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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you do this, just out of curiosity, what is the intended purpose? If you did indeed find a way around a specific rule, how would you even begin to find an advantage with this? Any models out of coherency at the end of the turn at out right destroyed, so you couldn't even use it to snag multiple objectives, right?

Well right now some will argue that you can string out the new models to snatch objectives, by maintaining coherency but not with the models of the units they have been added to. By that what I mean is you can have the 5 first original models, and add 7 new one, having only 1 of the new models being within coherency of the 5 to which they have been added and ensure that all other models are respecting the coherency. This, goes against the coherency rule page 198 when you add 7 models in one sequence as they all need to be in coherency of the unit they are added to (so all 7 models needs to be within 2" of models already on the table). But not if you add 7 times one model as then it will be a model by model sequencing and then the notion of "unit they are added to" is not fixed and will evolve after each and every model is added.

By doing the later, you clearly gain an advantage in ignoring page 198 and introducing a sequencing (i.e. resolving each roll of a dice individually or considering that you add one model at a time) that is not existing in DWA.

 the metil wrote:
Quoting (again) the exact Wording of page 198:

"Some rules allow you to add models to a unit during the battle; such models must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to."

By adding one or X (being more than 1) models, you must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are added to. This means (without any lose interpretation) that when you have an existing unit of 7 models and you add 5 to them via the usage of one stratagem (so one sequence), all 5 needs to be in coherency with the 7 starting model.

I don't see that in the rules you just quoted. It says "unit coherency of the unit" not "unit coherency with the existing models of the unit".

If I have 1 model and add 10 models to it, if I place the models in an offset line such that all models of the unit are within 2" of at least 2 other models of the unit, I have placed those model in "unit coherency of the unit".

Did they change Objective rules? I thought they all had to be a certain number of inches away from each other? If that is true, and each objective needs to be at least X number of inches apart, you would need an exceedingly rare instance to pull off a dual objective snatch like what you are describing, and then the unit models not in coherency would be destroyed. We must be talking .00000001% chance of pulling this off. This is like the SGT in a IG squad downing Morty with a Las Pistol shot.

 alextroy wrote:
I don't see that in the rules you just quoted. It says "unit coherency of the unit" not "unit coherency with the existing models of the unit".

If I have 1 model and add 10 models to it, if I place the models in an offset line such that all models of the unit are within 2" of at least 2 other models of the unit, I have placed those model in "unit coherency of the unit".

What you're missing is the beginning of the sentence .... "Some rules allow you to add modelS..." emphasis mine.

So yes when you had 10 models in one sequence (by resolving a stratagem like ... DWA) you add multiple models and cannot use these models as being part of the unit you add them to because you have 2 group of models: the ones you're adding and the ones which are already on the board.

If you had 10 actions to add 1 model, that works as you claim but adding 10 models in action is not. When you resolve DWA you add a number X of models to the unit, you might put them one-by-one, but nonetheless you add X models (X being 1 or 7) which means all X models needs to be in coherency with the unit they are added to.

Sequencing the addition "one model at a time" does not allow you to break that rule page 198 as you are resolving the action in "one motion" as you would if you were deploying a unit on the board (if you have 20 models you don't place all 20 models in one motion right?).

Sequencing placing models one at a time is beside the point. If I add 7 models simultaneously, the 7 new models and the pre-existing models are all one unit at the same moment, and so coherency is determined all at once for the enlarged unit.

There is still nothing to suggest coherency is only measured to and from models that were on the table before new ones were added.

Aash wrote:

There is still nothing to suggest coherency is only measured to and from models that were on the table before new ones were added.

So how do you interpret the second paragraph page 198 that i've been quoting all along? Because, to me, it is quite clear "must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to." that when you add the new models, they need to be all in coherency with the ones which were on the table. As said before, you have 2 groups of models: the ones on the table and the ones you're adding. All the models from the second needs to be in coherency with the first group.

Once this is done, you're good to go and have one unit.

It is clear to me that this is to ensure the models aren’t set up as a new and separate unit, that they are in fact added to an existing unit and that the existing unit still follows all coherency rules after the new models have been added.

Aash wrote:
It is clear to me that this is to ensure the models aren’t set up as a new and separate unit, that they are in fact added to an existing unit and that the existing unit still follows all coherency rules after the new models have been added.

I disagree here as it goes beyond just being in coherency overall...

