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.

Wow this thread got confused for no apparent reason.

1) The Warboss has to take a Leadership test. He and Snikrot's Kommandos formed a unit and they took 25% casualties.

2) The next turn, if the Warboss failed his Leadership test, he can attempt to regroup. The unit of Snikrot's Kommandos are destroyed and do not exist. To argue otherwise is just dumb.

For an IC to be in coherency with a unit, he'd have to be within 2" of a model in that unit. All the other models are gone, so he's no longer part of the unit. You still take the leadership test because of the way the rules are written. How did this get to two (EDIT: three) pages?

cowmonaut wrote:Wow this thread got confused for no apparent reason.

1) The Warboss has to take a Leadership test. He and Snikrot's Kommandos formed a unit and they took 25% casualties.

2) The next turn, if the Warboss failed his Leadership test, he can attempt to regroup. The unit of Snikrot's Kommandos are destroyed and do not exist. To argue otherwise is just dumb.

For an IC to be in coherency with a unit, he'd have to be within 2" of a model in that unit. All the other models are gone, so he's no longer part of the unit. You still take the leadership test because of the way the rules are written. How did this get to two (EDIT: three) pages?

You're partially correct. The Warboss has to take a morale test (due to loss of 25% models) At the beginning of the Warboss's next movement phase, assuming, he isn't fearless (no codex on hand, but I'm fairly certain he is), he would fall back 2d6". At the end of the movement phase you check to see if he is joined to a unit, and find he is not. At the beginning of his next movement phase, he can attempt to regroup.

cowmonaut wrote: How did this get to two (EDIT: three) pages?

Because the rules for ICs joining and leaving units are not written particularly clearly, and there is some disagreement as to just when the IC is considered to have left the now-nonexistant unit.

It's just one of those odd timing-due-to-unexpected-rules-interactions- issues. It may seem clear to you... but it seems just as clear to those arguig that the IC has to wait until the end of the movement phase to be considered separate from the unit. Hence the multi-page discussion.

As the person who started this thread, I really appreciate insaniak pointing that the rules really are poorly worded, and can be read a number of different ways. It all really depends on whether you read the rules strictly as RAW, or rather you infer certain things based on context (which is probably the fairer way to do things). I would like to thank everyone for contributing to a very interesting discussion. Nos in particular, who I have gone back and forth with a bit, you have had some well-thought out arguments, even if we don't agree on the context, or lack thereof, in the rules. Sorry if I seemed a bit stubborn or somesuch, I appreciate everyone's time and patience. Thanks.

What the debate comes down to, and why it has run for 3 pages is, whether the requirement to be in coherency at the end of the movement phase is a narrowly defined permission of when to measure OR a required outcome.

One camp says you can ONLY measure at the point in which a requirement must be met the other camps says you can measure at any time to ensure the outcome is met.

My thought is that the silly situations that arrive if you don't measure through out a turn is a clear indication that restricting the permission to measure until all is said and done is an indication that the rules shouldn' t be interpreted that way.

Magpie wrote:One camp says you can ONLY measure at the point in which a requirement must be met the other camps says you can measure at any time to ensure the outcome is met.

That's not actually the issue at all. From memory, you're the only one insisting that this particular aspect of the rules is unclear.


The issue is simply whether or not the IC is considered to have left the unit at the start of the turn. The strict RAW seems to indicate that he has not, since he can only have left the unit after movement has been completed. The opposing argument is simply that he cant be considered to be still joined to a unit that no longer exists.

Exactly when you choose to measure coherency has no real bearing on that argument.

insaniak wrote:Exactly when you choose to measure coherency has no real bearing on that argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still havent addressed the point that coherency is ONLY checked after you have finished moving. Its in the definition of coherency. Thus given you "leave" by moving out of coherency, and coherncy is only checked when you finish moving....theres really only one conclusion you can make by actually following the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:How can you know you have left coherency without measuring?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Explain how you are leaving coherency without measuring to ensure you HAVE left coherency.

Dukal wrote:Either there is something I am not getting, or this is really a relatively simple concept. You check whether your units are in coherency or not at the end of the movement phase. It doesn't matter if a unit leaves coherency at some point during the movement phase, because the movement of other models may then restore the coherency.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You check coherency at the end of a units move, not the start. He leaves the unit, therefore, at the end of his move.
Otherwise you are saying the Shrike jump is legal, which it isnt

You think ? The argument here is that the IC is considered a part of the unit up to the point where a measurement can be taken to determine that he is or isn't in coherency.
Which some say can't happen until the end of the turn, others do not.

