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.

It's the only definition of "with" a unit we have. Exactly the same as the GoI debate.

If you treat "with" as ANYWHERE on the board then a LR can be dragged by a Libby.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It's the only definition of "with" a unit we have. Exactly the same as the GoI debate.

If you treat "with" as ANYWHERE on the board then a LR can be dragged by a Libby.

"At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Conptek spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.
Nominate a Conoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a d6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the conoptek scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn."

Where is the "with"?

How have you added it to the unit, if you are placing it out of coherency?

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. Until then just bubble wrap as usual.

I am personally waiting until the new spyders get released, hate the old ones. And in any case some of these armies already existed before the codex. I have seen my fair share of 9 tomb spiders with 30 scarabs. I think the list in this codex would be a nice counter to armor meta and still leave 1100pnts worth of army if you are playing 2k. The other nice thing is that on the first turn you are now facing and army with 2135 pnts.

Perhaps you would like to show is something to support your claims instead. If you can't, then you can not place them halfway across the board. Your whole argument is that nothing says you can not when what you need to do is show is where you can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apart from the RAW that this all occurs at the start?

That doesn't matter at all. Whether you place them out of coherency simultaneously or sequentially makes not a speck of difference, because they are still being placed out of coherency. Hell, you could place all 9 of them at different ends of the board and the rule would be the same. The moment the unit moves it must attempt to get back into coherency. If you place all of them at the beginning of the movement phase in coherency with one another (but not all in coherency with the original unit) then when the unit moves, it checks for coherency, finds that it has normal coherency now that all models have been placed, and moves as normal.

There is no point in the section about placing models that requires them to be placed in coherency with anything. It simply states that you add a base to an existing unit within 6". If you can point out where the RAW specifically states that the base must be placed within coherency I'll gladly concede my point.

Mesothere wrote:I'm pretty sure you don't "check" for coherency on movement - you only attempt to fix it on that stage. Through that logic I could deploy my entire army out of coherency on the first turn?

You can't just say you add this base to a unit - 30 inches away. When you're placing your units they have to be within coherency... such is how reserves, deep striking and deployment works.

Unit Coherency
When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can each move up to their maximum movement distance - but remember that units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered as the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. 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 'unit coherency'.

During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties. If this happens, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next movement phase. If the unit cannot move for some reason in its next turn (because they are pinned down by a barrage of sniper fire, for example), then they must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity.

Unit Coherency must be fixed at the end of the units movement. If they are out of coherency at the start of their movement, they must move in such a way that they restore coherency in their next movement phase. Again, there is nothing that I can find that specifically disallows placing models out of unit coherency as long as the unit moves into coherency by the end of their move, which they do simply by all moving in the same direction at the same speed, because they were placed in such a way that this happens.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
And just to be clear, I'm not advocating that people actually do this, as it is obviously not how this was intended to work. Just trying to point out another example of bad RAW.

I want to second this. It's merely an example of poorly worded Rules, and another reason that GW needs to have open playtesting for this crap. All secrecy gets them is an FAQ that's 5 times longer than necessary and more holes in their rules than almost any other game system. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but it's frustrating as hell to argue over points that could very easily be clarified with more consistent wording. Please don't take me for someone looking for a loophole to exploit, I simply find the loopholes so I know where they are when the OTHER guy tries to exploit them.

This will receive FAQ almost immediately, but until it does, expect to see a few random mooks try to pull it off in minor tournaments between now and then.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:Perhaps you would like to show is something to support your claims instead. If you can't, then you can not place them halfway across the board. Your whole argument is that nothing says you can not when what you need to do is show is where you can.

Actually there appear to be no rules that tell you where you CAN or CANNOT place the base. It simply tells you to 'pick a scarab unit within 6" and add a base to the unit', but nowhere in the rules does it specify HOW you are supposed to add the base to the unit. In fact, it doesn't state you are allowed to "place" the base, so if you want to go for strict 100% interpretation, you add a base to the unit but cannot put it anywhere on the table because the rules don't tell you that you can.

The second you go down that road this discussion has jumped the shark, because it simply further exposes the poorly written rule and that it needs clarification. One person can interpret "adding a base to a unit" as meaning one thing, while someone else can interpret it as meaning something else entirely, which is the whole reason we are arguing here. If they had simply worded this rule like the rules for Reanimation Protocols then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but for some stupid reason they didn't and thus everyone goes crazy over the loophole. It happens with every codex, and all that we can hope for is that we make enough of a spectacle of it that it makes it into the FAQ.

