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.

Fair enough - I just didnt get that disconnect in arguments, thanks for explaining it.

I still think we've shown that you can indeed "move away" from the unit, in the purely mathematical sense, and that an IC can indeed "leave" a unit when it is the last surviving member.

Rob

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat[/b] - you addressed the same wrong thing as Insaniak. Page 3 deals with measuring between models - however this is not required, as you are NOT CHECKING COHERENCY - you are checking coherency dsistance which is not the same thing. Thus I fall back on the general rules for measuring, whcih are from my base "out" - same as you do when moving. Un less you are saying when moving you are measuring between models? How about DS scattter?

You are lacking rules because page 3 does not have to apply, as it is not the only way to check coherency distance (yes, I will keep emphasising this as both of you and Insaniak are guilty of dropping this crucial word) from a model. It IS one way, it is not the ONLY way.

Nos:
I see you're continuing to refuse to cite pages or quotes for your assertions.

One of the tenets of YMDC is that this is about the rules as presented in the 40k rulebook, not about your beliefs what the rules should be.

If you're not going to back up your comments with actual citations to the rules, then you're not participating in YMDC, you're writing your own game.

biccat wrote:Nos:
I see you're continuing to refuse to cite pages or quotes for your assertions.

The 40k rulebook does not define the english language.

Coherency Distance is not the same as Coherency.
As Insaniak pointed out, if you're measuring coherency to determine if an IC has left a unit, you have to measure to every other unit on the board.
But you don't - you measure to see if he's left coherency distance. That's 2" for the rulebook impaired.

Biccat - I see you're continuing to cite irrelevant rules, and decrying others for pointing this out as "not following YMDC tenets)

To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

To measure a 2" distance do I need to measure between bases? No

Coherency is not the same thing as Coherency Distance. I do not need a rulebook to define the difference, because the English language states there is a difference. You have yet to address this difference, and as such your argument is impaired as it addresses the wrong item.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - I see you're continuing to cite irrelevant rules, and decrying others for pointing this out as "not following YMDC tenets)

To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

To measure a 2" distance do I need to measure between bases? No

Coherency is not the same thing as Coherency Distance. I do not need a rulebook to define the difference, because the English language states there is a difference. You have yet to address this difference, and as such your argument is impaired as it addresses the wrong item.

BRB p3 Measuring Distances
"..when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points."

BRB p 12 How do we measure unit coherency?
"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2".

We call this - Nos is wrong.

There is even a pretty diagram to help your reading comprehension. Oh look someone has measured 3". That would be impossible if we were simply measuring 2" in a circle around the model.

Nemesor Dave wrote:We call this - Nos is wrong.

There is even a pretty diagram to help your reading comprehension. Oh look someone has measured 3". That would be impossible if we were simply measuring 2" in a circle around the model.

You can leave out the personal attacks. Thanks.

You're conflating measuring coherency with measuring coherency distance.

What models do you measure between to move?
When an IC leaves a unit, are you required to measure to every friendly model on the board to see if he's in coherency?

(hint: the answers are "none" and "No, because I only need to measure coherency distance")

edit: the rules on page three, even included in your quote, say "when measuring distances between two models".
There is no reason to measure between models, so that quote is useless.
Your second quote defined coherency distance as 2". And being coherent requires all models to be within coherency distance of another model.
The IC leaving references coherency distance. Not coherency.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're conflating measuring coherency with measuring coherency distance.

What models do you measure between to move?
When an IC leaves a unit, are you required to measure to every friendly model on the board to see if he's in coherency?

(hint: the answers are "none" and "No, because I only need to measure coherency distance")

edit: the rules on page three, even included in your quote, say "when measuring distances between two models".
There is no reason to measure between models, so that quote is useless.
Your second quote defined coherency distance as 2". And being coherent requires all models to be within coherency distance of another model.
The IC leaving references coherency distance. Not coherency.

BRB p 12 How do we measure unit coherency?
"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2".

Notice the word "distance" in there. Notice that the sentence references "one model and the next". That means two models.

This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Yes, that is correct.
That is how you measure coherency.

Does an IC leaving a unit require you to measure coherency?

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Yes, that is correct.
That is how you measure coherency.

Does an IC leaving a unit require you to measure coherency?

Coherency is defined as being within coherency distance. So indeed it does require you to measure coherency distance as described "between models".

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Yes, that is correct.
That is how you measure coherency.

Does an IC leaving a unit require you to measure coherency?

Coherency is defined as being within coherency distance. So indeed it does require you to measure coherency distance as described.

