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.

Yad wrote:

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.

Again, the general perception is not mine alone, the vast majority of players have it. Hell, I was taught it thus I haven't created anything.

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.

That's where your logic begins to fall apart. You've assumed since the rule doesn't state coherency you're free to ignore it. You've taken the idea of "add to" and stretched it to satisfy your argument. You would be hard pressed to show that two models six feet apart are in the same unit. This is what your suggesting.

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.

A unit is defined to be a group of models in coherency. There are specific instances that a unit is not in coherency. You haven't shown that "add to" is one of those specific instances.

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.

The rule of deployment? You're equating "add to" to deployment? Is that your argument?

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.

Yep, you're right. The rule doesn't specifically state the unit must be deployed in coherency. The reason it's done has little to do with tactics as much as accepted practice. Again, this perception goes far beyond an mere assumption. The meme is an accepted implied rule.

In the end, it's incumbent upon you to show "add to" mean you can place the created Scarab anywhere on the table. You haven't done that.

But we can say for certainty that they are classed as deamons due to faqs so until such faq comes out saying that adding includes coherency it doesn't. And i was using context to allow models to move ooc which is supposedly never allowed so tell me why you think you can add the join rules to normal models but not coherency. Context tells us the definitions of words not their purpose in a set of rules. Add to means exactly what it says. Add one to the rest.

Seriously, does anyone have an argument to show that coherency matters in this situation? I can obey every iteration of coherency rules posited by the posters on this forum, and still use the tactic, as far as I can tell. If someone has an answer, please let me know.

Kitzz wrote:@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.

The relevance of coherency to the conga line tactic exists in that the Caoptek Spyder nominates an existing Scarab unit at the start of the Necron movement phase. It is that existing unit, nominated at the start of the Necron movement phase, that created Scarab Swarms must be placed into coherency.

Per the RAW,

Canoptek Spyder 1 nominates Scarab unit A at the start of the Necron movement phase.
Canoptek Spyder 2 nominates Scarab unit A at the start of the Necron movement phase.

Canoptek Spyder 1 creates Scarab unit B, it must be placed within coherency to Scarab unit A.
Canoptek Spyder 2 creates Scarab unit C, it must be placed within coherency to Scarab unit A.

For the conga line to work;

Canoptek Spyder 2 creates Scarab unit C, and places it within coherency to Scarab unit AB.

Well, Scarab unit AB was not the unit nominated at the start of the Necron movement phase. The unit "footprint" nominated at the start of the Necron movement phase is Scarab unit A, not Scarab unit AB.

The argument was originally whether or not the added scarabs all had to be in coherency with the original nominated swarm. If they do, then yes, coherency matters, and the tactic fails. It they just have to be in coherency, then the tactic is viable.

I wonder how fun it would be to introduce,

"A Canoptek Spyder...."

Is not the same as,

"Any Canoptek Spyder..."

I could just see it now,

"Has "A" Canoptek Spyder nominated a unit at the start of the Necron Movement phase? Well guess you can't nominate anymore since the conditions of "A" Canoptek Spyder nominating a unit at the start of the Necron Movement phase has been done."

"A person that has a rulebook can read the rules" is exactly the same meaning as "Any person that has rulebook can read the rules."

cluggy89 wrote:But we can say for certainty that they are classed as deamons due to faqs so until such faq comes out saying that adding includes coherency it doesn't.

And now you're back to "it doesn't say I can't so I can". That's not the way 40k rules work.

And i was using context to allow models to move ooc which is supposedly never allowed so tell me why you think you can add the join rules to normal models but not coherency.

Because there is a rule saying normal models cannot move out of coherency. That sentence isn't ambiguous - it's 100% inarguable.

There's no rules definition for "add to", so first we look at context. What rules do exist for one model to be added to a unit?
Well, ICs join and leave units all the time. Since normal models can't leave a unit (because of the aforementioned inability to leave coherency) we'll look at joining.
An IC that is within 2" of an eligible unit is joined to that unit. Joining a unit is similar to adding to a unit (conceptually) so those two things are similar enough to use the same rules.

Context tells us the definitions of words not their purpose in a set of rules. Add to means exactly what it says. Add one to the rest.

You're wrong - by defining words that are used in a set of rules, we can know what the rules actually mean. By using that definition of "add to" you've fallen back to the dictionary definition fallacy.

Yeah im falling back to the dictionary definition because there is NOTHING telling you to introduce coherency into the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no need to draw coherency into the rule or even ask for a context plant of the rules because nowhere in the rule for canoptek spyders does it ask for any sort of coherency/distance placement.

cluggy89 wrote:Yeah im falling back to the dictionary definition because there is NOTHING telling you to introduce coherency into the rule.

Define "add to" using the rules, please. Also, while you're at it, "base".

cluggy89 wrote:"A person that has a rulebook can read the rules" is exactly the same meaning as "Any person that has rulebook can read the rules."

Not in the World of Warhammer 40k.

"A Space Marine may take a meltagun."

Is not the same as,

"Any Space Marine may take a meltagun."