But you nominate a canoptek spider to do it, then roll, then nominate the next, then roll, down the list of spiders near scarab units...Wouldn't that mean that they are created one at a time, instead of simultaneously?

Aldarionn wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:Perhaps you would like to show is something to support your claims instead. If you can't, then you can not place them halfway across the board. Your whole argument is that nothing says you can not when what you need to do is show is where you can.

Actually there appear to be no rules that tell you where you CAN or CANNOT place the base. It simply tells you to 'pick a scarab unit within 6" and add a base to the unit', but nowhere in the rules does it specify HOW you are supposed to add the base to the unit. In fact, it doesn't state you are allowed to "place" the base, so if you want to go for strict 100% interpretation, you add a base to the unit but cannot put it anywhere on the table because the rules don't tell you that you can.

The second you go down that road this discussion has jumped the shark, because it simply further exposes the poorly written rule and that it needs clarification. One person can interpret "adding a base to a unit" as meaning one thing, while someone else can interpret it as meaning something else entirely, which is the whole reason we are arguing here. If they had simply worded this rule like the rules for Reanimation Protocols then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but for some stupid reason they didn't and thus everyone goes crazy over the loophole. It happens with every codex, and all that we can hope for is that we make enough of a spectacle of it that it makes it into the FAQ.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner....

While I understand that "conga-lining" Scarab bases is potentially advantageous with the charging and whatnot... I don't see myself ever employing this method, because IMO it spreads out the unit too much for it to survive for long - granted that Scarabs can be obliterated relatively easily. Assaulting units, blasts/templates and superior shooting will hurt this tactic, I believe. Though, I have yet to try it out so I could be wrong.

Would someone be able to counter my standpoint regarding this?

Gorandius wrote:While I understand that "conga-lining" Scarab bases is potentially advantageous with the charging and whatnot... I don't see myself ever employing this method, because IMO it spreads out the unit too much for it to survive for long - granted that Scarabs can be obliterated relatively easily. Assaulting units, blasts/templates and superior shooting will hurt this tactic, I believe. Though, I have yet to try it out so I could be wrong.

Would someone be able to counter my standpoint regarding this?

The only note I'll add to this is stringing out in a line is actually the most effective formation for defending against blast markers.

I do see how that can be defensive as well as offensive. The blasts can also ruin the coherency if the template lands in the middle of the line, right? Large blasts even more so.

Thanks Maelstrom!

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - Again, show that "Start of the turn" has a duration.
If you cannot show it has ANY duration, which you cannot as it defies the term "start" to apply a sequence then what you are attempting to do is halted as soon as you place the second scarab, as you have broken a rule.

First off, the Scarab Hive wargear is used at the start of the Movement phase. But do note:
Reserve Rolls are made at the start of the Movement phase.
Psychic Powers are generally used at the start of the Movement phase.
Some abilities can be used at the start of the Movement phase.
Some wargear can be used at the start of the Movement phase.

Obivously, there is an undefined "meta-phase" with the Movement phase call "The Start of the Movement Phase" where any or all of the above can happen. I've debated this to death over at warseer http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=316620&page=9&highlight=start+turn. Click the link if you want to read about the various notions regarding start of Turn, start of turn, start of Movement phase, the duration of said and so forth and so on. I'm not going to rehash it here.

Regardless of the my point of view in the warseer debate, one thing is clear: the start of the Movement phase is neither clearly defined NOR instantaneous. If it was instantaneous, then only one Spyder would get to roll since, by your myopic viewpoint, the start of the turn is over. Further, if the Necron player rolled for reserves he couldn't use the Scarab Hive or vice versa, if he used the Scarab Hive, he couldn't roll for reserves. This obviously isn't the case. So, let's just go to our neutral corners regarding the issue of start of the Movement phase.

Over to you: prove you have ANY period of time that is not a single instant "Start" of phase. If you cannot do so, and you CANNOT DO SO, you are still wrong on this.

Um, just did. See above.

Also, you cannot claim you have placed a Scarab "with" a unit if you are placing it 30" away. the other Scarabs you have just placed are entirely unimportant for this, as EACH scarab you place must be placed "With" the unit - not another scarab you have just placed, as remember this scarab you have just placed doesnt yet exist, ok?

Maybe we're using different definitions of instantaneous. You're insisting all the Scarabs are created instantaneously yet are placed sequentially. The moment the line of created Scarabs exists (instantaneously, I might add), the created Scarabs are are with the Scarab unit via unit coherency. Mind you, the rule states, "add one base the Canoptek Scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn." (Necron codex: page 46). The created Scarabs act normal in the turn they're created.

