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.

biccat wrote:

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?

Coherency distance is synonymous with 2", as we've established.
You measure 2" and discover there's nothing there.

rigeld2 wrote:

biccat wrote:

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?

Coherency distance is synonymous with 2", as we've established.
You measure 2" and discover there's nothing there.

Except you're not allowed to do that.

Instead, you move your IC away from the unit, measure to the nearest model, and determine that he is more than 2" away from the nearest model. You can therefore conclude he is "out of coherency distance" with that unit.

rigeld2 wrote:The IC has an exception to the "must remain in coherency" rule - the 4th bullet point.

Of course, that's how they leave units, but there is also bullet 3, must remain coherent, but that only applies "while he is part of a unit."

If he doesn't leave by moving away during his move, he is a part of the unit until the end, which traps them together.
The ic has that rule, the rest of the models which (according to you) are still a part of the unit do not, so they cannot move , or not move, so as to be out of coherency with the ic.

rigeld2 wrote: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.

No.
Is it fair to say, you can only know if you have or have not lost coherency in a unit, only after you have checked it?
I would say certainly.

P12. "During the course of a game ... and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties. If this happens, the models in a unit must be moved ... restore coherency."

So I can lose coherency through casualties, then, in the enemy shooting phase, for eg.

1. How can I justify firing a staitionary unit if its coherency is in doubt?
2. How can I justify taking a regroup test if coherency is unclear?
3. When I place the last model in my unit down, how can I justify my choice without knowing if it will complete the coherency of the unit, which I am told I must do?

rigeld2 wrote: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.

No, because there is no need to do this.

My argument, is about the requirement to form coherent units when they have finished moving and that this is the overriding principle while you are moving individual models.
There is no requirement to stay in coherency, just a requirement not to do something which would prevent coherency at the end of the move.

Thus, its possible to do something to stop you from performing a legal move, while you are moving and that is check.

biccat wrote:Instead, you move your IC away from the unit, measure to the nearest model, and determine that he is more than 2" away from the nearest model. You can therefore conclude he is "out of coherency distance" with that unit.

Citation? That's you you determine coherency. We've established that coherency and coherency distance are not the same.

rigeld2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Instead, you move your IC away from the unit, measure to the nearest model, and determine that he is more than 2" away from the nearest model. You can therefore conclude he is "out of coherency distance" with that unit.

Citation? That's you you determine coherency. We've established that coherency and coherency distance are not the same.

Page 3.

When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below. So, for example, if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model.

(Emphasis in original).

Substitute "coherency distance" for "2 inches" and "independent character" for "enemy unit/model".

edit: Sorry, to flesh out the argument, see this quote from up-page:
"when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points."

biccat wrote:

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.

Page 48, 3rd bullet on rh column. Of course, if you'd read the posts in the thread this specific rule has been given more than a dozen times - which you consistently ignore and misquote by stating it requies measurement of coherency.

It isnt a personal attack, but an honest statement about the fact you are conflating two entirely different phrases and claiming they are the same. Your argument has as much basis in relevance as responding with rules on how to roll to-hit when someone asks about to-wound.

Coherency distance is not the same thing as coherency. I'll keep repeating this until you finally acknowledge your error.

biccat wrote:

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.

False. Stop lying. The rule is p48, rh column, 3rd bullet point. This mentions coherency distance as the requirement. You respond by talking about coherency. The two are not the same. This is likely a shock to you.

biccat wrote:

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.

Dont, as it is there to prove a point - that the phrase is coherency DISTANCE the measurement, and not coherency the process. Something you seem to have difficulty in grasping.

biccat wrote: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).

Yes, there are - coherency distance is 2". The rules on page 11 cover measuring distances that dont involve base to base measurement.

biccat wrote:

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

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

No, an honest interpretation that, given your inability to tell the difference between coherency, the process and cohernecy distance, a 2" measurement, you are indeed a troll.

Or did you miss that Insaniak now agrees there is a difference? Please explain how they are the same. I'll wait. Rulesthis time, that actually says the process called "coherency" is the same as the 2" mreasurement that is "coherency distance" - you have so far failed to provie any relevant rules, so this will be your first useful addition to the thread.

biccat wrote:

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.

Ah, so when I point out, in context, a diagram that is about "moving models" you decide to troll and ignore that?

Classy. Oh wait, no, the opposite of that - puerile. Thats the word.

biccat wrote: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.

Ah, I see what you did there - you took your stated ignorance of basic measurement rules, and have tried to imply that others have the same deficiency of knowledge! Wow, you're actually clever!

No, no, again - not the right word. Puerile. That still fits.

biccat wrote: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.

No, YOU are talking about coherency. Meanwhile, those who have read the rules on page 48, rh column, 3rd bullet point are talking about coherency distance, because that is what the rule ACTUALLY asks you to check. Or do you disagree?

Again, you are talking about entirely irrelevant rules, and are getting flustered that people arent believing your argument has any merit.

