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.

Yaho,

Came up last night; nobody used it because it's too icky and we all played 7th or older:

Core rules 1st column 2nd paragraph wrote:
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models. 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. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves.

As written, what prevents a devastator squad from having 2 lascannons at the far left corner of the deployment zone, 2 lascannons 72" away at the far right, and the sgt and a scrub hiding behind a bastion with the captain?
Reworked for less extreme example, what prevents a unit of conscripts from being joined at the hip in pairs, but 3" between each pair? Is there anything that prevents them from moving in this formation?

Is there any particular indicator this is not as intended?

 malamis wrote:
Yaho,

Came up last night; nobody used it because it's too icky and we all played 7th or older:

Core rules 1st column 2nd paragraph wrote:
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models. 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. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves.

As written, what prevents a devastator squad from having 2 lascannons at the far left corner of the deployment zone, 2 lascannons 72" away at the far right, and the sgt and a scrub hiding behind a bastion with the captain?
Reworked for less extreme example, what prevents a unit of conscripts from being joined at the hip in pairs, but 3" between each pair? Is there anything that prevents them from moving in this formation?

Is there any particular indicator this is not as intended?

This was picked up on within seconds of 8th edition coming out. Afaik they have not fixed the fact you are not required to set up a unit in coherency. The Designers Commentary FAQ prevents the unit from moving though.

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.

By RAW, I don't see any reason you can't do what you described. Possible there's an FAQ somewhere that clarifies it, but not sure.

An indication it's not what was intended would be there's never been an official battle report or similar which splits a unit like this additionally there are rules like Combat Squads which would be redundant if it was normally allowed.

Neither do you have permission to deploy your models in this manner. As a permissive rules set, and with a clearly established, consistent expectation that models be deployed in coherency (over multiple editions), you cannot deploy your models out of coherency.

Don't be a troll, and don't feed trolls.

DCannon4Life wrote:
Neither do you have permission to deploy your models in this manner. As a permissive rules set, and with a clearly established, consistent expectation that models be deployed in coherency (over multiple editions), you cannot deploy your models out of coherency.

Don't be a troll, and don't feed trolls.

I just had a quick re-read, and the Unit rules actually do not prohibit this. "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:"

If you set up 2 models in one corner and 2 models in the other, all models satisfy the rule.

An amazing oversight from a rules proofing perspective =/

Not sure what version of the rules you guys are reading but the battle primer from their website clearly says the following under the Units heading in the Core Ruels:

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models. 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. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves.

Emphasis added by me. They clearly cover that the unit must be set up with-in coherency. Not sure what the print version says (I don't have access to it right now)

*Edit* Never mind, I misunderstood the OP and understand the issue now.

For what it's worth, it's almost impossible to describe what we all know and love as unit coherency, using only words, and no pictures.

For example, saying that all models in a unit must remain within 2" of another model allows for pairs of models to be sprinkled around the board.

All models in a unit must remain within 2" of each other creates tight balls of models, because the outer edges of units have to be within 2" of each other.


The closest I have come would be to say that all models from a unit must form an imaginary chain, in which no more than two models can be the ends of said chain, and all other models must be within 2" of two other models, unless there are fewer than 3 models in a unit in which case the remaining models must remain within 2" of another remaining model from that unit, until only one model remains. When a unit is reduced to a single model, unit coherency rules do not apply to it, until such time as more models are added to that unit.

Even though, that denies "X" shaped deployment for a unit, where a central model is surrounded by 4 other models, as that would result in too many chain "ends". It's extraordinarily difficult to do without a diagram.

The clause "as a group" is important, guys. A group, singular - not "some groups". A unit has to be deployed together.

The AoS rules, on which 8th Edition were based, omitted this clause originally and it was caught in the first FAQ, which then included an errata to add precisely this wording.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This was picked up on within seconds of 8th edition coming out. Afaik they have not fixed the fact you are not required to set up a unit in coherency. The Designers Commentary FAQ prevents the unit from moving though.

Which is all well and good, but 8th edition coherency as written is simply the buddy system Space marines frolicking through the hills hand in hand. If a unit was torn apart in close combat that only two dudes were left 10" away from each other, then it would apply. Hence my quandry

 greatbigtree wrote:
For what it's worth, it's almost impossible to describe what we all know and love as unit coherency, using only words, and no pictures.

For example, saying that all models in a unit must remain within 2" of another model allows for pairs of models to be sprinkled around the board.