Now, what you and Ghaz have failed to show is how the Scarab creation is instantaneous for all the Spyders generating Scarabs instead of sequentially as the rules lay out: 1) nominate a Spyder, 2) Roll a D6, 3) On the result of a 2-6, place the newly created Scarab with the Scarab unit, 4) on the result of a 1, place the newly created Scarab with the Scarab unit but the Spyder suffers a non-saving wound. The rules do not state this happen simultaneously. Nominate a Spyder, roll, place Scarab. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Gorandius wrote:I do see how that can be defensive as well as offensive. The blasts can also ruin the coherency if the template lands in the middle of the line, right? Large blasts even more so.

Thanks Maelstrom!

No, the blasts cannot ruin coherency. Models are removed from wherever the controlling player wants, so instead of removing models from the middle of the line, they could remove them from the ends. There are certain weapons that remove specific models (Jaws of the World Wolf, Vindicare Assassin, Etc...) but firing a blast weapon at a unit of Scarabs won't destroy coherency unless the controlling player elects to do so.

Ah...wound allocation. Don't mind the noob, for I totally Derp'd on that, too. Well, then...*turns away quickly and whistles*

Actually there appear to be no rules that tell you where you CAN or CANNOT place the base.

Read it again. It is right there in black and white. It tells you to place the base WITH THE UNIT. Halfway across the board does no qualify.

But you nominate a canoptek spider to do it, then roll, then nominate the next, then roll, down the list of spiders near scarab units...Wouldn't that mean that they are created one at a time, instead of simultaneously?

And yet again, when do the rules say that the base is created? It says at the start of the Necron Movement phase, that's when. It doesn't matter if you place them sequentially or not. They still occur when the RULES dictate and that is at the beginning of the Necron Movement phase for ALL of them.

It doesn't mean it has to be simultaneously. If the rules were saying that, they would say simultaneously. It is open to the players to choose until an erratta comes.

And using capitals for the word rules doesn't make you right. You are just stating your interpretation of the rules, you didn't write them, so don't try to make it sound like your view is the one and only.

Ghaz is correct about the simultaneous creation, there is no question about that. The actual act of rolling for and adding models to the units does not have to take place at the same time, but game terms it happens at the exact same moment...IE "at the start of the Necron movement phase."

Say I attack a vehicle with a model with a Thunder Hammer. These attacks happen at "initiative 1", which is to say they are resolves all at the same time. I roll all of my armor penetration results at the exact same time, and I roll all of my damage results at the exact same time. I can choose to roll all of the dice separately, but that doesn't change the fact that all of the results are simultaneous, so if I score 3 Penetrating Hits and one is Weapon Destroyed, one is Wrecked, and one is Explodes, the vehicle explodes no matter what order the dice are rolled in. The Wrecked result doesn't prevent it from happening even if it was rolled first, because all results are applied at the same exact time as far as the game is concerned, and ALL simultaneous results apply. In this case, Explodes would override Wrecked.

That said, I still think he's wrong about placement of models as it's currently worded .

There is alot of butt hurt in this thread

Even if you roll 1 unit at a time you gain 10.5" by layering them, thats more then enough to pull off a first turn charge, personally Id rather wait til I have 30+ bases before I charged.

It doesn't mean it has to be simultaneously. If the rules were saying that, they would say simultaneously.

So how are you doing them sequentially when you only have one "start of the Necron Movement phase"? They don't have to say simultaneously because with the wording of the rule that is the only way it can happen.

Ghaz wrote:Read it again. It is right there in black and white. It tells you to place the base WITH THE UNIT. Halfway across the board does no qualify.

I am going by this being the quoted rule:

Scarab Hive: At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Conptek spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Conoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a d6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the conoptek scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. (the rest is unrelated to the disscussion)

In there it does not tell you to place the base "with" the unit. Now if the actual rule is different, please quote it and I will re-evaluate my stance based on the actual wording of the rule.

The exact wording, word for word from the Codex:

Scarab hive:

At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Canoptek Spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Canoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a D6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. This can take the unit beyond its starting size. On a roll of a 1, the Scarab base is still placed, however, the Canoptek Spyder is drained by the energy expenditure and suffers a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed. If the Scarab base cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed.

Ruan wrote:The exact wording, word for word from the Codex:

Scarab hive:

At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Canoptek Spyder that is not locked in close combat can expend energy to create a Canoptek Scarab Swarm.

