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.

cluggy89 wrote: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"

Yes, he must obey all usual coherency rules. He is also given permission to leave the unit. These two things do not conflict.
You do not have permission to have a unit move out of coherency - in fact, there are explicit rules on page 12 that require you to maintain coherency during movement.

The join/leave coherency requirements give context to words like "add" and "with" when reading the rules.

edit: Your move, "chief".

Yeah my argument is baseless as opposed to yours which takes rules from ic's and place them wildly into a simple word like add when there is NOTHING telling you to do so. The rules for canoptek spyders say nothing about coherency so it is NOT a factor. Give me one RULE that states otherwise please. Can you not see that adding your own definition of a word is wrong, regardless of how you justify changing it?

Sigh, irrelevant posts abound, apparently

Your move, "chief"

Rigeld what Im saying is if your getting this context that models getting added comes from the joining rules from ic's then why cant i use the rule for moving ooc from the exact same page when both rules are only for ic's?

cluggy89 wrote:Yeah my argument is baseless as opposed to yours which takes rules from ic's and place them wildly into a simple word like add when there is NOTHING telling you to do so. The rules for canoptek spyders say nothing about coherency so it is NOT a factor. Give me one RULE that states otherwise please. Can you not see that adding your own definition of a word is wrong, regardless of how you justify changing it?

Either you allow context to influence interpretations of the rules, or you go by dictionary definitions for every word. The latter is impossible and results in an absolutely unplayable rule set.

Irrelevant post yeah? Show me Im wrong tell me where it says within coherency go i urge you. Forget your context rubbish its irrelevant the rules are the rules. Now go. Show me Im wrong.

cluggy89 wrote:Rigeld what Im saying is if your getting this context that models getting added comes from the joining rules from ic's then why cant i use the rule for moving ooc from the exact same page when both rules are only for ic's?

Because the rules on page 12 explicitly require a unit to stay in coherency. The rules on page 48/49 explicitly allow ICs to break coherency as an exception to the rules on page 12.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cluggy89 wrote:Irrelevant post yeah? Show me Im wrong tell me where it says within coherency go i urge you. Forget your context rubbish its irrelevant the rules are the rules. Now go. Show me Im wrong.

Irrelevant post? You're actually arguing that you must use dictionary definitions for every word, and context is impossible?

There goes FNP, just off the top of my head.

Rigeld give me one thing that doesn't work when using correct definitions

cluggy89 wrote:Rigeld give me one thing that doesn't work when using correct definitions

FNP. Injury has no rules definition.

How is feel no pain negated by correct interpretations it tells you everything you need to know if it suffered an unsaved wound roll a d6 on a 4+ ignore the wound. What's wrong about that

Wrong, on a 4+ you ignore the injury.

cluggy89 wrote:How is feel no pain negated by correct interpretations it tells you everything you need to know if it suffered an unsaved wound roll a d6 on a 4+ ignore the wound. What's wrong about that

It says to ignore the injury. Injury has no rules definition, therefore without context you are ignoring fluff.

edit: and ignoring fluff means that models will still decrement their wounds stat, and be removed at 0 wounds.

Wound and injury are the same meaning

cluggy89 wrote:Wound and injury are the same meaning

Wrong.

Wounds have an explicit rules definition. Injury does not. Assigning them the same meaning means you're using context.

No they're synonyms of each other and besides even if you do use context the rule says add not join and according to you even if it did say join the rule doesn't give you permission to use the IC's rule for joining

During the course of a game, it's possible that a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties.

After reading the above for the umpteenth time, I have realized there are three conditions required to follow all of the rules in the second paragraph of p.12.

1. It must happen during the course of the game.
2. The unit must be broken up.
3. The unit must lose coherency.

Each of these is delineated separately, and so must be observed separately. There are two issues on the table:

1. Deployment
2. The scarab hive wargear

Here is how each of them ignores one of those conditions:

1. Deployment is not during the course of the game. Ergo, condition one is not satisfied. Units deployed out of coherency from the beginning of the game must only obey coherency when they have been broken up during the course of play.

2. New scarabs are created during the game, and definitely disobey coherency if placed outside of 2" of the other models in their unit. As the squad is never "broken up" (the squad has expended in size, and cannot have been broken up as new members have been added) it also does not obey the further rules for coherency until the squad loses a model, just as with the example with deployed squads immediately former.

On a fundamental level, the deployment scenario I just presented does not play the game of 40k in a way that any given group of players will agree to. In effect, it reduces this line of reasoning to absurdity.

In order for the game as a whole to function, therefore, the scarabs must be deployed in coherency.

BUT:
There are several ways to determine when the scarabs are laid out, and coherency, while I now agree should be enforced as a general principle in all phases, especially with emphasis to movement, is only CHECKED in the movement phase. In the case of created scarabs, their NEXT movement phase.

In conclusion:
I believe that, assuming the creation is simultaneous, a new set of scarabs that exists within coherency, without regards to where its members might have been in regards to said coherency before their creation, is allowable.

If you are of the belief that the turn starts with "triggers", then to create the "conga line" all you have to do is place the scarabs one-at-a-time until the line is complete.

IN EITHER RESPECT, the "conga line" is possible. If someone could explain to me what their reasoning is to refute this position, please let me know.

PSA:
I played in a tourney where this tactic was legal. Weeks ago.

cluggy89 wrote:No they're connotations of each other and besides even if you do use context the rule says add not join and according to you even if it did say join the rule doesn't give you permission to use the IC's rule for joining

con·no·ta·tion/ˌkänəˈtāSHən/
Noun:
An idea or feeling that a word invokes for a person in addition to its literal or primary meaning.
The implication of such ideas or feelings.

con·text/ˈkäntekst/
Noun:
The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

Not that it matters as you've stated that nothing outside of literal definitions and rules matters. I've given you an example of why that way of reading rules results in the 40k universe imploding. You're trying to argue that a connotation is not essentially the same thing as using context to define a word. Which of those is the more logical argument?

cluggy89 wrote: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.

