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.

This is one I do not read as stated by nosferatu1001.



Reserves preventing Start of turn actions are unrelated, as that would take have a single unit do two different things to start with.
This takes 2 different units doing something to start with.
Which happens almost every single turn.

This takes 2 different units performing the same thing in sequence, which isnt usually allowed

You would be fine with 2 libbys GoI twice, once each?

Every phase is done in sequence, why is starting the phase different?

Generally speaking, and there are more exceptions to my following statements than the rules:
I read it as saying "When this unit starts its turn." Bearing in mind that this is functionally identical to "Before/when this unit starts to move" in many cases--unless you have models with each.

Start of the turn has to happen before anything can try to move.
e.g. You do not get to move a unit then use any "Start of turn" ability, but you can use each unit's "Start of turn" abilities (in normal order).
See: Farseer Psychic powers
Start of the move happens when that unit moves.
e.g. You could in theory even bring a unit in from reserves, then use ANOTHER unit's "Start of move" ability.
See: Instinctive behavior

kirsanth wrote:e.g. You could in theory even bring a unit in from reserves, then use ANOTHER unit's "Start of move" ability.
See: Instinctive behavior

Just to note - IB is not applied to units that come in from reserves - you are assumed covered by Synapse at the start of your turn.

Doubt it has any bearing on the discussion, but in case it does...

Add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit...

This still supports my position because so far I've not seen anything that says that the unit covers the entire board. It doesn't. If its not in coherency with the other members of the unit then it wasn't added to the unit.

ruminator wrote:Is anyone honestly going to try and place new scarab bases anywhere on the board totally out of coherency with the unit they are part of? I call you WAAC, King of Cheese and bring the TO over. The intent of units is always to keep them in coherency in the movement phase and the start of the movement phase is still the movement phase. Involuntary movement such as tank shocks is the exception and covered by it's own rule.

You tools are going to kill the game. When you have no one left to play you because of your antics I'm sure you'll be giving yourself a pat on the back over your cleverness.

You mistake a desire to debate semantics and the fundamentals of the rules in order to better understand them for being a "WAAC, King of Cheese". It's players like YOU that make the assumption that we discuss rules loopholes in order to gain some advantage that are in fact hurting the game. A willingness to argue differing opinions regarding how a certain rule is interpreted is NOT the same thing as actually intending to put those (sometimes wild and obviously against the spirit of the rules) interpretations into practice on the battlefield. So please, do not point the accusatory finger and make generalizations about one side of an argument simply because they are arguing a potentially game-breaking point. Chances are those people have no intention of using the loophole they are arguing, they simply find enjoyment in the debate and actually stripping the rules down to their basic elements in order to be a more well rounded player (and sometimes to prepare themselves for the players that DO intend to exploit such a rules loophole).

So far Nosferatu's argument has been the most compelling for his side because he has effectively backed up his opinion with facts, and I think he might actually have the right of it now. Sometimes it takes a discussion like this to understand how GW actually writes the rules, and what might actually be going through their heads when they form the various wordings for the special rules and abilities they write. The issue is that they take for granted the knowledge or exactly how things are intended to work because it's THEIR rules system. Obviously they know what they mean. The problem occurs when GW intends one thing, but inadvertently writes something that appears to mean another, which is what we are attempting to uncover.

Nice argument Nos, I concede my point.

Aldarion - thanks

Kirsanth - because the rules suggest otherwise. In fact where things are in sequence they are explicitly so.

Placing it in coherency is the only way to place it with the scarab unit, and that cannot include placing it in coherency with the scarabs you are in the process of creating.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Aldarion - thanks

Kirsanth - because the rules suggest otherwise. In fact where things are in sequence they are explicitly so.

Placing it in coherency is the only way to place it with the scarab unit, and that cannot include placing it in coherency with the scarabs you are in the process of creating.

I still don't see how you can draw that conclusion out of "...add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit..." Before I get into my explanation let me start with a statement that I agree with you and Ghaz that this is how the Hive rule should be played, but not how it must be played.

It seems to me that when you (and Nos) read ...add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit... What you have extracted out of that is, "add one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit. A scarab base added in such a way must be placed in coherency with a Scarab base [from the nominated scarab unit] that was on the board at the beginning of your turn".

