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.

"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group with every model within 2″ horizontally and 6″ vertically of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency."

Does this mean one could run a blob of 18 Necrons and leave 2 of them next to the Cryptek while the rest split off to do their own thing?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group with every model within 2″ horizontally and 6″ vertically of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency."

Does this mean one could run a blob of 18 Necrons and leave 2 of them next to the Cryptek while the rest split off to do their own thing?

"As a group"

If you're splitting the unit into two groups, are you finishing in coherency "as A group"?

A unit is "one group". You move all models in one unit, before moving to activating models in the next unit.

Sigh. If this was a court of law, you MIGHT be able to successfully argue that what you're saying is semantically accurate. However, I don't think you'd ever get a jury of your peers to agree with what you're saying.

TECHNICALLY, if your unit breaks coherency using the buddy system, each model will end its move within 2" of another model from the unit. BUT... you probably shouldn't expect ANY opponent to agree with your rules interpretation. Certainly no organized event. The intention of the rule is very clear. The entire unit needs to be in one group coherency at the end of its move.

However, I don't think you'd ever get a jury of your peers to agree with what you're saying.

The same for not re-rolling dice that are a natural hit but fail after modifiers.

just would be just another rule with an unexpected minor change (why change the wording from the past if you want itr to be the same) and huge impact in game

RAW it is clear and just because it was different in the past does not mean that it cannot be intended

coherency - the state of cohering or sticking together.

Splitting would mean it is no longer coherent, words mean things...

'As a group' tells you that the entire unit must be a single group, with no model more than 2" from another one in the unit.

And regardless of the semantics, we all know how this rule is supposed to play. There's literally no chance that GW intended for unit coherency to now be tons of 2-man sub-units. The only thing that changed for this edition is that they tried to save space (to cram the core rules down to 8 pages) by getting rid of almost all their diagrams.

This is the same edition where Baneblades are Beyblades, flamethrowers are better at anti-aircraft than crowd control and Plasma is more likwly ro blow up at night. Who knows what GW intended? RAW, "as a group" means once I move models in squad B, I cannot resume moving models in Squad A.

Show me the RAW otherwise that refutes this.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
This is the same edition where Baneblades are Beyblades, flamethrowers are better at anti-aircraft than crowd control and Plasma is more likwly ro blow up at night. Who knows what GW intended? RAW, "as a group" means once I move models in squad B, I cannot resume moving models in Squad A.

Show me the RAW otherwise that refutes this.

'A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group...'

It says 'a group' not 'multiple groups' or 'in groups'. So you must have a single group of models, all within 2" of at least one other model from the unit.

It states once coherency is lost, you may only make a move action if it results in the unit regaining coherency.

Q: What happens if a unit that has become split up
during battle cannot re-establish unit coherency the
next time it moves?
A: In this case the unit cannot move.
Note that the rules concerning unit coherency apply any
time that a unit is moved, including charging, piling-in,
consolidating, etc. Again, if a unit cannot end such a move in
unit coherency, it cannot make the move.

Coherency being defined as "within 2 inches of at least one other model from this unit."

Changing the rules to "a single contiguous group where every model is within at least 2 inches of at least one other model from this unit, and recursively within 2 inches of all other models in this unit" would have cleared the rules up, but given that there are so many other parts of RAW that innately fly in the face of any "appeal to RAI" defenses, it takes a specific extension of the meaning of the word "group" (for example, we are a group of WH40k enthusiasts, in coherency with our computers/mobile devices) in order to enforce previous edition coherency rules.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Coherency being defined as "within 2 inches of at least one other model from this unit."

Changing the rules to "a single contiguous group where every model is within at least 2 inches of at least one other model from this unit, and recursively within 2 inches of all other models in this unit" would have cleared the rules up, but given that there are so many other parts of RAW that innately fly in the face of any "appeal to RAI" defenses, it takes a specific extension of the meaning of the word "group" (for example, we are a group of WH40k enthusiasts, in coherency with our computers/mobile devices) in order to enforce previous edition coherency rules.

Well, I think if they'd just said: 'a continuous group', that would have been plenty (your version is both much longer in a rules set where space is obviously a premium and uses big words that a lot of people would have to look up to figure out what you're saying, sadly).

However, just having the word 'group' in there does do enough to get their point across. Like you say in your example, we are a group of 40k enthusiasts connected via the internet. If some of these enthusiasts were instead off in their own private P2P network, then they would no longer be part of the same group, and now there would be 2 groups of enthusiasts.

Well, it actually says "...every model must be within 2 inches ... of one other model from their unit..." It also says "A unit must set up and finish any sort of move as a group..." That's the first part of the sentence.

A--the article denoting a single group. Thus the unit must be in a single group.

If you ignore the first part (a group) then the second part loses the context provided by a single sentence. There is no need to augment the word group with contiguous, because "A" does that for you.

The issue is that as long as at least 2 models in a unit stay within 2" of each other, they can move per RAW despite not remaining with the rest of the unit. It needs to be asked in the FAQ thread.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The issue is that as long as at least 2 models in a unit stay within 2" of each other, they can move per RAW despite not remaining with the rest of the unit. It needs to be asked in the FAQ thread.

SJ

The unit has to begin and end as "a group."

They cannot do as above.

You could sort of run 2-man groups. But the entire unit would have to start and end their moves at the same time even if they all go different directions.

The real problem with trying to do something like this is that if the opponent ever reduced any of these sub-units to a single model far away from other models, all the sub-units could lose the ability to move at all.

Oh man its ADL all over again.