Nominate a Canoptek Scarab unit within 6" and roll a D6. On a roll of 2-6, add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit - the base can move and act normally this turn. This can take the unit beyond its starting size. On a roll of a 1, the Scarab base is still placed, however, the Canoptek Spyder is drained by the energy expenditure and suffers a Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed. If the Scarab base cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed.

Thank you for taking the time to put that up.

I stand by my previous assessment of the rule. There is no wording within the rule that directs you to place the base "with" the unit.

I still stand by what I put before, which is that swarm bases can go anywhere on the table, and dont have to be in coherency. As I have stated, the act of measuring out of phase (if you want to create a base in coherency) seems to be a much bigger rules infarction than adding scarab bases halfway across the board.

I dont think you should put your swarm bases 3 feet away from the existing scarab unit, but with no FAQ I have no rules to say they cant be 3 feet away. As I said before, I will be playing that the new base must be within 6 inches of the spyder that created it, like termagants must be within 6 inches of the tervigon that created it. Its not a real rule, but it feels right and I have no need to play 'crons to win via the 3 foot 'congo line' of scarabs for turn 1 charges.

GTA - ah, you are under the misapprehension that, just because multiple things happen at the start of a phase, that they therefore occur sequentially

They dont

There is a single start of phase, and all those activities (roll for reserves, moving on from reserves, rolling for spiders) all occur in that single instant.

You have NOT proven a duration at all, you just waffled on that just because lots happen they must happen sequentially. They dont. Again, nothing you have said is proof of anything like the extraordinary claim.

Also nice Insult there. I do not have a myopic viewpoint, I just have a more coherent understanding of the term "start of" than you do, clearly.

Say you only have one set of dice, and you are firing a HB and Bolter armed squad. In your "myopic" view point these would happen sequentially, as you have to roll the dice sequentially. Now of course this isnt true - yet according to your determination of when something must be a sequence it would be.

So, now we have determined that simply because you cannot perform something truly simultaneously doesnt mean it must be sequential, this should hopefully be enough to prove to you that, while we must roll scarabs one at a time, usually (you could have 9 sets of dice, of course, but for now assume 1 colour - the truly degenerate case) this does NOT make this a) sequential in game time nor b) moves us out of the "start of phase" timing we inhabit.

So, now we can see that 1 - 9 scarabs are all created at the same time, even though you add them to the unit in sequence. Point the first proven.

So, where do you add them? well, you are told to add them "TO" "the unit". The only definition we have for "the unit" is "the unit' as it was at the start, before we added anything - as remember the addition is simultaneous - meaning you cannot add scarabs in sequence, claiming that each you have added is now part of "the unit", because all addition occurs simultaneously and you have JUST instated a sequence, with no permission to do so.

So, now we know all addition is simultaneous, we have to see where we can add them. So, we must add them "to" the unit - and the only definition we have anywhere of "the unit" is wrapped up in coherency.

So, you must a) place them in coherency and b) in coherency with the unit that existed at the start
No conga line possible, QED

Accepting that the spiders must be placed in cohesion with the existing unit of spiders:

If you are placing all 9 scarabs simultaneously, what's preventing those 9 scarabs from being in a coherent line and simultaneously placing that line in coherency. Those 9 spiders exist, and are all in coherency with one another, and one of them is in coherency with the existing squad, therefore they are all in coherency when you place them. If they are being placed simultaneously, at no point is any spider out of cohesion.

Because you are only allowed to place them in coherency with "the unit", not the scarabs you have just placed. Remember they DONT exist at the time you place each scarab, only once ALL have been placed do they exist. So you must fulfill coherency without "knowledge" of the other scarabs. Each individual scarab must be placed in coherency with the original unit, then once all are placed they now all simultaneously exist.

Is anyone honestly going to try and place new scarab bases anywhere on the board totally out of coherency with the unit they are part of? I call you WAAC, King of Cheese and bring the TO over. The intent of units is always to keep them in coherency in the movement phase and the start of the movement phase is still the movement phase. Involuntary movement such as tank shocks is the exception and covered by it's own rule.

You tools are going to kill the game. When you have no one left to play you because of your antics I'm sure you'll be giving yourself a pat on the back over your cleverness.

Clay Williams wrote:

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. Until then just bubble wrap as usual.

I am personally waiting until the new spyders get released, hate the old ones. And in any case some of these armies already existed before the codex. I have seen my fair share of 9 tomb spiders with 30 scarabs. I think the list in this codex would be a nice counter to armor meta and still leave 1100pnts worth of army if you are playing 2k. The other nice thing is that on the first turn you are now facing and army with 2135 pnts.