This strikes me an an assumption you are both making about how one is to add a member to an existing unit on the board. I call it an assumption because I have not found anything in the Necron codex or main rulebook that supports it. You have in a sense created a new rule mechanic to deal with how to add one or more members to an existing unit. If there are any precedents set in a FAQ they are hopefully sufficiently general enough to apply across armies. I haven't seen any yet.

This is how I see the Scarab hive mechanic working.

If I have three Spyders (A,B,C) in one unit I would work it out as follows:

1.) Nominate a Scarab unit within 6'' of Spyder A
2.) Roll a d6 and subtract 1 wound from the Spyder if necessary
3.) Add the scarab base to the nominated unit. Since there is no explicit game mechanic describing how this occurs, I will for simplicity add it in coherency to a scarab base from the nominated scarab unit.

At this point I have completed 1 iteration of the Scarab Hive rule. If I wanted to create a scarab base for the other Spyders in the unit I would iterate through the rule two more times. I do not cache the newly created scarab bases and add them all at once. The primary reason I don't do this is because of step #1. I have not read the rule as measuring within 6'' from the Spyder unit, but rather to each individual Spyder in the unit. That by RAW is how I see this game mechanic working. Now we can speed this all up by measuring to each Spyder and rolling the dice all at once, but remember, the Hive rule works through 1 Spyder rolling 1 d6 and placing 1 Scarab base.

I see no reason why you couldn't add subsequent scarab bases to any base in the nominated unit, even 'newly' created one.

It is pretty obvious that GW dropped the ball on this one in part (not requiring coherency for newly created scarab bases). I would have expected to see specific language regarding how a newly create scarab base must be placed. I would hope that GW FAQ's this rather quickly and I expect it to eventually work just as you and Nos describe.

-Yad

I don't see much use in continuing to debate my point as we are just going in circles. I will simply bulletpoint a few things then leave this thread to you all to hash out.

1) To add a base to the unit simply implys a numerical increase. The unit had 10 bases, it now has 11.

2) As stated before, at no point anywhere are you told that to be a member of a unit, you must be in coherency with it (with the exception of ICs). In fact you are shown examples where a model is out of coherancy, still a member of the unit, and told how to resolve that.

3) In every other example I can think of for placing a model on the table, you are explicitly told where it can be placed: 6" of X model/unit, in coherancy with X model/unit, etc. There is no such stipulation in this rule. Without being told where it can be placed, you are left with two ways to approach it. The first being with no restriction being given to the placement, it can be placed anywhere, or the second taking a hardline approach to the permissive ruleset meaning you are not given permission to place it in a specific place so the model cannot be placed at all...thus making the rule non-functional.

4) I'm not arguing this for the sake of having something to exploit against my opponents as a few have seemingly believed. I prefer to lose while having a good time playing the game with a friendly opponent rather than winning with a frustrated opponent who I've spent the entire game arguing rules with. With that in mind, I hold some tiny hope that the writers at GW occasionally read through these threads from time to time and hopefully will see a discussion like this and take a little more care in closing these loopholes (and possible loopholes) so in the future, I can get through games with as little arguing and head scratching as possible.

Anyway have fun with the discussion for now. When the FAQ hits, I'm 99% sure this will get clarified and we can get all get on to the next "nuh-uh!...uh-huh!" debate

Hesh_Tank_On wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:

Hesh_Tank_On wrote:Let them have their fun, the expense of buying 9 tomb Spiders both monetary and points for a one shot trick will give the "no camp" the final laugh when the FAQ comes out. Then the day after 200 tomb Spiders will go on E-bay. Until then just bubble wrap as usual.

I am personally waiting until the new spyders get released, hate the old ones. And in any case some of these armies already existed before the codex. I have seen my fair share of 9 tomb spiders with 30 scarabs. I think the list in this codex would be a nice counter to armor meta and still leave 1100pnts worth of army if you are playing 2k. The other nice thing is that on the first turn you are now facing and army with 2135 pnts.

I actually posted this as a throw away fun comment, maybe should have posted a smiley with it. What is your "fair share" of 9 Spiders/30 scarbs as I have never seen that Army build on the table? Using 45% of your points allocation and all your HS choices at 2000 points to get a first turn charge that can be countered is not in my view worth it.