All models in a unit must remain within 2" of each other creates tight balls of models, because the outer edges of units have to be within 2" of each other.


The closest I have come would be to say that all models from a unit must form an imaginary chain, in which no more than two models can be the ends of said chain, and all other models must be within 2" of two other models, unless there are fewer than 3 models in a unit in which case the remaining models must remain within 2" of another remaining model from that unit, until only one model remains. When a unit is reduced to a single model, unit coherency rules do not apply to it, until such time as more models are added to that unit.

Even though, that denies "X" shaped deployment for a unit, where a central model is surrounded by 4 other models, as that would result in too many chain "ends". It's extraordinarily difficult to do without a diagram.

Why they couldn't just keep the 7th edition wording is beyond me.

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" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.

Just remember to change "finished moving" to "being set up or finished moving" and you're golden.

Stux wrote:

An indication it's not what was intended would be there's never been an official battle report or similar which splits a unit like this additionally there are rules like Combat Squads which would be redundant if it was normally allowed.

Combat squads causes the entire unit to be a separate unit for *all* rules purposes, not just movement/coherency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thommy H wrote:
The clause "as a group" is important, guys. A group, singular - not "some groups". A unit has to be deployed together.

"as a group" also means "all at once" i.e. you can't set up 2 devastators from a squad, plant a land raider somewhere, and then come back for the rest of the unit. If it's Either/Or/Both is a legitimate question here.

Maybe it's a native speaker thing, but the sentence as written: "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" is fairly clear that "as a group" is in reference to the positioning part that follows.

Again, this was a specific errata that was made to AoS when people raised this precise point. I think it's clear from context what it means.

Thommy H wrote:
The clause "as a group" is important, guys. A group, singular - not "some groups". A unit has to be deployed together.

The AoS rules, on which 8th Edition were based, omitted this clause originally and it was caught in the first FAQ, which then included an errata to add precisely this wording.

So you admit that RaW you don't have to deploy them all together, since it needed an errata in AoS.

No, that isn't what I said.

I said that, originally, the AoS rules omitted the "as a group" part, and this was the errata that was added. The 40K wording - which is basically AoS+ - has thus incorporated that change.

Thommy H wrote:
No, that isn't what I said.

I said that, originally, the AoS rules omitted the "as a group" part, and this was the errata that was added. The 40K wording - which is basically AoS+ - has thus incorporated that change.

Nowhere does it say "group" is equivalent to "all models in coherency". The rule explicitly states you only have to be within 2" of one other model. Two pairs of models deployed 40" apart fits this rule.

That wouldn't be "as a group", would it? That would be "as two groups".

Thommy H wrote:
That wouldn't be "as a group", would it? That would be "as two groups".

No, it would be one group. Just because there is a large distance between them doesn't stop them being a group. And like I said, it satisfies the rule that says each model must be within 2" of at least one other model.

Thommy H wrote:
That wouldn't be "as a group", would it? That would be "as two groups".

Correct. /thread




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Thommy H wrote:
That wouldn't be "as a group", would it? That would be "as two groups".

No, it would be one group. Just because there is a large distance between them doesn't stop them being a group. And like I said, it satisfies the rule that says each model must be within 2" of at least one other model.

No. By your definition every model on the table is one group.

I love these threads where we all bicker about something where the intent is painfully obvious.

Rules as written, you can deploy a unit as pairs of models, all over the board. Each individual model would satisfy the lone requirement that it is within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of at least one other model. We had this same issue initially in 7th (6th?) Edition with Aegis Defense Lines. The intent is clearly that there are no gaps greater than 2" (or 6" vertically) between groups of models within a single unit. Unfortunately, GW isn't great at translating RAI into RAW.

ASSUMING we allowed people to deploy in this manner, the results would be hilarious. I could assault your two Marines over HERE, cause 3+ wounds and kill Marines from the unit elsewhere on the board. That's some serious reach!

 Marmatag wrote:
No. By your definition every model on the table is one group.

Except the rules only say you have to be in coherency with one other model of the same unit, not other units.

You're upset, I understand, but the RaW is clear. You might not like it, and refuse to use it, but that doesn't change what the rule is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
I love these threads where we all bicker about something where the intent is painfully obvious.

Rules as written, you can deploy a unit as pairs of models, all over the board. Each individual model would satisfy the lone requirement that it is within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of at least one other model. We had this same issue initially in 7th (6th?) Edition with Aegis Defense Lines. The intent is clearly that there are no gaps greater than 2" (or 6" vertically) between groups of models within a single unit. Unfortunately, GW isn't great at translating RAI into RAW.