There's 2 part to the rule:
- "Such models must always be set up in unit coherency [...]": so that's what you refer to: the group as a all need to be in coherency
- "[...] with the unit they are added to.": which means all such models (that are being added to an existing unit) are to be in unit coherency with the unit they are joining

To me, it seems you are only considering the first aspect of the rule.

 the metil wrote:

Aash wrote:

There is still nothing to suggest coherency is only measured to and from models that were on the table before new ones were added.

So how do you interpret the second paragraph page 198 that i've been quoting all along? Because, to me, it is quite clear "must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to." that when you add the new models, they need to be all in coherency with the ones which were on the table. As said before, you have 2 groups of models: the ones on the table and the ones you're adding. All the models from the second needs to be in coherency with the first group.

Once this is done, you're good to go and have one unit.

2 things. Firstly, if I have 5 models in a unit and need to add another 5 models I can do it one at a time and still follow that rule. The first model is added and I have a unit of 6, then I add the second model to that unit of 6 and now I have 7...etc. Nothing in that sequence goes against the written rules. The last sentence from your first paragraph is not supported by the rules and is an interpretation of what they say.

Secondly, the rules are quite possibly written that way because the coherency rules otherwise only apply when you set up a unit and when you move it. Not applying them here could lead to weird interactions with units teleporting around the board. For example, without any caveat about coherency I could have a unit of 2 models, bring back 5 and place those 5 anywhere I want on the board because the standard coherency rules wouldn't apply to them until we get to the movement or Morale phases to check coherency. That's even weirder than any interaction we're arguing about here.

Slipspace wrote:

 the metil wrote:

Aash wrote:

There is still nothing to suggest coherency is only measured to and from models that were on the table before new ones were added.

So how do you interpret the second paragraph page 198 that i've been quoting all along? Because, to me, it is quite clear "must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to." that when you add the new models, they need to be all in coherency with the ones which were on the table. As said before, you have 2 groups of models: the ones on the table and the ones you're adding. All the models from the second needs to be in coherency with the first group.

Once this is done, you're good to go and have one unit.

2 things. Firstly, if I have 5 models in a unit and need to add another 5 models I can do it one at a time and still follow that rule. The first model is added and I have a unit of 6, then I add the second model to that unit of 6 and now I have 7...etc. Nothing in that sequence goes against the written rules. The last sentence from your first paragraph is not supported by the rules and is an interpretation of what they say.

Secondly, the rules are quite possibly written that way because the coherency rules otherwise only apply when you set up a unit and when you move it. Not applying them here could lead to weird interactions with units teleporting around the board. For example, without any caveat about coherency I could have a unit of 2 models, bring back 5 and place those 5 anywhere I want on the board because the standard coherency rules wouldn't apply to them until we get to the movement or Morale phases to check coherency. That's even weirder than any interaction we're arguing about here.

I'll answer to your second point first, the unit coherency rule page 198 covers that elements: "A unit that has more than one model must be set up and finish any sort of moves as a single group, with all models [...]" so you can teleport all you want, it has to be done in one group etc. No possibility to "split" your one squad, as the rule covers when you set up and move a unit and it does not say "the first time you set up a unit" so it is anytime you set up a unit: teleport, disembark, etc.

In regards of your first point, no you can't do that because you are adding 5 models which then falls under that second paragraph page 198 which tells you that when you add models (plural is being used in the rule book), it needs to be always in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to. See my post just above yours for the wording or in page 1. You are introducing a sequencing by adding models one at a time, when the rule doesn't tell you to do so.

Having a clear sequencing in the rule which permit you to add models back one at a time, is critical in my view as it will then allow you to work around that core rule page 198. If it says add D6 models back, then it is a group of model added in one sequence (you may wish to place them one at a time, but it is still a group that is added to another one).

 the metil wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 the metil wrote:

Aash wrote:

There is still nothing to suggest coherency is only measured to and from models that were on the table before new ones were added.

So how do you interpret the second paragraph page 198 that i've been quoting all along? Because, to me, it is quite clear "must always be set up in unit coherency with the unit they are being added to." that when you add the new models, they need to be all in coherency with the ones which were on the table. As said before, you have 2 groups of models: the ones on the table and the ones you're adding. All the models from the second needs to be in coherency with the first group.

Once this is done, you're good to go and have one unit.

2 things. Firstly, if I have 5 models in a unit and need to add another 5 models I can do it one at a time and still follow that rule. The first model is added and I have a unit of 6, then I add the second model to that unit of 6 and now I have 7...etc. Nothing in that sequence goes against the written rules. The last sentence from your first paragraph is not supported by the rules and is an interpretation of what they say.