Sure. But the rules are clear that this happens at the end of the unit's movement.

So the only part of the rules that is actually unclear here is whether or not you are expected to consider the IC to still be in coherency with a unit that no longer exists.

Magpie - because that is when you check coherency. At the end of a units movement.

To say you can check coherency when you want, you are allowing the Shrike jump

I do not agree that it is clear and will remain unconvinced until such time as GW says you cannot measure coherency at anytime before the end of a unit's move.

I'd even go so far as to say you are compelled to measure for coherency though out the move so as to avoid illegal situations at the end. We've still not covered what happens if you check coherency at the end of the move and the unit is incoherent, I'd be interested to know what would then happen.

Using a cheesy move that someone has thought up because they found a bit of a loop hole as being the reason I don't think follows, sure it is a case for requiring the measurement to be at the end but it is certainly not a proscriptive rule.

Perhaps if you can explain the Shrike jump?

Shrike Jump:
Unit that Shrike is with moves 6" forward (without Shrike)
Shrike is no longer in coherency with unit.
Shrike (jump infantry) jumps forward ("moves") 2" in front of the unit he was just with. The owning player claims that he is again attached to the unit as he is in coherency, thus allowing Shrike and hius unit to make 2 different length moves.

Edit: Someone else can probably explain it better.

Ok fair enough that is not legal because a unit cannot leave an IC the IC has to leave the unit so it isn't an issue.
Perhaps this is why units cannot leave IC's

Measuring coherency through out the move is not going to change that

Happyjew wrote:Shrike Jump:
Unit that Shrike is with moves 6" forward (without Shrike)
Shrike is no longer in coherency with unit.
Shrike (jump infantry) jumps forward ("moves") 2" in front of the unit he was just with. The owning player claims that he is again attached to the unit as he is in coherency, thus allowing Shrike and hius unit to make 2 different length moves.

Edit: Someone else can probably explain it better.

You claimed he wasn't in coherency, which can only be determined after you moved the entire unit.

you then proceeded to move another model in the unit, contradicting just that.

Let me rephrase it.
Shrike plus unit of non JI.
Shrike "jumps" forward 8" (open to debate, due to whether or not an IC leaving a unit can move faster than the slowest model of the unit. This is not the point).
Rest of the unit moves up 6"
Shrike is now rejoined to the unit due to the fact he is 2" away and thus in coherency.

@Disarray, assuming for the moment that a unit can leave the IC (already being argued elsewhere, I think). After the unit moves without Shrike, and he is no longer in coherency, you can claim that he is his own unit again and can still move. Shrike then moves as he hasn't moved yet, moving to the front of the unit. As he is now in coherency with the unit (again) he joins the unit and gets them that much closer to being able to assault.

Even if Shrike's movment like that would be allowed (which it wouldn't) he still never 're-joined' that unit, because he never left. You don't determine whether something is out of coherency until the entire unit moves, otherwise when I move 1 dude 6" forward, he's "out of coherency with his unit" and then "rejoins it" when I move the next guy 6" up ?


Also, quite related to the topic, I had another thread discussing something similar http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/356748.page

Magpie wrote:I do not agree that it is clear and will remain unconvinced until such time as GW says you cannot measure coherency at anytime before the end of a unit's move.

Despite the rule telling you that is when you check? The reuqirement is you check coherency at the end of movement. You can only measure when told you can. You cannot measure coherency during a move, as you are only allowed to check at the end

It is clear, once you actually read and read and read what coherency is telling you.

@Disarray, I never said the move legal (in fact it isn't for a number of reasons). Magpie had asked about the 'Shrike Jump' which is what I was explaining. If you only check coherency at the end of the phase (as RAW) then the Shrike Jump becomes impossible. If you claim you check coherency as you move models, the Shrike Jump becomes slightly more possible.

Magpie wrote:I do not agree that it is clear and will remain unconvinced until such time as GW says you cannot measure coherency at anytime before the end of a unit's move.