Yes, coherency requires you to measure coherency distance.
Coherency is the act of being within coherency distance of another member of your unit.

What does an IC leaving a unit require?

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is RAW. Even the wording is exactly the same as the words you are using to try to refute this. Your next argument is "no reason to measure between models". What is your argument? It is saying exactly that - coherency is determined by the distance measured is between two models.

Yes, that is correct.
That is how you measure coherency.

Does an IC leaving a unit require you to measure coherency?

Coherency is defined as being within coherency distance. So indeed it does require you to measure coherency distance as described.

Yes, coherency requires you to measure coherency distance.
Coherency is the act of being within coherency distance of another member of your unit.

What does an IC leaving a unit require?

For the IC to leave coherency you must measure between the IC and each model from the unit it was joined to. If there are none alive, the IC is not joined to any unit because there is no unit left for it to be joined to.

You may not exit the house if a tornado tore it away from above you. You have not left the house but you are also no longer inside the house.

If the IC is a regular member of the unit it has joined for the sake of determining coherency, it is not allowed to move any place other than within 2" of another member of the unit. At that point you may measure to judge if it is within coherency and has voluntarily left or not. You see? If you're saying the IC for ALL purposes is a regular member of the unit, it is not allowed to move farther than 2" from another member of the unit before you even get to measure if it has left coherency distance so it can never leave..

Nemesor Dave wrote:
For the IC to leave coherency you must measure between the IC and each model from the unit it was joined to.

And that is not what the IC rules require you to do.
They require you to leave coherency distance.

BRB Page 48 wrote:An independent character can leave a unit during
the Movement phase by moving out of coherency
distance with it.

You may not exit the house if a tornado tore it away from above you. You have not left the house but you are also no longer inside the house.

You're bringing a real world situation in as a strawman... please don't.

If the IC is a regular member of the unit it has joined for the sake of determining coherency, it is not allowed to move any place other than within 2" of another member of the unit. At that point you may measure to judge if it is within coherency and has voluntarily left or not. You see? If you're saying the IC for ALL purposes is a regular member of the unit, it is not allowed to move farther than 2" from another member of the unit before you even get to measure if it has left coherency distance so it can never leave..

The IC must stay in coherency. The IC has explicit permission to move out of coherency distance for the purposes of leaving the unit.
Note that moving out of coherency distance is [edit] not [/edit] the same as leaving coherency. Only the latter requires a model to measure to.

rigeld2 wrote:
The IC must stay in coherency. The IC has explicit permission to move out of coherency distance for the purposes of leaving the unit.
Note that moving out of coherency distance is the same as leaving coherency. Only the latter requires a model to measure to.

Coherency is by definition determined by measuring distance between two models.

Staying in coherency or moving out of coherency is determined by the same thing. Measure between two models, the IC and each other member of the unit and see how far it is. If it's more than 2" the IC has left the unit.

Which one exactly are you saying is different and doesn't require measuring between two or more models?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Which one exactly are you saying is different and doesn't require measuring between two or more models?

Coherency distance does not require measuring between two or more models.
IC's are required to move out of coherency distance.
Coherency distance is defined as 2".

edit: I found a HUGE typo of mine above. "Note that moving out of coherency distance is the same as leaving coherency." should be "Note that moving out of coherency distance is not the same as leaving coherency."
I apologize for that typo and have corrected it.

ND - no, this is called you inability to read the words written on the page, and then making YET more rules up. Insaniak realised his mistake and, like an adult, conceded the point. Would you like to as well, or slip further into irrelevancy?

Coherency Distance is not the same as coherency

Being within COherency requires you to measure Coherency Distance between models

However, what EXACTLY does the rule for an IC leaving require you to do? I'll give you a hint: Rigeld2 gave you the *exact* quote.

Now, do you see the phrase "check coherency" in there? No? GOSH! Who would have thought it? Instead it asks you to move out of Coherency Distance which is a defined measurement of 2"

So, now we work out what we are measuring - and it is NOT measuring between bases

So here we have something called "ND missing the point by so far the curvature of space time has brought him back round to it again"

Oh, and in case you missed it - Coherency Distance is not the same as coherency; one is a distance variable (2" in this case for this set of rules) and the other is a process

nosferatu1001 and rigeld2:

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it"

Measuring 2" around the IC proves there is no other unit within 2" of it.
Measuring 2" around does not prove you move 2+" away from the unit.
Clearly you are asked to move away 2". Not simply be 2" away
A simple measurement does not satisfy the above rule. It is an action of movement not just a simple check at the end.