3 armies, before the current codex. It was a popular pariah list in which you used the tomb spyders as a way to get the paraiahs into combat. 30 scarabs turbo boost on turn 1 assualt turn 2, spyders assualt turn 3 and get the pariahs in turn 4 to clean up.

It is not a "fun" comment when you are calling people out, even with a smiley.

At the start of movement phase seems to just imply "before any moves are made" and should be treated like any other phase; for example the shooting phase...

Though, ostensibly, all shooting in a turn is taking place at the same time, it is temporally linear and sequential. The same applies to movement during a movement phase; though in the abstract all movement is taking place simultaneously, it is managed sequentially.

There's nothing to indicate that 'at the start of the movement phase' is any different than bringing in reserves (sequential) or moving units (sequential).


Also, If your Spyder is at 1 wound at the start of the movement phase, any one of those 3 spiders might be the one that kills it, doesn't that need to be resolved 1 at a time?

I see no reason why you couldn't add subsequent scarab bases to any base in the nominated unit, even 'newly' created one.

Once again, read when the bases are created. No matter how many bases are created they're all created at the same time and that is at the beginning of the Necron Movement phase. Since they're all added at the exact same instant rules-wise you can't conga line them since the models you need to keep coherency with the unit are not there.

junk wrote:At the start of movement phase seems to just imply "before any moves are made" and should be treated like any other phase; for example the shooting phase...

Though, ostensibly, all shooting in a turn is taking place at the same time, it is temporally linear and sequential. The same applies to movement during a movement phase; though in the abstract all movement is taking place simultaneously, it is managed sequentially.

There's nothing to indicate that 'at the start of the movement phase' is any different than bringing in reserves (sequential) or moving units (sequential).


Also, If your Spyder is at 1 wound at the start of the movement phase, any one of those 3 spiders might be the one that kills it, doesn't that need to be resolved 1 at a time?

GW has been very clear with past rulings that your interpretation here is incorrect. "The start of the movement phase" is a very specific point in time (Though occasionally they use wording such as "The start of the turn" which is the same thing as "The start of the movement phase," or "the start of the Necron Lord's movement phase," which simply means "The start of the movement phase for the player controlling the Necron Lord." Regardless it all means the same thing.) and things that happen "At the start of the movement phase" happen prior to all other items in the movement phase, and they happen simultaneously. For instance, if I bring reserves onto the table, reserves happen "At the start of the movement phase", and I am obligated to move those reserves onto the table before I move ANYTHING ELSE in my entire army. Physically I must move them one by one because I don't have a thousand hands, but the abstract idea is that they all arrive at the exact same moment in time. Additionally, if one of those reserve units has an ability that happens "At the start of the movement phase" they may not use it the turn they arrive because technically speaking they were not on the board until they are placed, and once they are placed (abstractly speaking) it is no longer "The start of the movement phase" (See Farseer psychic powers in the FAQ). There are some notable exceptions to this in the FAQ and in the rules themselves (See Logan Grimnars The High King ability in the FAQ and the Autarchs Master Strategist ability in the actual wording), but by-and-large it is extremely clear that when GW references something like "The start of the movement phase" they mean the exact same point in time.

Another example of things happening simultaneously in game terms, but being done sequentially in practice is a Sanguinary Priest with a unit of Assault Marines. At "Initiative 5" all of the models in the unit attack (Furious Charge), and all opposing models with the same Initiative attack as well. An opposing model deals a wound to the Sanguinary Priest with a power weapon and kills him, however, because "Initiative 5" is a very specific point in time, even if he is removed from the combat before further blows are struck, the unit maintains FNP until later Initiative steps. They roll all of their armor saves, and then any models that fail their save and qualify for FNP take their FNP test. All of the to-hit rolls, to-wound rolls, armor saves, and FNP rolls are done sequentially because we lack the ability to do them otherwise, but in game terms they happen at the exact same moment in time, so it doesn't matter that the Priest was slain by a Power Weapon and never got to take his armor save. He was there for "Initiative 5" so his unit gets the benefit of FNP.

Comprende?

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, so thought I would throw it into this thread rather than start a new one.

"At the start of each Necron Movement phase..."