ASSUMING we allowed people to deploy in this manner, the results would be hilarious. I could assault your two Marines over HERE, cause 3+ wounds and kill Marines from the unit elsewhere on the board. That's some serious reach!

RaW = RaI. If the intent is different, they will issue an errata. Otherwise by definition the Rules as Written were written as Intended. Rules don't magically appear on a hard drive due to cosmic radiation. The author intended to write the rule exactly as it is written. If there was a mistake, they will correct it.

I don't know what else "as a group" could possibly be referring to besides positionally. If they wanted to specify they needed to be set up or moved together in a temporal sense wouldn't they use something like "at the same time" instead?

But, hey, play it how you like!

Thommy H wrote:
I don't know what else "as a group" could possibly be referring to besides positionally. If they wanted to specify they needed to be set up or moved together in a temporal sense wouldn't they use something like "at the same time" instead?

But, hey, play it how you like!

You're absolutely correct, it's a willful misunderstanding of what as a group means.

If we go by the mathematical definition of a group, with "coherency" as the operation, and "unit" as the group, with the "identity" element as the board.

Requirements:
Closure:
For any model A, and model B in the unit, the result of coherency between A & B is valid.

Associative:
If two models A & B are in coherency, and C is coherent with that set, then model A must be coherent with the set of coherent models B&C.

Inverse:
If we treat the "identity" of this group as the game board itself, every model is coherent with the board and itself, and the inverse of coherency would be removing the model from the board. Thus you can remove a model from play while not violating coherency.

Rules as written, deploying 2 models in coherency in one section of the board, without coherency to another 2 models deployed elsewhere, violates the mathematical requirement to be a group.

QED

The FAQ clearly addresses this. It says

Q:"Can I set up a unit, or finish any sort of move with a unit so that its model form several separate groups (where each group consists of model from that unit that within 2" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least one other model from their group)?

A: No. The unit must set up or finish any sort of move as a single group.

Source - Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook. So no it isn't RAW as its been directly addressed.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
The FAQ clearly addresses this. It says

Q:"Can I set up a unit, or finish any sort of move with a unit so that its model form several separate groups (where each group consists of model from that unit that within 2" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least one other model from their group)?

A: No. The unit must set up or finish any sort of move as a single group.

Source - Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook. So no it isn't RAW as its be directly addressed.

See, I looked at the FAQ and missed that question entirely. I thought I was going mad because I could have sworn this was added.

Add one to the list of "reasons I am getting old."

 Ratius wrote:
An amazing oversight from a rules proofing perspective =/

Something that has plagued every set of miniatures rules I've ever seen. We all know how it should be played.

Warmachine Mk1 attempted to explain it ("if a unit is widely scattered, its formation will be centred on the largest coherent grouping of troopers that are 3" or closer to each other"), but that leaves the possibility of two equally-large groups of troopers separated by more than the coherency distance. They gave up in mk2 and defined "in formation" as being within the unit leader's command range instead.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
No. By your definition every model on the table is one group.

Except the rules only say you have to be in coherency with one other model of the same unit, not other units.

You're upset, I understand, but the RaW is clear. You might not like it, and refuse to use it, but that doesn't change what the rule is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
I love these threads where we all bicker about something where the intent is painfully obvious.

Rules as written, you can deploy a unit as pairs of models, all over the board. Each individual model would satisfy the lone requirement that it is within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of at least one other model. We had this same issue initially in 7th (6th?) Edition with Aegis Defense Lines. The intent is clearly that there are no gaps greater than 2" (or 6" vertically) between groups of models within a single unit. Unfortunately, GW isn't great at translating RAI into RAW.

ASSUMING we allowed people to deploy in this manner, the results would be hilarious. I could assault your two Marines over HERE, cause 3+ wounds and kill Marines from the unit elsewhere on the board. That's some serious reach!

RaW = RaI. If the intent is different, they will issue an errata. Otherwise by definition the Rules as Written were written as Intended. Rules don't magically appear on a hard drive due to cosmic radiation. The author intended to write the rule exactly as it is written. If there was a mistake, they will correct it.

