to do so as you would be forced to move in the subsequent phases, but it's not necessary to do so. I can't stress this enough...it is NOT a necessary condition for deployment to place your unit in coherency.

2.) Models Move in Coherency. True Because they are required to by the rules.

3.) Models assault in Coherency Partially True As I understand it, it may be possible during the course of an assault (I'm thinking multi-assault) that a unit may be 'pulled' apart to fight. I would think that the consolidation move and subsequent Movement would force the unit to get back into coherency.

4.) Models fall back in coherency. [b]Pretty sure that's True too[b]

You understand that you are not referencing a 'perception' in any of these statements, right? These all trace back to actual rules. You are using these statements to create a game mechanic (i.e., rule) to define how you believe 'add to' works. If I've got it right you are in essence saying that, due to the very specific rules regarding the Movement of models within a unit, you must, when increasing the size of a unit, do so in coherency. Even though this has nothing to do with the actual Coherency rules. Even though the coherency rules allow for units to be out of coherency for multiple phases/turns.

TheGreatAvatar wrote: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.

The rules for Deployment is all the precedence you need.

TheGreatAvatar wrote: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.

We've all been making the same assumptions about how we deploy a unit. Those assumptions though are not grounded in actual rules. We deploy our units in coherency because we know that when the Movement phase begins we will need to end our Move in coherency. That does not mean we are forced to deploy the unit in coherency in the first place. As you so astutely observed, it creates the perception we must but that does not equate to an actual rule.

-Yad

Another wall of text that you fail to show another one of your assumptions, deploying out of coherency, is allowed.

You champion that the rules for deploying/adding to does not include RAW that requires coherency. Yet neither do they include RAW that ALLOWS you to deploy/add to out of coherency.

Do you see where that approach of the rules is wrong?

The rules for removing a model as a casualty does not include RAW that your opponent then gets to smash your model with a hammer. Yet neither does it NOT allow your opponent to smash your models that are removed as casualties.

As has been proven countless times in this forum,

"The rules don't say I can't, so I can!"

Is not a valid argument.

As it stands the argument is as follows;

When deploying units you.....

A. You are required to deploy them in coherency (that has no RAW support)
B. You are allowed to deploy them out of coherency (that has no RAW support)

You place option B as having more pull then option A, and can give no reason other then no RAW support which works exactly against your stance just as effectively.

Brother Ramses wrote:Another wall of text that you fail to show another one of your assumptions, deploying out of coherency, is allowed.

You champion that the rules for deploying/adding to does not include RAW that requires coherency. Yet neither do they include RAW that ALLOWS you to deploy/add to out of coherency.

Do you see where that approach of the rules is wrong?

The rules for removing a model as a casualty does not include RAW that your opponent then gets to smash your model with a hammer. Yet neither does it NOT allow your opponent to smash your models that are removed as casualties.

As has been proven countless times in this forum,

"The rules don't say I can't, so I can!"

Is not a valid argument.

This is nonsense. Your failure to understand leads you to the conclusion that this is the argument I'm making. I've been completely consistent in my assertions that it is the Scarab Hive rule itself, and now since the discussion has turned to Deployment, which allows you to do this.

Brother Ramses wrote:As it stands the argument is as follows;

When deploying units you.....

A. You are required to deploy them in coherency (that has no RAW support)
B. You are allowed to deploy them out of coherency (that has no RAW support)

You place option B as having more pull then option A, and can give no reason other then no RAW support which works exactly against your stance just as effectively.

You are accusing me of putting forth a viewpoint which you yourself are guilty of holding.

A. You are required to deploy them in coherency (that has no RAW support)
B. You are allowed to deploy them out of coherency (that has no RAW support)

You place option A as having more pull then option B, and can give no reason other then no RAW support which works exactly against your stance just as effectively

There is a third option:

C.) Both option A and B are equally valid. As neither breaks the rules for Deployment. Indeed the rules for Deployment support each scenario.

I believe that this is a mistake on GW's part to not include language forcing you to deploy in coherency. The same for the Scarab Hive rule.

-Yad

Actually, I am not guilty of it because I am not basing it on RAW at all but the context given for units in general with regard to coherency. Not that I place context over RAW, but I will over just arbitrarily creating an allowance for deploying/adding to out of coherency which you have been arguing.