Secondly, the rules are quite possibly written that way because the coherency rules otherwise only apply when you set up a unit and when you move it. Not applying them here could lead to weird interactions with units teleporting around the board. For example, without any caveat about coherency I could have a unit of 2 models, bring back 5 and place those 5 anywhere I want on the board because the standard coherency rules wouldn't apply to them until we get to the movement or Morale phases to check coherency. That's even weirder than any interaction we're arguing about here.

I'll answer to your second point first, the unit coherency rule page 198 covers that elements: "A unit that has more than one model must be set up and finish any sort of moves as a single group, with all models [...]" so you can teleport all you want, it has to be done in one group etc. No possibility to "split" your one squad, as the rule covers when you set up and move a unit and it does not say "the first time you set up a unit" so it is anytime you set up a unit: teleport, disembark, etc.

I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole because it's pretty tangential to the rule being discussed, but adding to a unit is not the same as setting it up. That's why the rules for adding to a unit need to cover coherency.

The rest of your points are really just rehashing the arguments people are having a disagreement over in the first place.

 the metil wrote:

Aash wrote:
It is clear to me that this is to ensure the models aren’t set up as a new and separate unit, that they are in fact added to an existing unit and that the existing unit still follows all coherency rules after the new models have been added.

I disagree here as it goes beyond just being in coherency overall...

There's 2 part to the rule:
- "Such models must always be set up in unit coherency [...]": so that's what you refer to: the group as a all need to be in coherency
- "[...] with the unit they are added to.": which means all such models (that are being added to an existing unit) are to be in unit coherency with the unit they are joining

To me, it seems you are only considering the first aspect of the rule.

The first part means the newly added models must be in coherency,the second part tells us who the have to be in coherency with -the unit they are joining. In order to meet these requirements the new models don’t necessarily have to be in coherency with the specific models that were already on the table. Provided all models in a unit are in coherency with one (or two for 6+ model units)model from the same unit, the fact that some new models are added to the unit doesn’t change this. There are. Or two distinct groups of original and added models for unit coherency.

the metil wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I don't see that in the rules you just quoted. It says "unit coherency of the unit" not "unit coherency with the existing models of the unit".

If I have 1 model and add 10 models to it, if I place the models in an offset line such that all models of the unit are within 2" of at least 2 other models of the unit, I have placed those model in "unit coherency of the unit".

What you're missing is the beginning of the sentence .... "Some rules allow you to add modelS..." emphasis mine.

So yes when you had 10 models in one sequence (by resolving a stratagem like ... DWA) you add multiple models and cannot use these models as being part of the unit you add them to because you have 2 group of models: the ones you're adding and the ones which are already on the board.

You have added a distinction that the rules do not. The rules do not state anything about which models you have to be in coherency with, only the unit.

the metil wrote:

Aash wrote:
It is clear to me that this is to ensure the models aren’t set up as a new and separate unit, that they are in fact added to an existing unit and that the existing unit still follows all coherency rules after the new models have been added.

I disagree here as it goes beyond just being in coherency overall...

There's 2 part to the rule:
- "Such models must always be set up in unit coherency [...]": so that's what you refer to: the group as a all need to be in coherency
- "[...] with the unit they are added to.": which means all such models (that are being added to an existing unit) are to be in unit coherency with the unit they are joining

To me, it seems you are only considering the first aspect of the rule.

The models must be setup in unit coherency coherency with the unit they are added to as opposed to say themselves or with a different unit. If I placed 5 models down all within 2" of each other, those models would be in unit coherency with each other. They would not be in unit coherency of the unit they are being added to if that unit was 24" away from them. However, the rules require the models added to the unit be in unit coherency with the unit. Thus, the models added and the models on the table need to end up in a unit that has unit coherency.

For example, let's say I have a unit of 5 models and I get to add 4 models to it. O is the original models and X are the new models:

O -2"- O -2"- O -2"- O -2"- O
2"- X -2"- X -2"- X -2"- X

That is a valid formation. But so is this:

O -2"- O -2"- O -2"- X -2"- X
2"- O -2"- O -2"- X -2"- X

In both cases, you have added models to the unit in unit coherency of the unit they are being added to.

If you are adding models to a unit, they are not a part of the unit until they are added. You cannot measure coherency between the models you are adding until they are added because they are not yet a part of a unit.