Clug, as I have mentioned there exist no RAW for adding to/placing bases/units in coherency as is their neither any permission to add to/place bases/units out of coherency. I am now speaking of the RAW, not context, that units must always maintain coherency during the game.

As I mentioned, I finally got a chance to go over my BRB last night and instead of trying to find the requirement for coherency in the rules for placement/adding to/deployment, I instead looked at the properties required by units to be units and maintain being units.

The relevant property being that units must maintain coherency at all times. This is referenced in the beginning of the book in the section titled, "Overview of Play" and later on in the Unit Coherency rules where exceptions to break coherency are given and the requirement/instructions to reacquire it are given. As you have pointed out, additional coherency exceptions are given to IC and IC alone.

Now, if we follow your reasoning that you are allowed to place new bases out of coherency, you break the RAW that units must maintain coherency at all times and with placement/adding to not one of the specified exceptions given, you are not allowed to place them out of coherency. This isn't contextual, this is the RAW.

Now if you want to say that placing/adding to is not movement and therefore not bound by the rules for Unit Coherency, you still run into the fact that the properties of being a unit, per the Overview of Play as well as the properties for units explained in the BRB both still require that you maintain coherency. The Overview of Play note even goes on to say that you must maintain coherency at all times which if you intentionally place models out of coherency, you are doing so without a specified exception to always maintaining coherency.

@Ramses:

Overview of Play comes before the section headed "Rules" and is designed for an at-a-glance example of a game. Nowhere in the rules are the terms "squad" or "squad-mate" defined.

If this section were to be followed, please note that a space marine who fired a blast template and rolled a 3 or higher would never scatter.

In any case, I think my last post posed the more relevant question, that being, "Why does coherency matter?"

Okay thank you i see your point. So the only way to Conga line scarabs is if you believe that their creation is not at the exact same time... Which i don't. okay i said i would so, i was wrong i concede lol... Maybe not. The rules of units only say they have to stay together to be an effective fighting force. Not that they simply have to stay together

@cluggy89: I believe that the "conga line" works using current rules regardless of whether viewed through a lens of a series of "triggered" events at the start of the turn, or through the lens of "everything is instant". I cannot find the relevance of coherency to the discussion.

Honestly, if anyone can give any kind of argument against either of the beginning-of-turn interpretations, it would be much appreciated.

Yeah kitzz i honestly never even noticed that the overview of play wasn't in the rules can't believe i almost conceded in something i was right about. Just glad you posted that when you did lol

Kitzz wrote:@Ramses:

Overview of Play comes before the section headed "Rules" and is designed for an at-a-glance example of a game. Nowhere in the rules are the terms "squad" or "squad-mate" defined.

If this section were to be followed, please note that a space marine who fired a blast template and rolled a 3 or higher would never scatter.

In any case, I think my last post posed the more relevant question, that being, "Why does coherency matter?"

Squad is defined under Models & Units iirc.

If you want to go down the road of undefined words, adding to/placing are undefined. Guess creating Scarab Swarms is a useless waste of a dice roll because you don't have anything to do with them once they are created right?

And Overview of Play is just as relevant to the rules section. It gives you a quick glance an explanation of various nuances of gameplay. Model profiles are clearly relevant in relation to a characteristic test that may have to be taken according to the rules section as is infantry movement and weapon profiles.

On that page there are several sources of information that are directly relevant, including the requirement that units must maintain coherency at all times. This is reinforced by the Unit Coherency rules that specifically give you exceptions as to when coherency can be broken and the requirement to regain it as soon as gameplay mechanics allow.

jayjester wrote:
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.

That's just it...YAD hasn't provided RAW to support his claim. The only thing he has provided is "add to" doesn't say I can't.

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?

The created Scarab is placed in coherency with either Scarab.

cluggy89 wrote:Okay thank you i see your point. So the only way to Conga line scarabs is if you believe that their creation is not at the exact same time... Which i don't. okay i said i would so, i was wrong i concede lol... Maybe not. The rules of units only say they have to stay together to be an effective fighting force. Not that they simply have to stay together

You mean the rules that say "So once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between..." (emphasis added).
Or what rules are you talking about that allow you to voluntarily break coherency (and just not be an effective fighting force)?

The whole do this or this will happen. And i was referring to the units section of the rulebook and the rules from unit coherency you just stated don't matter here as it has nothing to do with the unit moving. So even the can't move out of coherency thing doesn't apply as nothing is "moving" they are getting placed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't think you can move out of coherency i was saying it earlier to prove a point that contradictions were happening due to context

cluggy89 wrote:So even the can't move out of coherency thing doesn't apply as nothing is "moving" they are getting placed.

They are getting added to an existing unit.

Add to, by context, means the same thing as joining a unit, right?

To join a unit, we know that you must be within 2" of said unit.

No. To join a unit ic's have to be within 2" no limitations exist for normal models. And as has been pointed out you cannot take rules that are only for ic's

cluggy89 wrote:No. To join a unit ic's have to be within 2" no limitations exist for normal models. And as has been pointed out you cannot take rules that are only for ic's

No limitations exist for normal models because there are no normal rules for normal models to be added during the game.
And I'm not using IC rules directly - I'm using context to define words that have no rules basis.

It's not a key word based ruleset, like Magic or Warmachine is. Haven't we been over this in a dozen incarnations?

Daemon Princes are Daemons, case in point, don't need the special "daemon" rule to be so.