Nos did you read your last post? specific beats general. The codex SPECIFICALLY tells you to add a base. And the whole base/proxy rubbish pg3 brb BASES (describing the term bases)
citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game... Hmmm pretty sure this settles that part

cluggy89 wrote:Nos did you read your last post? specific beats general. The codex SPECIFICALLY tells you to add a base. And the whole base/proxy rubbish pg3 brb BASES (describing the term bases)
citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game... Hmmm pretty sure this settles that part

... Not at all. That specifies that you must use a base supplied with the model you're using. It does not say that a base refers to a model.

Also the rules tell you how you can win games so the whole i win if i roll a six thing doesn't work... Unless your playing with custom rules of course


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rule i quoted says that the model has to be glued onto the base already so it kinda does

cluggy89 wrote:Also the rules tell you how you can win games so the whole i win if i roll a six thing doesn't work... Unless your playing with custom rules of course


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rule i quoted says that the model has to be glued onto the base already so it kinda does

Custom rules? You mean deployoying or adding to a unit out of coherency? Nice to see you finally come around.

If you say you have to deploy in coherency or add a base in coherency when none of the rules tell you it is required that is YOU customising the rules. You want me to spell it out for you, ok, the requirements for aadding a base to the unit are clearly defined in the spyders rules. You saying oh but they have to be in coherency is ridiculous. So what if some people think its broken or unfair it is the rules. Its not like gw ever mess up and make something way too powerful now is it?

WOW. More people making up their own rules.

1. I don't see anyone knowing the rules that will allow you to add bases outside coherency.

2. I don't see anyone running a tourney that is going to let you conga line scarabs.

3. The rules not saying you can do something does not allow you to do what you want.

Adding to means to add. A unit on the table must be in coherency when it moves. You are making Scarabs before you move and it should be common sense that the rules are set up this way so you can add scarabs and them move them. They are not saying that you can put a scarab across the table 40 inches away from the unit. You have to see a rule in BLACK AND WHITE that says you can add bases outside of coherency. You do not get to make up your own rules.

Start of the Movement Phase. Once you stop rolling for scarabs you are done. There is no going back. The Start is what it is. THE START. If you make 3 and then place them you are done. You don't get to roll more dice because it is no longer the start of the movement phase.

Most places I've been to allow this for the time being due to RAW, but EVERYONE agrees this is an extreme BS list and will more than likely get the FAQ chop, on the other hand though....It IS nice to see this list smash GK (sorry GK players , I'm on the side of the fence that thinks your ENTIRE codex is cheese lol)

Some horrible GK players if they are letting a Scarab Swarm list wreck them.

And Chuggy, I am not basing coherency at deployment or at adding to on the RAW, but on context alone. However you do not have RAW or context to base your argument on.

Adding to a unit does not tell you either in coherency or out.

Deploying a unit does not tell you either in coherency or out.

Placing a base does not tell you either in coherency or out.

At no time do you have RAW support or even context to place them out of coherency. Being required to place/add to/deploy them in coherency does not have RAW support either, however it does have contextual support.

So keep barking up the no coherency tree all you want. It has no RAW support or contextual support which when compared to having to place them in coherency, just does not stand up to scrutiny.

Okay what contextual support do you have for it meaning in coherency?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What you on about doesn't stand up to scrutiny? I've provided evidence against everything you've said that attempts to disprove my case.

I finally got home and was able to crack open my BRB and realized a couple of things,

1. Overview of Play in the BRB tells us under the Movement Phase that each member of a squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times.

2. We are told later on in Models & Units that warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups.

So addressing the Scarab Swarm placement, we now have RAW that they must be placed in coherency because as stated, each member of a squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times. The exceptions to staying within 2" at all times is given in Unit Coherency;

1. "So, once a unit has finished moving, the models must form and imaginary chain......."

2. "During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency....."

These are the only times a unit is allowed to break coherency and then are instructed how to return to being within 2" at all times.

Moving onto the premise that you can deploy out of coherency, you once again touch on the Order of Play statement that during the Movement Phase;

1. "Each member of the squad must stay within 2" of a squad-mate at all times."