The point is that it doesn't matter if you measure coherency during the unit's move. Measure it whenever you like... but the unit isn't actually considered to be in or out of coherency until they have finished their movement. Because that's the point that the coherency rules tell you to check it.

We've still not covered what happens if you check coherency at the end of the move and the unit is incoherent, I'd be interested to know what would then happen.

Yes, actually, we have.

Not sure why you would want to do that.

But OK I can see how the rules might be read to allow that, but not really tho'. I see the rule as saying the IC joins the unit at the end of their movement phase, i.e. after the unit has moved, or if they haven't moved they can no longer move.

I'd also say that if it is part of the unit at the start of the phase and part of a unit at the end of a phase then it was part of a unit through out the phase.

That still has no bearing on the being able to check coherency at any time for what ever reason.

Magpie wrote:I see the rule as saying the IC joins the unit at the end of their movement phase, i.e. after the unit has moved, or if they haven't moved they can no longer move.

And the reason it happens at the end of the movement phase is because that's when you check coherency.

So why would you think it works any differently for the IC leaving the unit?

Because the bullet point rules says

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

"During" not "at the end" and not "coherency" as an overall state of the unit but "coherency distance." as a specific relationship between the IC and the unit.

During encompasses the end....

Coherency distance does not mean what you just said it means. Coherency or COherency distance would mean the same here

But end does not encompass during.

" Coherency or COherency distance would mean the same here"

Not true, a unit is in coherency if all of it's models are in coherency distance, the two are quite different. You check coherency by measuring coherency distance.

Magpie wrote:Not true, a unit is in coherency if all of it's models are in coherency distance, the two are quite different. You check coherency by measuring coherency distance.

And when do you do that?

Go have another look at the Coherency rules on page 12. In particular, the second half of the first paragraph. The bit that starts with 'So, once a unit has finished moving...'


That is the bit that tells us how unit coherency applies to movement. There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. You do not consider a model to be out of coherency while the unit is still moving, because the coherency rules don't tell you to do so. They simply ask that once the unit has finished moving you confirm coherency.

So when your IC moves away in the movement phase, you can move him in whatever direction you want, and he won't be considered to be out of coherency until the unit has finished moving... because that's when you determine that the unit is in coherency. You can measure all you want at any other time. You can determine, before the rest of the unit moves, that the IC is now 6" away from the unit... but that won't actually mean anything until the unit has finished moving.

But the rule for the IC leaving does not require the IC to "be out of coherency" merely "by moving out of coherency distance with it"

" There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. "

The rules of regrouping require you to consider if the unit is in coherency before you move.
You must be coherent when you disembark
IC's getting out of vehicle don't remain part of the unit "both unit and characters can disembark together and in coherency, but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal."
Enemy models are moved during tank shock but must be placed back in coherency.

You also consider coherency throughout the assault phase.

Magpie wrote:But the rule for the IC leaving does not require the IC to "be out of coherency" merely "by moving out of coherency distance with it"

In order for the IC to have moved out of coherency distance, it would have to be out of coherency. Otherwise it hasn't moved out of coherency distance.

The rules of regrouping require you to consider if the unit is in coherency before you move.

They require you to determine if the unit is in coherency before you regroup. Not during the unit's move.

You must be coherent when you disembark

Which, again, has no effect on coherency while the unit is moving.

IC's getting out of vehicle don't remain part of the unit "both unit and characters can disembark together and in coherency, but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal."

As above.

Enemy models are moved during tank shock but must be placed back in coherency.

Not sure how you think that goes against what I've been arguing, to be honest.

You also consider coherency throughout the assault phase.

Which doesn't happen during the unit's movement.

The simple fact is that there is no rules mechanic whereby a model is considered to be out of coherency with his unit while that unit is in the middle of its movement. The act of moving the IC away from the unit doesn't cause him to leave the unit the moment he is more than 2" away from the unit, because he's not out of coherency yet... because the unit is still moving.

He's not out of coherency until you have to actually decide whether or not the unit is in coherency. Which is after the unit finishes their movement.
So he hasn't moved out of coherency until that point. Because you can't claim that he has moved out of coherency until he is actually determined to be out of coherency.

No

You made the statement " There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. "

I have just shown there are several.

Additionally are you suggesting that an IC that disembarks with a unit is considered part of that unit through out the movement phase?
because the line : "but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal." pretty much wraps up this entire debate for me.