Does this mean if your opponent is also Necrons, then you get to roll for additional scarab bases during their movement phase?

Oaka wrote:I haven't seen this mentioned yet, so thought I would throw it into this thread rather than start a new one.

"At the start of each Necron Movement phase..."

Does this mean if your opponent is also Necrons, then you get to roll for additional scarab bases during their movement phase?

Jesus not this again (from previous Necron codex issues).

I can't believe we are having this discussion.

Rule clearly says two things. At the start of the Necron Movement phase and a unit that is on the table.

Now my understanding as the start of the movement phase.

You roll for reserves, roll for powers, roll for new scarabs.

If you put just one scarab down on the table then your part of the movement phase is done. So you must put down all scarabs at once. You now roll for powers and for reserves.

If you roll for reserves and put a unit on the table you are done rolling reserves. Why? Because you have gone to the movement part of your phase and are no longer at the start.

So you must roll for all of the above before you get to put anything on the table.

For example you can not roll for 1 scarab, roll for 1 reserve then roll for a power and then start over. It all comes at once. All scarabs, all reserves and all powers. It doesn't have to be in that order but they must all come as groups.

Lets go to putting things on the table.

The rule clearly stats that you have to put the scarabs in the unit that was already there. This means that each one must be within 2 inches of an existing scarab. If it can not be placed within 2 inches then it can not be placed. The rule also stats the new scarab can act as normal. It doesn't say that it must consolidate. Don't argue with me that consolidating is a normal move because it is not.

What does this mean?

You can't conga line them and they must be attached to the unit they were made for.

For those of you that do not understand the weight of this rule with the way you think it works.

3 units of 10 with 9 Spyders. You put the 30 on the deployment line. You add 3 bases to each squad allowing your 3 closest scarabs to be 22.5 inches across the board. You move them 6 inches, fleet and assault. This gives you 19-24 inch movement which comes out to 41.5-47 inch movement. With a table at 48 inches there is nothing you can't touch. Now if someone put all their vehicles on the deployment line you have 39 scarabs attacking. Remember that you only have to be withing 2 inches to get throw in's. Now with first turn this could mean that you just hit the majority of his army and even the big stuff behind it. In theory with a fleet of 6 inches you just hit every vehicle he/she has. With the enthropic strike you just took out their army. This is not something Games Workshop intended to do or be miss understood. I can't tell you how many armies will be running this list and it will be stupid to have to play in an RTT with 20 players all playing Necrons with the same exact list.

On a side note. Adding 3.5 inches by adding scarabs still give you a 80% chance to set up across from vehicles and still get your charge in. So you could get 3 charges against 3 vehicles that didn't move and still destroy them before you even rolled to see if you pen'd the vehicle.

That Librarian + Gate analogy doesn't apply. We know, by the rules, what it means for an Independent Character to be with a unit. In fact, the Librarian does not have to be within coherency of the unit he is with. The Librarian and rest of the unit could be separated by over two feet after your opponent's last turn if they had been in a maxxed out line prior. Gate would still Deep Strike them all together.

There's nothing in the Tomb Spyder's rule to demand coherency with the new scarab.

This requires actual errata to change the wording (which I hope is forthcoming). The RAW allows you to put the new scarab anywhere even if it creates a unit that is not in coherency.

Again, if they can't be placed with the unit then they can't be placed at all. Pretty clear in the rule.

Prove your unit is the entire table.

If you cant do thsat then you havent added it to the unit.

You can put them anywhere and it will still be with that unit. It just won't be in coherency.

C'mon, you're a champion of RAW. Coherency is never mentioned. "Being with" a unit is never defined to have a range. There's no RAW support for coherency.

It's a bad rule, but that's the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you havent shown it, as you ignore that the initial placement must be in coherency, and you cannot count scarabs you have "yet" to place as being there for coherency.

Do you understand what instantaneous means? I don't think so.

Here is a clear example of instantaneous.

A unit of three Scarabs are deployed (two inches apart) in a line as such prior to three nearby Spyders using their Scarab Hive wargear.
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

Now, the Spyders instantaneously create three Scarabs (*1, *2, *3) and all three are instantaneously placed (also two inches apart) with the unit:
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 *1 *2 *3
Note how all six Scarabs are in unit coherency, how all are part of the unit instantly.