One is a typical tactical squad with a special weapon while the other is a melta hell squad of doom.

A space marine may take a meltagun is never used it always says one space marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I've already defined such like add/place in dictionary and base in rulebook pg 3

Cluggy - BRB definition for "Add to" is now required, as apparently context is not allowed. Oops, there isnt one. Guess you cannot perform anything. Ever.

Stop repeating your "but models can move out of coherency, using context!!!!" argument, because its terrible, has been shown to be terrible, and will always be terrible. It fails as an argument the instant you apply the rule stating you cannot move out of coherency, and context doesnt help with that. Well, a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language does help with it, but then we could be here all day....

cluggy89 wrote:And I've already defined such like add/place in dictionary and base in rulebook pg 3

The "base" on page 3 refers to the black piece of plastic models come with. You're asserting that's what gets placed on the table?

No Im saying the rule for base states that models have to be glued onto the base that comes with it, so in order for the base to be used at all the model has to be on it. And i never said all context is not allowed Im saying nothing in the rule for spyders points you in the direction to look for coherency rules. Especially since your looking at a completely different type of unit. And since were on the topic of context can the spyders go to ground? Monstrous creature so no but in the spyders rule it says it cannot repair even if it goes to ground. Implying it can

cluggy89 wrote:No Im saying the rule for base states that models have to be glued onto the base that comes with it, so in order for the base to be used at all the model has to be on it. And i never said all context is not allowed Im saying nothing in the rule for spyders points you in the direction to look for coherency rules. Especially since your looking at a completely different type of unit. And since were on the topic of context can the spyders go to ground? Monstrous creature so no but in the spyders rule it says it cannot repair even if it goes to ground. Implying it can

For the go to ground - there's no rule allowing it, so no they cannot. That may change with 6E, and if it does, then that sentence is relevant. As of now, it's wasted ink.

To use the model, the model must be glued to the base it was supplied with. There is no rule saying that an empty base cannot be used. (See what I'm doing here? I'm arguing based on rules that don't exist, rather than using ones that do. Isn't that illogical in the 40k world?)

I don't particularly care. There is nothing telling you to spawn them in coherency so until there is a rule that tell you that the created scarabs have to be placed in coherency and not some twisted rule planting il always say this is legal. You can't pick and choose which rule is added due to context because if you think coherency matters to the spyders then you'd have to say they are able to go to ground because the context of the spyders rules specifically says they can. Il say it again you can't pick and choose. Il check back laters... No doubt when i check back noone will have found rules saying this is illegal

cluggy89 wrote:I don't particularly care. There is nothing telling you to spawn them in coherency so until there is a rule that tell you that the created scarabs have to be placed in coherency and not some twisted rule planting il always say this is legal. You can't pick and choose which rule is added due to context because if you think coherency matters to the spyders then you'd have to say they are able to go to ground because the context of the spyders rules specifically says they can. Il say it again you can't pick and choose. Il check back laters... No doubt when i check back noone will have found rules saying this is illegal

You don't understand context. That's all I can think of to explain "if you think coherency matters to the spyders then you'd have to say they are able to go to ground because the context of the spyders rules specifically says they can".

And again - you're misrepresenting the rules. You do not find rules saying X cannot be done. You find rules that say X can be done, and if you don't, it cannot.

Good times.

There is no rule for adding to or placing, so not only do you create one to do it, you also add the stipulation that they can be placed or added to out of coherency.

Interestingly enough, despite no defined rule for placing or adding to, those on the side of coherency understand what GW wants us to do so thus would allow it. However, the Canoptek Spyder rule does not imply, hint, or whisper softly in your ear that placing or adding to also stipulates the Scarab units can also be out of coherency.

While Nos pretty much says you would be laughed out of any tournament if you attempted to do this in the south, I am gonna add the southwest to that list as well as up the ante to probably being blacklisted from most gaming groups in general. Not for being laughable, but borderline cheating.

Wow.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

Agreed. Coherency must be maintained while Moving. Units that are out of Coherency must move so as to try to end its Movement in Coherency.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

lol. Fluff, move along.

Brother Ramses wrote: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;

The correct way of saying this is that when a unit comprised of more than 1 model moves, it must move in such a way as to remain in Coherency (aside from the 1st model moved of course). Good on you to note the exceptions. Bad on you for trying to extend this toward placing a model (which is not Movement).

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

Couple of things wrong here:

1.) You are never told Deploy out of Coherency.
2.) You correctly note that Deployment does not fall under the umbrella of the Movement phase yet in the same 'breath' you try to apply the rules from the Movement phase to Deployment.