Note - at this point I've given up to responding to every single one of your inane points. It got boring, as its essentially the same answer each time - you cant be bothered to read the rules actually as written, and instead construct an argument about something the rules dont ask for.

biccat wrote:

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 12 shows you how to measure for coherency. And, again, this doesnt answer the question you actually asked - which was your CONTENTION that ANY time you measure a 2" distance you MUST measure base to base. The obvious counter is movement, to which you havent bothered answering. Again.

biccat wrote:Page 11 deals with moving models.

...by measuring not base to base. Unlike your contention that all mesasurement is base to base.

biccat wrote:Again with the personal attacks.
If you've got an argument to make, I'd love to hear it.

No, not a personal attack, an honest assessment of the intent behind your posting. Obviously given you then stated that the reason you posted WAS trollish behaviour, it is also a factual statement.

My argument is that "Coherency" and "Coherency Distance" are not the same thing, because they are not the same thing as defined in English. Your response is to...ignore that. Again. Clever! Way to argue by avoidance!

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

Same as yours.

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

No, I dont.

good job that the rule doesnt ask you to measure coherency, but "move out of coherency DISTANCE"

That extra word is important. Or do you argue that Ordnance is the same as Ordnance Barrage as well? Any other words you like to ignore?

Also - you rate your own importance waaaaay too highly. I dont care if you consider my argument, what I care about is pointing out to others that your argument is simply incorrect, as it ignores the actual rules and argues something else entirely than what the rule actually asks you to do. It helps others from thinking your posts have any merit to this discussion whatsoever.

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

Feel free.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dont, as it is there to prove a point - that the phrase is coherency DISTANCE the measurement, and not coherency the process.

I edited my quote of your post to re-emphasize the importantness of the point being made.

Because, as we all know, size is important to making an important point. If you don't use size tags, how will someone know what point you're making? They won't, that's how.

Ah, attempted wit! How cute.

Given you apparently missed the point every other time it was posted, increasing the size to emphasize the point seemed valid as a way to maybe draw your attention to your mistake

Sorry, I forgot youre trolling. Carry on

rigeld2 wrote:

biccat wrote:

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?

Coherency distance is synonymous with 2", as we've established.
You measure 2" and discover there's nothing there.

No, this is false.

You determine if a model is in coherency distance by measuring the distance between each of the models from the same unit as shown in the rules for determining unit coherency. Then you evaluate whether the model is within coherency distance (2").

There is no place in the RAW that shows measuring only 2" and not between two models for any measurement relating to coherency.

Nos, typing in all caps will not make your statements true. There are not two methods for determining if a model is in coherency. There is only 1method described in the rulebook - measure between two models base to base, then evaluate if the result is less or more than 2".

We all know that coherency distance is 2". If that was all the rules dictate, then you'd be free to make up your own method for measuring as you have done. However the BRB clearly tells you how to measure as I have quoted more than once.

Nemesor Dave wrote:However the BRB clearly tells you how to measure as I have quoted more than once.

You've quoted how to measure coherency. You have not quoted how to measure coherency distance.
An IC is not required to leave coherency - in fact he's forbidden from doing so.
He's required to move out of coherency distance.

Please stop conflating the two things.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:However the BRB clearly tells you how to measure as I have quoted more than once.

You've quoted how to measure coherency. You have not quoted how to measure coherency distance.
An IC is not required to leave coherency - in fact he's forbidden from doing so.
He's required to move out of coherency distance.

Please stop conflating the two things.

Coherency distance is not a method, its a length and in fact it is 2". How you determine coherency (is it within 2") is by measuring coherency distance. How you measure, is defined in the rule book and quoted below. There is no 2nd option.

Whether a model is within coherency distance or not is determined by measuring coherency distance.

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 coherency distance?
"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".

Checking for coherency is done by measuring the distance between each model and the next and checking if they form an imaginary chain where the they are no more than coherency distance (2") apart.

ND - no, but pointing out where you are making up and ignoring rules DOES make me right, and continues to make you wrong. Can I point out to you that, again, Insaniak has realised that "coherency:" and "coherency distance" arent the same thing - could you at some point?

And, again, you are ignoring the rules on page 48, rh column, 3rd bullet point, which does NOT tell you to check coherency

Again, why are you referencing rules that dont have anything to do

Yes, coherency distance isnt a method - so why are you applying a method (coherency) when you are told to check a measurement (coherency distance)?

You do realise you need to measure to every single model on the table to determine if an IC has left coherency, yes? Whereas with coherency distance you just need to check he is outside of 2"

I seriously cannot believe you are entirely unable to parse the difference between "coherency" and "coherency distance". It is faintly unbeliveable that you cannot see that the two are different, and that applying the rules for one to the rules for another is just idiotic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given you apparently missed the point every other time it was posted, increasing the size to emphasize the point seemed valid as a way to maybe draw your attention to your mistake

Sorry, I forgot youre trolling. Carry on

Someone disagreeing with you isn't necessarily trolling, even if you repeat yourself and write in larger font. Most of the time, it simply means that they disagree with you.


Given the progressively more excitable tone of this discussion, and the fact that it hasn't really gone anywhere new for some time now, I'm inclined to shut it down to give everyone some time to cool off. if people aren't agreeing on how it works by now, they're not likely to suddenly change their mind on the 47th repitition of the same point.

As usual, if in doubt, discuss it with your opponent.