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.

With the leman russ squadren deployment it says the models need to be deployed within 6" of each other.

Is that LRA within 6" of LRB and LRC.

Or can LRA be within 6"of LRB and LRB then be within 6"of LRC without LRA and LRC being within 6" of each other?

If your wording is correct then it is the first option. If they have to be within 6" of each other then that means that no tank can be outside of 6" of the other tanks.

The second option would require wording that just said within 6" of another model in this unit.

U02dah4 wrote:
With the leman russ squadren deployment it says the models need to be deployed within 6" of each other.

Is that LRA within 6" of LRB and LRC.

Or can LRA be within 6"of LRB and LRB then be within 6"of LRC without LRA and LRC being within 6" of each other?

It means the first. Each Leman Russ must be within 6" of the other Leman Russes in their unit.

If you have 1 Leman Russ, you deploy it on its own.
If you have 2 Leman Russ, you must deploy Leman Russ 1 and Leman Russ 2 within 6" of each other.
If you have 3 Leman Russ, you must deploy Leman Russ 1 within 6" of both Leman Russ 2 & 3, deploy Leman Russ 2 within 6" of both Leman Russ 1 & 3, and deploy Leman Russ 3 within 6" of both Leman Russ 1 & 2.

I dunno about that; it seems like it’s just meant to be a more lax version of the normal squad rules, with 6” from another model, instead of 2”.

fe40k wrote:
I dunno about that; it seems like it’s just meant to be a more lax version of the normal squad rules, with 6” from another model, instead of 2”.

Unit coherency is worded very differently:

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

fe40k wrote:
I dunno about that; it seems like it’s just meant to be a more lax version of the normal squad rules, with 6” from another model, instead of 2”.

If it was meant to be that, the rule would be that.
It isn't like that, so it isn't. I apologise if your mind has been blown. Like nekooni says, unit coherency is worded very differently.

Its what i thought just wanted to double check

It’s written like that, but i would never play it like that. Just squad coherency upped to 6”. It’s the only sensible way to play it. It allows all the standard tank formations and is more realistic. It’s clearly the intention. The rules aren’t meant to be adhered to in a very literal sense. It’s a fun game of toy soldiers, I want ,y tanks driving about in formation not some silly triangle.

Andykp wrote:
It’s written like that, but i would never play it like that. Just squad coherency upped to 6”. It’s the only sensible way to play it. It allows all the standard tank formations and is more realistic. It’s clearly the intention. The rules aren’t meant to be adhered to in a very literal sense. It’s a fun game of toy soldiers, I want ,y tanks driving about in formation not some silly triangle.

Agreed. It’s a dumb-but-hardly-insurmountable wording oversight not a triangle formation requirement.

(Add it to the sig, BCB. “RAW Leman Russes must deploy in a triangle”. )

Andykp wrote:
It’s written like that, but i would never play it like that. Just squad coherency upped to 6”. It’s the only sensible way to play it. It allows all the standard tank formations and is more realistic. It’s clearly the intention. The rules aren’t meant to be adhered to in a very literal sense. It’s a fun game of toy soldiers, I want ,y tanks driving about in formation not some silly triangle.

You don't have to keep them in formation, it's only when they deploy. Once they deploy they become individual units.

I know. But I want to deploy in line or in an arrow head formation. It’s clearly how it’s supposed to be.

Andykp wrote:
I know. But I want to deploy in line or in an arrow head formation. It’s clearly how it’s supposed to be.

If it's so clear, then why does the rule say literally the opposite?

I want my Ultramarines to have 30 wounds and shoot jelly beans, that's clearly how it's supposed to be!

Why can't you deploy your 3 tanks in an arrowhead? All that means is 1 tank leads the other 2. Granted it's a tight formation but that only matters until you move them. Then you can spread them out however you want.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Why can't you deploy your 3 tanks in an arrowhead? All that means is 1 tank leads the other 2. Granted it's a tight formation but that only matters until you move them. Then you can spread them out however you want.

I think what he wants to do is deploy them in an arrowhead with a front angle of greater than 60 degrees (abstracting the russes as points), which would leave 2 of the russes more than 6" from each other.

Behold, the majesty that is MS Paint.

Except it says within 6”, not 6” between. So shave a few of your treasured fentometres off each dimension to drop each distance below 6” and it’s legal, even with the ‘triangle required’ rule reading.

Yep they can be deployed in a triangle or in a line and T1 they move apart.

What you can't do is deploy line astern in a squadron of three.

Deploying a bit closer together than you might like seems like a really small price to pay for violating the rule of three.





Not seeing the problem.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
It’s clearly the intention.

Is there anything you can point to in this edition to suggest that is the intention other than that's how you think it ought to be?

Andykp wrote:

I want ,y tanks driving about in formation not some silly triangle.

You do realise that this only applies to deployment, right? As soon you move there is no coherency limit at all.

The problem is that Russ A on the left and Russ C on the right in the 2nd photo might not be within 6" of each other if you deploy them with a 3" gap between them. You didn't include a scale in the photo so we have no way of knowing if Russ A and Russ C are within 6" of each other.