Abandon wrote:A simple measurement does not satisfy the above rule. It is an action of movement not just a simple check at the end.

So if an IC moves one inch, and the unit he's leaving moves 6 inches the other direction, that's an illegal move?

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:A simple measurement does not satisfy the above rule. It is an action of movement not just a simple check at the end.

So if an IC moves one inch, and the unit he's leaving moves 6 inches the other direction, that's an illegal move?

This question is somewhat unclear.

If the IC moved one inch first and that moved him out of coherency distance with the unit, the player then has the option of removing him from the unit. Subsequent models in the unit he just left no longer need to move so they'll end in coherency with him and can go there own way.

If the IC moved one inch first and it did not put him outside of coherency distance with the unit then he has not moved far enough away to be permitted to leave the unit. Subsequent models in that case would have to end movement in a way including the IC in coherency.

If the rest of the unit was moved first so that no other member was left within 2 inches of the IC, he would then have the choice of moving inside cohereincy distance with the unit and staying with them or moving anywhere outside of coherency distance from it and parting ways.

In any case the IC would have to start movement inside of coherency distance with the unit and end it's move outside of that distance with the unit to satisfy the rule.and allow the IC to leave.

Note the IC cannot stay where it is while the rest of the unit moves away. The rule says the IC must move.
Note also it says during movement not at the end.
...and most relevantly, note that none of this is possible for a single model unit.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."

nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - no, this is called you inability to read the words written on the page, and then making YET more rules up. Insaniak realised his mistake and, like an adult, conceded the point. Would you like to as well, or slip further into irrelevancy?

Coherency Distance is not the same as coherency

Being within COherency requires you to measure Coherency Distance between models

However, what EXACTLY does the rule for an IC leaving require you to do? I'll give you a hint: Rigeld2 gave you the *exact* quote.

Now, do you see the phrase "check coherency" in there? No? GOSH! Who would have thought it? Instead it asks you to move out of Coherency Distance which is a defined measurement of 2"

So, now we work out what we are measuring - and it is NOT measuring between bases

So here we have something called "ND missing the point by so far the curvature of space time has brought him back round to it again"

Oh, and in case you missed it - Coherency Distance is not the same as coherency; one is a distance variable (2" in this case for this set of rules) and the other is a process

Sorry to say you are wrong. Coherency is by definition the distance that is measured between two models to confirm or deny coherency. Here are the relevant quotes from the BRB.

BRB p3 Measuring Distances
"..when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points."

BRB p 12 How do we measure unit coherency?
"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2".

Feel free to post your own quotes to refute this. But it is there as plain as black and white.

Oh dear god.

Seriously.

There is jsut a point at which the word "Troll" is just too accurate a term, and you've reached it.

Have you read the bullet points on page 48? Did you read the quote Rigeld posted up for your benefit? Did you read the very large text I gave you as a hint?

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

You are not required to measure coherency

Ok, so now this has hopefully sunk in, please actually go back, read the actual rules, and notice you are required to move out of coherency distance

Coherency distance is, oddly, not the same thing as coherency. Who would have thought the addition of a word would change the meaning of the phrase! Shock!

You can keep repeating entirely irrelevant rules, but they will stay irrelevant, and you will stay a Troll

Measuring coherency distance is perform the same way you perform a measurement for any movement

Abandon - if you move, and are more than 2" from a member of the unit, you have by definition moved so you are more than 2" away from the unit.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Sorry to say you are wrong. Coherency is by definition the distance that is measured between two models to confirm or deny coherency. Here are the relevant quotes from the BRB.

That is correct. 100%. Congratulations.


What does that have to do with the method ICs use to leave units? Hint - they are not required to leave coherency.

rigeld2 wrote:So if an IC moves one inch, and the unit he's leaving moves 6 inches the other direction, that's an illegal move?

Yes.

Something you guys seem to take little notice of, is that coherency is mandatory, its not a choice for a unit.

Its not something that may or may not happen at the end of its move, it is compulsory.
You cannot "find" a unit to be out of coherency at the end of its move, you must move the models so as to regain/maintain coherency at the end of it.

So, that example above ...
The ic moved, but did not move out of coherency distance with the other models.
The other models are compelled to form a coherent unit, tracing the line through all models of the unit, inc the ic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Now, do you see the phrase "check coherency" in there? No? GOSH! Who would have thought it?

Where do you see the phrase "check coherency" anywhere on p12?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - I see you're continuing to cite irrelevant rules, and decrying others for pointing this out as "not following YMDC tenets)

Please cite some rules that you believe are more relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:To measure a 2" distance do I need to measure between bases? No

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency is not the same thing as Coherency Distance.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

nosferatu wrote:I do not need a rulebook to define the difference, because the English language states there is a difference. You have yet to address this difference, and as such your argument is impaired as it addresses the wrong item.