Dude... with respect, you're absolutely wrong here. Rules as Written is what was actually written on the page. Rules as Intended is what the author intended to convey when they wrote the rules. They aren't always the same. In this instance, we assume that they intended for us to set up units as a single, cohesive group with each additional model placed in coherency with a model already on the table. This isn't what they actually wrote. There is no actual written requirement for each new model in a unit to be set up in coherency with a model already on the table. What they actually wrote allows me to do this for a unit consisting of models A, B, C and D...

1. Place models A and B next to each other.
2. Place models C and D next to each other on the other side of the board.
3. Is model A within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of at least one other model from their unit? Yes.
4. Is model B within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of at least one other model from their unit? Yes.
5. Is model C within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of at least one other model from their unit? Yes.
6. Is model D within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of at least one other model from their unit? Yes.

Per RAW, I've set up my unit legally as I've obeyed all of the instructions/permissions/restrictions. I haven't broken any of the rules as written.

Now, in this instance, we have an FAQ telling us that we can't do what the rules as written clearly allow us to do. The FAQ is in essence adding the unwritten requirement that each new model be placed in coherency with an already deployed model. The actual RAW doesn't match what we know is the RAI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
An amazing oversight from a rules proofing perspective =/

Something that has plagued every set of miniatures rules I've ever seen. We all know how it should be played.

Warmachine Mk1 attempted to explain it ("if a unit is widely scattered, its formation will be centred on the largest coherent grouping of troopers that are 3" or closer to each other"), but that leaves the possibility of two equally-large groups of troopers separated by more than the coherency distance. They gave up in mk2 and defined "in formation" as being within the unit leader's command range instead.

The upcoming Star Wars Legion resolves the issue pretty well. You move the squad leader and then place all models in the unit within range 1 (about 6") of said squad leader. Because every model in the unit is always within 6" of the squad leader, it's impossible to break coherency. Coherency largely becomes a non issue. I THINK the squad leader has to be the last model in a unit to die.

 Kriswall wrote:

Dude... with respect, you're absolutely wrong here. Rules as Written is what was actually written on the page. Rules as Intended is what the author intended to convey when they wrote the rules. They aren't always the same.

I disagree. Authors don't accidentally write rules. They intend to write them. If they make a mistake, that is what errata is for. No errata means the RaW is intended to be that way.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Dude... with respect, you're absolutely wrong here. Rules as Written is what was actually written on the page. Rules as Intended is what the author intended to convey when they wrote the rules. They aren't always the same.

I disagree. Authors don't accidentally write rules. They intend to write them. If they make a mistake, that is what errata is for. No errata means the RaW is intended to be that way.

Sooooo... per your own comment, RAW is NOT the same as RAI when the author makes a mistake? I agree. In that sense, RAW does not always equal RAI. Again, with respect, you're wrong.

Let me give you a real world example. I am writing a "rule" for my spouse for when she goes to the grocery store. My intention is that she purchases an apple. What I write... "Please go to the grocery store and purchase a round, red fruit that is not an orange, pear or banana."

She comes home with a pomegranate. Dang. She followed my instructions exactly. RAI =/= RAW. As the author of the rule, I made a mistake. I should have just told her to buy an apple in the same way that the author above should have just told us to deploy each subsequent model in a given unit in coherency with one we'd already deployed. I did a bad job of translating RAI into RAW.

No errata can also mean that nobody has caught or decided to fix the error yet.

 Kriswall wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Dude... with respect, you're absolutely wrong here. Rules as Written is what was actually written on the page. Rules as Intended is what the author intended to convey when they wrote the rules. They aren't always the same.

I disagree. Authors don't accidentally write rules. They intend to write them. If they make a mistake, that is what errata is for. No errata means the RaW is intended to be that way.

Sooooo... per your own comment, RAW is NOT the same as RAI when the author makes a mistake? I agree. In that sense, RAW does not always equal RAI. Again, with respect, you're wrong.

Let me give you a real world example. I am writing a "rule" for my spouse for when she goes to the grocery store. My intention is that she purchases an apple. What I write... "Please go to the grocery store and purchase a round, red fruit that is not an orange, pear or banana."

She comes home with a pomegranate. Dang. She followed my instructions exactly. RAI =/= RAW. As the author of the rule, I made a mistake. I should have just told her to buy an apple in the same way that the author above should have just told us to deploy each subsequent model in a given unit in coherency with one we'd already deployed. I did a bad job of translating RAI into RAW.

No errata can also mean that nobody has caught or decided to fix the error yet.

No, RaW is RaI, they change the RaI when they change the RaW.