The left and right tanks are within 6" of each other in the line-abreast photo - those are examples of legal deployment formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You didn't include a scale in the photo

Other than the models...

Nowhere in 40k does it even suggest that marines shoot jelly beans. You are just being silly. There are I’m sure ways to squeeze into formations that are “legal” but I won’t be playing it that way and neither will my mates. Because of 40k rule number 1.

Andykp wrote:
Nowhere in 40k does it even suggest that marines shoot jelly beans. You are just being silly. There are I’m sure ways to squeeze into formations that are “legal” but I won’t be playing it that way and neither will my mates. Because of 40k rule number 1.

I take it that's a no then? The intent is obvious, just because?

What exactly is wrong with the legal formations pictured?

Andykp wrote:
Nowhere in 40k does it even suggest that marines shoot jelly beans. You are just being silly. There are I’m sure ways to squeeze into formations that are “legal” but I won’t be playing it that way and neither will my mates. Because of 40k rule number 1.

Examples of a legal formation are shown above and look just fine. I don't see what's your issue with it, but of course you're free to houserule it to work like unit coherency. But that's not really the point of THIS board.

The formations above look great but you also can’t others like line astern and those shown rely on a good deal of open space in your deployment zone and they are unnnescarrily very restrictive. I just see at as one rule where the intent is clear and the effect is minimal, to who’s advantage is it to force you to obey coherency rules no one else does. If the guard player was gaining an advantage from being able to deploy all three in a formation then a restriction would make sense, as it is he doesn’t so the restriction seem unnecessary. It just seems to suck the fun out of the game for no reason.

My personal oppinion. It doesn’t affect anyone who doesn’t play me. I will play it that way and if my opponent has an issue with it we will discuss it like grown ups. The rules are there as foundation to allow people to play the game they want as I see it.

The guard player is getting a massive advantage - he can use squadrons to violate the rule of three.

Deploying close together and then moving however you want on T1 is a really small price to pay for that.

The rule of 3 isn’t even a rule. It’s a suggested rule for matched play only. Which I don’t play so no advantage for me. It’s a different thing entirely.

Squadrons are still allowing you to avoid detachment tax and reducing your number of drops (if they didn't provide an advantage then you wouldn't be purchasing them as squadrons....)

Andykp wrote:
The formations above look great but you also can’t others like line astern and those shown rely on a good deal of open space in your deployment zone and they are unnnescarrily very restrictive. I just see at as one rule where the intent is clear and the effect is minimal, to who’s advantage is it to force you to obey coherency rules no one else does. If the guard player was gaining an advantage from being able to deploy all three in a formation then a restriction would make sense, as it is he doesn’t so the restriction seem unnecessary. It just seems to suck the fun out of the game for no reason.

My personal oppinion. It doesn’t affect anyone who doesn’t play me. I will play it that way and if my opponent has an issue with it we will discuss it like grown ups. The rules are there as foundation to allow people to play the game they want as I see it.

First of all: of course you're free to play like that, and as long as both of you are having fun it's all good.

But the squadron rules say what they say, and they're meant to work the way they're written. They could've easily used the same wording as with regular unit coherence or increased it to 12 inches or whatever. The wording as it is right now isn't unnecessarily restrictive despite the designers saying it isn't meant to be so restrictive (example:da jump and the new deployment rules) and it doesn't break the game in a very obvious way (example: assault weapons and advancing), so we can assume that GW actually intended it to work that way.

If you just don't like a rule, a discussion in the house rules board would be more appropriate.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Except it says within 6”, not 6” between. So shave a few of your treasured fentometres off each dimension to drop each distance below 6” and it’s legal, even with the ‘triangle required’ rule reading.

Just wanted to jump in and say that exactly 6" is still within 6". If it was 6.001 inches it would no longer be within six inches. If there is exactly six inches of space in between the hulls of two tanks and not a single micron further, you are good.

Think of "within six inches" like a set containing all integers and decimal numbers between 0 and 6, and including 0 and 6. If 0 and 6 were not included, characters would not benefit from their own auras, and tank/company/platoon commanders could not order themselves.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Squadrons are still allowing you to avoid detachment tax and reducing your number of drops (if they didn't provide an advantage then you wouldn't be purchasing them as squadrons....)

What is detachment tax?

Andykp wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Squadrons are still allowing you to avoid detachment tax and reducing your number of drops (if they didn't provide an advantage then you wouldn't be purchasing them as squadrons....)

What is detachment tax?

If you wanted to bring 9 Predators in just one Detachment, you couldn't because there's no detachment with that many Heavy Support slots - so you'd have to bring a 2nd detachment with at least one additional HQ - he's your "tax".
If you want to bring 3 Leman Russ squadrons of 3, you could easily do that with just one detachment.

It's a really really tiny advantage and usually doesn't do anything. Mostly academic.

Thank u. Thought it was another match play thing I knew nothing about. I usually have enough hqs to spread them about. It is a very minor point, as you all day, you can do legal fluffy formations and it is only until they move. Its as I said earlier. I view the rules as a framework for the game we play not the law. Always have, in fact I’m sure back in second edition that was stated in the rules somewhere. I play to have fun and enjoy fluffy, cinematic events.