I wasn't aware that semetic arguments override the plain meanings of terms in the rulebook. See the quotes provided by Nemesor Dave.

Note that this whole argument is simply to reinforce the idea that playing precisely by the rules renders the game nearly impossible, or at least very difficult.

fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So if an IC moves one inch, and the unit he's leaving moves 6 inches the other direction, that's an illegal move?

Yes.

Something you guys seem to take little notice of, is that coherency is mandatory, its not a choice for a unit.

Absolutely not - I know that and have stated so, explicitly, several times.
The IC rules even reinforce this point (3rd bullet [or 2nd on the righthand side of the page from memory] on page 48).
The IC rules also state that an IC can leave a unit by moving out of coherency distance.
In my example above, the IC moved and is more than 2" away from the unit he's leaving (you can find that out by measuring a 2" circle around the model... if nothing is in that circle, then by definition he's out of coherency distance). This meets the requirements of the 4th bullet point (3rd on the right side from memory) on page 48.

Please explain how what I've explained is illegal.

So, that example above ...
The ic moved, but did not move out of coherency distance with the other models.

Excuse me? Maybe you're misunderstanding the example... if the IC was in the middle there'd be a lot of variables, but it'd have to be a huge unit for the IC to move 1" in one direction, the unit move 6" in the other, and still not be out of coherency distance.

The other models are compelled to form a coherent unit, tracing the line through all models of the unit, inc the ic.

Correct. Until the IC wants to leave the unit. Your sentence means that ICs can literally never leave units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

This is laughable and has to be a trolling question, but page 12 where it shows how to measure movement.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency is not the same thing as Coherency Distance.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

The rulebook doesn't have rules explaining the english language, sorry.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu wrote:I do not need a rulebook to define the difference, because the English language states there is a difference. You have yet to address this difference, and as such your argument is impaired as it addresses the wrong item.

I wasn't aware that semetic arguments override the plain meanings of terms in the rulebook. See the quotes provided by Nemesor Dave.

ND's quotes are valid for Coherency. That is not what the 4th bullet point in the IC rules require. You might want to read it.

biccat wrote:Note that this whole argument is simply to reinforce the idea that playing precisely by the rules renders the game nearly impossible, or at least very difficult.

In some/many cases, yes. Not in this one.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - I see you're continuing to cite irrelevant rules, and decrying others for pointing this out as "not following YMDC tenets)

Please cite some rules that you believe are more relevant.

I have done. The rules for ICs leaving units. You know, the one that states coherency distance, yet you are prattling on about coherency?

Its odd. I cite a rule that mentions a specific phrase. You then take a similar but different phrase and build an argument based off that phrase, and vehemently claim it has relevance, and claim that it disproves my argument.

Without at any point seeing that your argument is, at base, entirely and 100% invalid, because it addresses something the rule never mentions. Not once.

So, please show how rules for the process of checking Coherency has ANYTHING to do with the process for checking Coherency Distance or concede your demonstrated lack of comphrension of a very simple phase. Your call. You cant, because one is a process, the other a variable distance currently defined as 2", as has been repeated for about 10 pages now to seeminly no avail.

Or is this just you trolling badly again?

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:To measure movement, do I measure between bases? No.

Please cite a rule for this assertion.

rigeld2 wrote:Please explain how what I've explained is illegal.

Ok, variables could make my claim false (in your interpretation), but ...

Imo, the ic leaves the unit, in exactly the way it is described in the book, by moving out of coherency distance with it.
Coherency is not only checked at the end of a units move, you can do that whenever you want (as has been proved) during your move and, sometimes in other phases.
This means the ic can (it doesn't have to) leave during its move, by moving away.

That is how it is possible to leave and even leave behind a stationary unit.

According to your interpretation, the ic doesn't leave until it is out of coherency distance with the rest of the models, this can only be checked and therefore happens after the unit actually finishes moving.

The other models are compelled to form a coherent unit, tracing the line through all models of the unit, inc the ic.

rigeld2 wrote:Correct. Until the IC wants to leave the unit. Your sentence means that ICs can literally never leave units.

But, while a unit remains a unit, which you would claim of the ic + other models do, until after they finish moving, the unit MUST move so as to form a coherent whole.
While the unit is a unit, the other models cannot ignore what the ic does, where it is moved to, they can only do this, when it has left.