While you are not told to deploy in coherency, you are told that during the Movement Phase you need to be within 2" of a squad-mate at all times, with the only exceptions being listed in the Unit Coherency section. At all times would include the exact moment you end deployment and begin the Movement Phase.

Before it is said that you are then required to move into coherency during the Movement phase, you need to note that it is said,

"DURING the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency...."

As some of you have been keen to point out, deployment does not happen during the game, it happens before the game so that exception does not apply to deploying out of coherency and then using the first Movement phase to regain unit coherency.

Cluggy - the context is that, EVERY time you EVER add to / join / increase the numbers of / "with" during a game, EVERY TIME, this is in coherency

THERE is your context. You have NO permission to place the model out of coherency, NONE, because context dictates what "add to" means.

Again: you can play this in pick up games all you like, convincing locals that youre right, however do not attempt it at any southern tournament (cant think of any TO i know that will let this through) or outside of your locality, as it is a known about attempt to break the way the game works, and wont be tolerated.

Can you give me page numbers of this context please.

Cna you give me the page number which defines "add to" please

If you cant you still lack rules.

What the hell dude? So now your not even going to show me exactly where your getting the context from? Seems a bit petty to be honest. I've told you that add to is not described anywhere besides a dictionary and seeing as how it is not said that coherency is required, the logical deduction is that it is not required. So again your talking lot of context so show me exactly where your getting it from?

Read the 10 or so posts made on this that clarify EXACTLY where the context comes from: EVERY SINGLE time you EVER add / join / increase the number of / are "with" a unit you do so with reference to coherency.

Find an instance where, during a game, you increase the unit without doing so in coherency, and you would have a counter. You cannot (because you cannot use the scarab rule here, oddly enough) so you do not

Are you incapable of a straight answer? no one has provided any page reference to any context relating to add. All that's been said about it is what you just said. Now your saying the context supports your answer, you say everytime you add its in coherency. Tell me the page number of where your getting this information, simply saying Aw but context says is getting rather redundant when you don't say exactly where your getting it from. So i ask again, what exactly is this "context" you speak of?

I've given a straight answer, you just dont like it because it interferes with your desire to be able to place a model anywhere you like on the table.
I've given my support - now you must find a counter, otherwise your extraordinary claim is just that - a claim, un supproted by anything in the game

Note: do not keep posting rule-less demands that one side prove theirs while you remain utterly incapable of doing the same for your argument, as this breaks the tenets of the forum. Additional demands, like the one above, will simply be ignored as irrelevant and spam

I notice that you are completely ignroing my post Chuggy that does give you the relevent context you keep demanding.

How about you quote my post and then break it down to still allow you to place/add to a unit out of coherency?

Why not just say where your getting this "context" from? Your the one who thinks its soooo important in the game. And if you had read my 1st or 2nd post i said i have no desire in doing it, Im arguing this case because i am correct until someone provides RULES that says otherwise. So far none has said rules that say that this brakes them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ramses how about you get my name right for a start and if were allowing context then that tells us that we can move out of coherency. It tells us that models have to stay in coherency otherwise they take a punishment in the next movement phase also in the ic section it says they can move out of coherency to exit the unit. You can't pick and choose what context to follow.

cluggy89 wrote:Ramses how about you get my name right for a start and if were allowing context then that tells us that we can move out of coherency. It tells us that models have to stay in coherency otherwise they take a punishment in the next movement phase also in the ic section it says they can move out of coherency to exit the unit. You can't pick and choose what context to follow.

Right - ICs explicitly allow you to move out of coherency. Can you show where you think context "tells us that we can move out of coherency" when the rules explicitly do not allow that?

And nowhere in unit coherency does it say anything about adding so no you have not posted anything that is relevant to adding chief


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So the moving ooc rule is applied only to ic's but they're join/leaving rules apply to all? How does that make any sense when they are both under independent characters section. Also one of the buliten points says "while an independent character is part of a unit he must obey he usual coherency rules"

Huh? Rigeld was responding to your hilarious argument that non-IC units can voluntarily move out of coherency, showing how baseless an argument it is.

So, any rules to counter the ones we've provided many, many times in the last 12 pages?