So until you are finished getting them into coherency with the unit (that does not yet include the models you are adding because you are not yet done adding them) there's nothing requiring those models to be in coherency with each other. Because they are not yet a part of a unit.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
If you are adding models to a unit, they are not a part of the unit until they are added. You cannot measure coherency between the models you are adding until they are added because they are not yet a part of a unit.

So until you are finished getting them into coherency with the unit (that does not yet include the models you are adding because you are not yet done adding them) there's nothing requiring those models to be in coherency with each other. Because they are not yet a part of a unit.

Your second paragraph is an assertion, not rules, and the second sentence of the first paragraph is also an assertion. I can equally say once I've added one of my 5 resurrected models to the unit it's part of the unit so I can use that model for coherency purposes. You're arguing if I have to set up 5 models and I put one down first, that's not part of the unit. That's not supported by any rules text.

We dont know when exactly coherency is checked. Is it after all models have been set up ? Or after each model ? I say its after all models have been set up. I have never ever seen any player saying my unit isnt in coherency when i set them up one by one, they must be in coherency when all models have been placed.

If you're doing it any other way you're not following og198.

And why would the added models need to be setup in coherency with other added models? They're not a unit until they join the unit.

They join the unit together as previously proven, and 198 doesn't given you permission to sequence placement, it says add the models. Not, add a model at a time to benefit yourself.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
If you're doing it any other way you're not following og198.

And why would the added models need to be setup in coherency with other added models? They're not a unit until they join the unit.

They join the unit together as previously proven, and 198 doesn't given you permission to sequence placement, it says add the models. Not, add a model at a time to benefit yourself.

I haven’t seen any proof of that in this thread. Nonetheless, if you place all the new models simultaneously as you insist you must, they all become part of the unit they join at the same instant, and so long as the unit they have joined (including all the model(s) simultaneously added to it) meet the requirements for unit coherency then no rules are broken.

The idea that somehow the models from one unit are divided into a group that coherency can be measured to and a separate group which don’t count for coherency isn’t supported by the rules.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
If you're doing it any other way you're not following og198.

And why would the added models need to be setup in coherency with other added models? They're not a unit until they join the unit.

They join the unit together as previously proven, and 198 doesn't given you permission to sequence placement, it says add the models. Not, add a model at a time to benefit yourself.

P198 does not require simultaneity. It also at no point makes the claim that you can on,y add to unit prime

I agree with nosferatu1001 and Aash.

Honestly, to look at it any other way than nosferatu1001 and AAsh is being willfully wrong.

I actually think that the wording is sufficiently loose enough that it can be interpreted both ways. I lean twards agreeing with the stringing out being allowed argument based only on the fact that it was spelled out specifically prohibiting that last edition and it doesn't do that now. Also the game now has precedent for another ability allowing stringing out so those two facts combine suggest to me that it can be done.

I apologize if you find this offensive, but "Sufficiently loose" is a kinder way of saying "I know the right answer, but I don't want to admit it".

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I apologize if you find this offensive, but "Sufficiently loose" is a kinder way of saying "I know the right answer, but I don't want to admit it".

It's not offensive, just wrong. It's perfectly possible to acknowledge the rules are not precise enough to arrive at a definitive answer while still bringing in context from elsewhere or interesting the RaW to arrive at a conclusion, which is what Nithaniel and others have done.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I apologize if you find this offensive, but "Sufficiently loose" is a kinder way of saying "I know the right answer, but I don't want to admit it".

I hope I didn't imply that I know the right answer. I have no idea from my words how you came to that understanding. What I mean by that is that the wording in these rules do not specify whether stringing them out is allowed. It equally fails to specify that its disallowed. This leaves us discussing whether it certain words like model vs models gets us to a definitive point which I think it doesn't. I was just trying to add context as to why I stated my opinion because I play DG and its important to me that I don't knowingly cheat.

I'm signed up to a bunch of tournaments from July onwards in the UK so hoping we get an updated faq by then as I have emailed this question into the rules team. In the meantime all I can do is email TO's in advance and ask them to rule on it.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

And why would the added models need to be setup in coherency with other added models? They're not a unit until they join the unit.

Which is what is happening when you set the model up on the board.

If you set up new models, unless you are saying it is a NEW unit, that you paid for in advance on your list, then it has to be part of an existing unit. If it's not in coherency with an existing unit, those models are destroyed at the end of the phase.