Again:
Before Scarabs created (notice no additional Scarabs):
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

Instantaneously after the Scarabs are created (notice how, *poof*, the three created Scarabs appeared simultaneously with the unit):
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 *1 *2 *3

Also -BRB FAQ on "start of movement phase" powers indicates instantaneous time, otherwise you could indeed bring a farseer on from reserves and use powers. You cant. THis indicates single instant

No, the Farseer cannot use a power the turn he arrives via Reserves because the RULE states it cannot, NOT because the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous. Another Farseer already on the table could use a power on the arriving unit, however.

Show me in the rule where it states the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous? Prove that the start of the Movement phase is instantaneous.

Is there anything in the rulebook which states that a unit must be deployed in coherency? I'm struggling to find it.

Unless someone can find that statement for me, it seems legal (RAW) to deploy models in any legal position and then be forced to move them back into coherency in your movement phase. Theoretically, one could deploy every member of a squad out of coherency to put them all out of LOS, and then move into coherency the next turn.

Even if you do need to deploy within coherency, consider this: when deploying models for the first time, they are all off the board (thus not in coherency) one moment, and all on the board (and in coherency) the next.


In fact, the only way to tell if a unit is within coherency is by measuring the distance between their bases. A
If we treat the extra scarabs as a 'cache' which are all added at once, then the moment they are placed and the distance can be measured, you are within coherency.

As there is nothing in the rule specifically restricting you to placing models within coherency of the ones already on the table, I feel this is a legal move.

(It does appear that the RAI 'within 6" of the spyder' is to restrict the range of this ability. But where's the fun in that argument?)

TGA - no, you dont understand what instantaneous means., in this context at least. You are getting confused in thinking that, just becuse they all appear at the same time they can be placed in coherency with the new models only - and they cannot.

Each scarab you place must be in place with a model in the INITIAL unit. If not then you have placed it incorrectly - you havent added it to the unit that was within 6", you have placed it randomly on the table (unless you''re claiming "add to" means "add to the unit, but do this anywhere on the table entirely ignoriung the conventions for unit ownership"

Yes, the instant they "arrive" they are in coherency with each other; but the initial placement of them was not in a required space - in coherency with models that already exist, to whit the initial unit.

Prove that the "start" has duration. I can prove, and have done, that it doesnt - by definition as soon as you point a sequence in you are now no longer at the start, but some distance into the turn. Simple english says youre wrong, and has done all the way through this. Prove it. Rule please saying you are allowed to change an Instant (the start) into a Duration (not the start, but apparently still the start in TGA world)

So to use your flawed example:

Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc1* Sc2* Sc3*

Sc2* is not in coherency with Sc3, neither is Sc3*, so cannot be placed there. Sc1* IS in coherency with Sc3, so CAN be placed there. Once you have placed them all THEN Sc2* and Sc3* would be in coherency with eachother, but NOT before.

THIS is where you are creating a sequence - the only way to add to a unit is to place in coherency (leaving that argument aside for now) with a member of the unit; until you have finished placing all the new scarabs NONE of the new scarabs exist - and you cannot place something in coherency with something that doesnt exist. So your way explicitly requires there to be a sequence, with Sc1* appearing "first", then Sc2* etc.

Coherency argument - prove that you have "added to" a unit within 6" when you have placed it 3' away. If you cannot prove permission to place it anywhere on the table, and still claim it to be part of the unit, then you dont have permission.

Coherency argument - prove that you have "added to" a unit within 6" when you have placed it 3' away. If you cannot prove permission to place it anywhere on the table, and still claim it to be part of the unit, then you dont have permission.