I actually posted this as a throw away fun comment, maybe should have posted a smiley with it. What is your "fair share" of 9 Spiders/30 scarbs as I have never seen that Army build on the table? Using 45% of your points allocation and all your HS choices at 2000 points to get a first turn charge that can be countered is not in my view worth it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:GTA - ah, you are under the misapprehension that, just because multiple things happen at the start of a phase, that they therefore occur sequentially

They dont

There is a single start of phase, and all those activities (roll for reserves, moving on from reserves, rolling for spiders) all occur in that single instant.

Please provide a page number that describes the start of the Movement phase. That would be helpful. Otherwise, all you have is an opinion on the the notion of "the start of the Movement phase". Also, please provide a definition of start that solely means "instantaneous". I have way to much evidence to prove the start of thing, in most instances, is NOT instantaneous. Again, I'm not here to argue the finer details of what defines a turn (or phase). Instead, I will insist you provide the necessary evidence to support your claim, rules, page numbers, etc.

You have NOT proven a duration at all, you just waffled on that just because lots happen they must happen sequentially. They dont. Again, nothing you have said is proof of anything like the extraordinary claim.

Also nice Insult there. I do not have a myopic viewpoint, I just have a more coherent understanding of the term "start of" than you do, clearly.

No insult: myopic in the sense of your opinion narrowly defines the start of the Movement phase as a single instance of time. You haven't provided any support for such interpretation.

What your suggesting is all things that happen at the start of the Movement phase happen simultaneously. For example, if a Necron player had units in reserve AND Spyders on the table, unique acts of using the Scarab Hive wargear and rolling for Reserves (and bringing units onto the table) happen all at once. This obviously isn't the case.

Say you only have one set of dice, and you are firing a HB and Bolter armed squad. In your "myopic" view point these would happen sequentially, as you have to roll the dice sequentially. Now of course this isnt true - yet according to your determination of when something must be a sequence it would be.

Straw man argument. I've made no such suggestion. Shooting is already defined as happening simultaneously.

So, now we have determined that simply because you cannot perform something truly simultaneously doesnt mean it must be sequential, this should hopefully be enough to prove to you that, while we must roll scarabs one at a time, usually (you could have 9 sets of dice, of course, but for now assume 1 colour - the truly degenerate case) this does NOT make this a) sequential in game time nor b) moves us out of the "start of phase" timing we inhabit.

Well we haven't determined anything, yet. I will concur there is a difference between the game mechanics and the game logic. From a game logic point of view, things happen simultaneously but due to game mechanics, things are handled sequentially, such are your (poor) shooting example: All the shooting is logically dealt with simultaneously but the mechanics of resolving the shooting is handled sequentially.

The Scarab Hive wargear rule states nominate a Spyder, roll for effect, place Scarab with unit. The rule doesn't say roll for all the Spyders' wargear together.

So, now we can see that 1 - 9 scarabs are all created at the same time, even though you add them to the unit in sequence. Point the first proven.

So let me get this straight. You are arguing that the events in creating the Scarabs are logically simultaneous, though the mechanics of placing the created Scarabs on the table is sequential. Did I interpret that correctly?

So, where do you add them? well, you are told to add them "TO" "the unit". The only definition we have for "the unit" is "the unit' as it was at the start, before we added anything - as remember the addition is simultaneous - meaning you cannot add scarabs in sequence, claiming that each you have added is now part of "the unit", because all addition occurs simultaneously and you have JUST instated a sequence, with no permission to do so.

If all adding is simultaneous (logically with respect to the game), instantaneous if you will, then, by definition, one moment the Scarabs aren't there then the next moment all the Scarabs appear, from a game logic point of view. The instant the Scarabs appear they move and act normal for the turn. Acting normal includes being part of the unit including supporting unit coherency.

So, you must a) place them in coherency and b) in coherency with the unit that existed at the start
No conga line possible, QED

Actually, I just showed above how,using your logic to support my claim, that the conga line is valid.

What you still haven't shown is how the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous nor have you shown the use of the Scarab Hive wargear occurs simultaneously for all Spyders involved.

No, you havent shown it, as you ignore that the initial placement must be in coherency, and you cannot count scarabs you have "yet" to place as being there for coherency.

Also -BRB FAQ on "start of movement phase" powers indicates instantaneous time, otherwise you could indeed bring a farseer on from reserves and use powers. You cant. THis indicates single instant