If its true that the only time the ic leaves the unit is after movement is complete, the ic can move however he likes, but the rest of the unit, because it is still a unit, will be compelled to chase after to retain coherency, because it must.
That's crazy.

That's the logic loop that you and others seem not to recognize.
You can't leave until you do, which you can't, because the others can't let you, until after you do.

fuusa wrote:If its true that the only time the ic leaves the unit is after movement is complete, the ic can move however he likes, but the rest of the unit, because it is still a unit, will be compelled to chase after to retain coherency, because it must.

The IC has an exception to the "must remain in coherency" rule - the 4th bullet point.
And you only determine coherency at the end of the units move - this must be the case, or it would be impossible to move a unit of models in line abreast formation. At least not their entire 6" movement.

You can't leave until you do, which you can't, because the others can't let you, until after you do.

Please show the requirement to stay in coherency during movement. From what I can see the only requirement is to be in coherency at the end of the unit's movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I have done. The rules for ICs leaving units. You know, the one that states coherency distance, yet you are prattling on about coherency?

Ah, personal attacks. I'll note that, while often effective at dissuading opponents from responding, these are not actually rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its odd. I cite a rule that mentions a specific phrase. You then take a similar but different phrase and build an argument based off that phrase, and vehemently claim it has relevance, and claim that it disproves my argument.

Actually, you didn't cite a rule. You said something about measuring around your model, then steadfastly refusing to provide support for that measurement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, please show how rules for the process of checking Coherency has ANYTHING to do with the process for checking Coherency Distance or concede your demonstrated lack of comphrension of a very simple phase. Your call. You cant, because one is a process, the other a variable distance currently defined as 2", as has been repeated for about 10 pages now to seeminly no avail.

I removed the "size=24" tag from your quote for improved readability.

edit: size tag re-inserted, simply to show that NOSFERATU1001 IS MAKING AN IMPORTANT POINT!
edit2: Size tag increased to emphasize the importantness of the point being made.
edit3: note size tag re-inserted at the request of nosferatu1001.
edit4: italics tag fixed

To answer your question, I would think that coherency distance has just about everything to do with coherency. There are no rules for measuring "coherency distance," in fact, "coherency distance" is used throughout the rules (see p. 48) as a substitute for "2 inches" (the distance for coherency).

Note that the definition is implicit rather than explicit, again from p. 48:
"an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or is this just you trolling badly again?

Again, I'm pretty sure personal attacks are not a substitutes for rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Try page 11. There's even an easy to understand diagram for those who dont understand very very basic concepts such as "measure a distance" on page 12

The diagram on page 12 is actually quite illustrative (see what I did there? I know you did). It shows "coherency" as a distance between models, not measured as a bubble around each individual model. This is consistent with the measurement rules defined on page 3 (measure base-to-base) and, unsurprisingly, inconsistent with your previous comments.

I realize I might be making the mistake of assuming you understand what a double headed arrow means. This is a drafting symbol that is used to indicate the distance between two reference lines or points.

Note that we are not talking about movement, we are talking about coherency, so the movement rules on the top of p. 12 are wholly irrelevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Now, have you noted that this doesnt mention measuring to another unit, and just gives a set distance and yhow you measure it? Oddly this means that page 3 isnt relevant here. Who would have thought.

Which is why the rules on page 12 clearly discuss how to measure the distance for moving models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 11, oddly enough. Please prove that, when measuring ANY 2" distance I MUST measure base to base, or concede that you dont have a clue what youre talking about?

Page 12 shows how you measure "coherency distance." At no point is a "2 inch bubble" provided, rather the distance between models is measured directly.

Page 11 deals with moving models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:English. Prove they are the same thing, or please cite a rule that defines "the" within 40k. Then you can find a rule that defines "a" within 40k rulebook. I'll wait.

Oh, shucks, just you trolling AGAIN.

Again with the personal attacks.

If you've got an argument to make, I'd love to hear it.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because the personal attacks are difficult to separate from the actual discussion.

If you've got a rule that tells you how to measure coherency other than base to base, I'll consider it.

If you're just going to throw out insults and personal attacks, I'll ignore it.

biccat wrote:If you've got a rule that tells you how to measure coherency other than base to base, I'll consider it.

Show the requirement to establish that you're out of coherency for an IC to leave a unit.

You won't be able to - that requirement is actually to move out of coherency distance which as you've shown is synonymous with 2".

rigeld2 wrote:You won't be able to - that requirement is actually to move out of coherency distance which as you've shown is synonymous with 2".

How do you determine that you're out of coherency distance?