As you've noted earlier, the rules allow for the possiblity that units may lose Coherency. If you were to Deploy out of Coherency, you would then check the squad during the Movement phase, identify the problem and be forced to Move the unit back into Coherency. Simple.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

I said it anyway. So now you are defining what is meant by 'game'? Deployment strikes me as an integral component to game. Indeed, games are at times won or lost on Deployment.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

So, if GW was so deliberate in their previous rules of how other units/models joined or added to another unit, why is it not here? Your assertion that all of these previous detailed rules for other units somehow creates a context under which the Scarab Hive rule must operate is not sufficient. The Scarab Hive rule is completely self contained. It references two other game mechanics, allowing the Scarab unit to move and assault. Which is quite interesting seeing how that would mean placing a Scarab base doesn't count as Movement (otherwise the entire unit would count as having moved). And is not governed my the Coherency rules as defined in the Movement phase.

-Yad

I Read the spyders rule again... Im actually surprised that no one said that the created scarabs have to be placed within 6" of the spyder itself... Seems possible that this is what it'll be faq'd to. I know there's no reason to think this is the case but would solve alot of issues i suppose

cluggy89 wrote:I Read the spyders rule again... Im actually surprised that no one said that the created scarabs have to be placed within 6" of the spyder itself... Seems possible that this is what it'll be faq'd to. I know there's no reason to think this is the case but would solve alot of issues i suppose

No one said that because that's not the case. The unit they're being added to must be within 6", but the model you're placing doesn't.

Yad wrote:Wow.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

Agreed. Coherency must be maintained while Moving. Units that are out of Coherency must move so as to try to end its Movement in Coherency.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

lol. Fluff, move along.

Brother Ramses wrote: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;

The correct way of saying this is that when a unit comprised of more than 1 model moves, it must move in such a way as to remain in Coherency (aside from the 1st model moved of course). Good on you to note the exceptions. Bad on you for trying to extend this toward placing a model (which is not Movement).

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

Couple of things wrong here:

1.) You are never told Deploy out of Coherency.
2.) You correctly note that Deployment does not fall under the umbrella of the Movement phase yet in the same 'breath' you try to apply the rules from the Movement phase to Deployment.

As you've noted earlier, the rules allow for the possiblity that units may lose Coherency. If you were to Deploy out of Coherency, you would then check the squad during the Movement phase, identify the problem and be forced to Move the unit back into Coherency. Simple.

Brother Ramses wrote: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.

I said it anyway. So now you are defining what is meant by 'game'? Deployment strikes me as an integral component to game. Indeed, games are at times won or lost on Deployment.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

So, if GW was so deliberate in their previous rules of how other units/models joined or added to another unit, why is it not here? Your assertion that all of these previous detailed rules for other units somehow creates a context under which the Scarab Hive rule must operate is not sufficient. The Scarab Hive rule is completely self contained. It references two other game mechanics, allowing the Scarab unit to move and assault. Which is quite interesting seeing how that would mean placing a Scarab base doesn't count as Movement (otherwise the entire unit would count as having moved). And is not governed my the Coherency rules as defined in the Movement phase.

-Yad

I am not applying the coherency rules during the game to the deploying.

When you deploy out of coherency, the very moment the game starts, you are not maintaining coherency. You didn't lose coherency during the game either, you were not in coherency when it started. That is the why you cannot deploy out of coherency. You create a situation that breaks the primary rule that units must maintain coherency which is not covered by the exceptions listed for during the game.

Please explain how you lost coherency during the game when you deployed out of coherency and started the game out of coherency. You didn't lose coherency, you were out of it at the beginning of the game.

There is no RAW in the rules for deployment that require that you are in coherency. However the rules for maintaining coherency during the game make it impossible to deploy so that when the game starts you start out of coherency.

Also, reread the rules regarding when deployment ends and the game begins.

Im not trying to say that i think it is the case that they have to be created within 6" all Im saying is i personally think the rule should have been made like this... Since the scarab is coming out of the spyder. You know what i mean?

cluggy89 wrote:Im not trying to say that i think it is the case that they have to be created within 6" all Im saying is i personally think the rule should have been made like this... Since the scarab is coming out of the spyder. You know what i mean?

I agree.

It's the only reason I can think of for the part about the new units being destroyed if you are unable to place them.

After all,
1. if you could put them anywhere on the table then there's no reason for them to be unable to be placed.
2. if you can only put them within that 6" bubble then there is a finite amount of available space and you have the possibility of the new unit being destroyed due to lack of placement options.

Yes, this will be FAQ'd and I think you have the right call on the way it's going to go.

Hello. The Necron FAQ is out now and expressly forbids this:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170012a_Necron_FAQ_Version_2_0_January_2012.pdf

Happy gaming

Hesh_Tank_On wrote:Let them have their fun, the expense of buying 9 tomb Spiders both monetary and points for a one shot trick will give the "no camp" the final laugh when the FAQ comes out. Then the day after 200 tomb Spiders will go on E-bay..

I'm not sure if it would be better to pose on this thread or start a new one, but even post FAQ there seems to be 1 little bit up in the air.

Does every spyder in a unit of 3 sypder need to be within 6" of the scarab swarm that is going to receive new bases, or does the unit of sypders need be within 6" of the unit of scarabs.

It's each spider must be within 6" of a swarm. They can each add a scarab to 3 different swarms as long as each was in range of the swarm they were adding to.