Magpie wrote:No

You made the statement " There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. "

I have just shown there are several.

You made a bunch of statements that have nothing to do with measuring coherency during a unit's movement.

Magpie wrote:Additionally are you suggesting that an IC that disembarks with a unit is considered part of that unit through out the movement phase?
because the line : "but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal." pretty much wraps up this entire debate for me.

An IC that disembarks with a unit is placed with the unit, and is then free to move off, just as he would be if the unit had started the turn on the table. Disembarking doesn't change the process for the IC leaving the unit. He leaves the unit by moving out of coherency with it.

insaniak wrote:In general practice, yes, you need to check the distance between your models as you move, as their is no mechanic provided for correcting the problem if you only discover that they are out of coherency when they finish moving.

Its quite a loop then, as you "must" form the chain.
The chain "must" be formed before it is checked but according to you, there is no way to be sure of this or correct it if its wrong.
If you can't correct it, then you have failed the requirement to remain coherent which you "must" do.

insaniak wrote:But the unit is not actually considered to have broken coherency until[i/] they finish moving. As you move each model, you don't have to place each model within 2" of another. It's perfectly acceptable to move one model, move another model to a point 6" away, and then move other models into the gap in between. The sole requirement is that the unit [i]ends its movement in coherency.

Of course, I'm not saying otherwise.

What I am saying, is that there is no prohibition on measuring distances between models as you move them, none at all.
There is no requirement, to have any distance relationship between any particular models, as you move them, until the point where coherency becomes compromised.

For eg, the middle diagram on p12.
Lets say, I have moved the marines into the box-shape, but have yet to move the sergeant, who is 6" away, off the diagram.
The front 2 marines are 2.0001" away from the rear ones.

At this point, the unit is neither coherent, nor out of coherency ("My unit is incoherent!"), but, there is nothing that prevents me from measuring what is where.

This circumstance, makes it clear, that the only place I can put the sergeant, is where it is in the diagram, in order to be coherent.
This is not something I can do, if I want, I must.

insaniak wrote:Which means that having an IC out of coherency with the unit doesn't actually mean anything until the unit finishes moving. Until that point, the IC is not out of coherency, because coherency isn't checked (rules-wise) until the end of the movement.

If that's true, the ic cannot leave the unit at all.
Only the ic can move in such a way as to purposefully break coherency.
If the ic moved off 6" thataway, the rest of the unit, would be compelled to follow as it must remain coherent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Despite the rule telling you that is when you check? The reuqirement is you check coherency at the end of movement. You can only measure when told you can. You cannot measure coherency during a move, as you are only allowed to check at the end.

The rule only tells you what you must accomplish, not when the only time you may check is.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:No

You made the statement " There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. "

I have just shown there are several.

You made a bunch of statements that have nothing to do with measuring coherency during a unit's movement.

Magpie wrote:Additionally are you suggesting that an IC that disembarks with a unit is considered part of that unit through out the movement phase?
because the line : "but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal." pretty much wraps up this entire debate for me.

An IC that disembarks with a unit is placed with the unit, and is then free to move off, just as he would be if the unit had started the turn on the table. Disembarking doesn't change the process for the IC leaving the unit. He leaves the unit by moving out of coherency with it.

Ok not statements a direct quote Page 46
"A unit falling back can attempt to regroup by taking a Regroup test in the Movement phase just before they move. This is a special type of Leadership test, which falling back units cannot attempt if any of the following conditions apply:
• The unit is below half strength.
• There are enemies within 6".
• The unit is not in coherency."

Just as you must measure the 6" to the enemy , the coherency status of the unit must be determined at the start of their movement phase, which is a rule that considers coherency at a point other than the end of the movement phase. It clearly shows that there is nothing that restricts measuring coherency to the end of the movement phase. If a rule requires it you can measure it at other times, at the beginning for Regroup and "during" for IC's leaving.

As I said before " can leave the unit as they move, as normal" is a clear statement that the IC leaves the unit "as they move" not after they move but AS they move.

As fuusa says the requirement to be in coherency at the end of the move is a requirement not a prohibition, the rule for units made incoherent by misfortunes points you to that as well, they are required to re-cohere ASAP and the only way to know if their proposed move is legal is to measure the coherency so they'll know were to go.