The rulebook says that units *can*, through some circumstances, end up out of coherency. If this happens, they must move back into coherency. Other people have already shown that due to wound allocation rules, you could theoretically have a unit of 20 models stretching over 3', the 18 in the middle die and the two at the ends are now out of coherency.
As for proving permission... show me where the instructions are in the rulebook for actually placing *any* models on the board. Page 92 is disgustingly brief. I honestly would like to be enlightened if there is a more comprehensive discussion on that topic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Each scarab you place must be in place with a model in the INITIAL unit. If not then you have placed it incorrectly - you havent added it to the unit that was within 6", you have placed it randomly on the table (unless you''re claiming "add to" means "add to the unit, but do this anywhere on the table entirely ignoriung the conventions for unit ownership"

Yes, the instant they "arrive" they are in coherency with each other; but the initial placement of them was not in a required space - in coherency with models that already exist, to whit the initial unit.
...
THIS is where you are creating a sequence - the only way to add to a unit is to place in coherency (leaving that argument aside for now) with a member of the unit; until you have finished placing all the new scarabs NONE of the new scarabs exist - and you cannot place something in coherency with something that doesnt exist. So your way explicitly requires there to be a sequence, with Sc1* appearing "first", then Sc2* etc.

It seems to me that you're assuming a sequence... in reverse order. You can only show coherency when a model is on the table and can measure from it. If Sc3* is not in coherency with any model, then Sc3* exists and Sc2* does not exist, therefore Sc2* was not placed at the same instant as Sc3*.
Lets see.
BEFORE I place the scarabs, the unit is in coherency.
AFTER I place the scarabs, the unit is in coherency.
If the 'start of the movement phase' has no duration, then there is no time between BEFORE and AFTER.
There is no moment at which you can show that Sc3* is out of cohesion with the unit.

You're adding so many words to the rules that it is very difficult to discuss what's going on. Whilst it is implied, I can find no specific rules as to exactly when you're allowed to put models on the table, what 'deployment' is, let alone the intricacies on how to add models to an existing unit. You talk about 'conventions for unit ownership', yet these are conventions and not rules. The rules for the Spyder certainly do not say 'Each scarab you place must be in place with a model in the INITIAL unit' so it is surprising to say the least that you are treating that statement as fact in a debate that is obviously about what is written rather than what is intended.

No, I am not putting a sequence in in reverse. I am requiring that each mdoel is in coherency with a model from the initial unit, independent of the other models you are placing.

You are saying you can place a model in coherency with a model you havent placed "yet", when that obviously isnt true.

Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc3* Sc2 Sc2 Sc3 Sc2* Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc1*

This is the separate instances of placement in question. When you place Sc3* down, Sc2* and Sc1* do not exist, so you have placed a model down that isnt in coherency, and I doubt you could HONESTLY say you have added it to the scarab unit. "add to", within the context of 40k, can only mean "in coherency with", same as "with" in GoI rules.

Ditto for Sc2* - it is not in coherency, so you have not placed it as allowed.

Yes, IF you were allowed to place them there then the unit would be in coherency once the clock starts again, however my contention is that that INDIVIDUAL placements MUST be in coherency with models that already exist, because otherwise you have not added them in coherency.

At this point I'm done with this thread. The rules do not say you can do this and they must say you can do something. You can't say "It doesn't say i can't." They must spell out that you can do something.

I've explained to you the Start of the Turn. All happen at once. All reserve rolls are made before you place any unit on the table.

All scarab rolls are made before you put one on the table. This is not a new concept. Once all are made they are placed in the unit that is 6 inches away. If they are not put into that unit then they are not made.

This is pretty clear and I really hope people are not trying to abuse something that is not there. This type of argument is why people are leaving the 40K game and doing other things.

Nos and ghaz, you check to ensure coherency during the units move. Adding a new scarab base is not the new bases move. If you check coherency when its not your turn to do so you are premeasuring and cheating. In 40 k you can not premeasure whenever you like obviously, right?

You are required to check measurement otherwise you would not be placing into the unit ,but out of it.

Reread those rules on premeasuring, and note you are allowed to measure under specific circumstances. For example you would absolutely have to measure 6" to ensure you are picking a valid unit. Similarly you must "add to" the unit, and must do so in coherency, you must measure to ensure you are in coherency.

To see anotehr example where you are required to measure, but this is only implicit as a result of a requirement, cf to lesser daemons. These must arrive within 6", so you must measure. These must arrive within coherency, so you must measure.

So no, it is cheating to NOT measure

The argument over whether the new bases can be placed in coherency with each other, but at least one of them in coherence with the unit to which they are added, is a valid one and worthy of discussion. My concerns were over the extremes of people arguing about if coherency was required at all!

If you think this is being argued in a vacuum you are wrong. Some people will try to abuse this on the table and will look to this forum to validate their WAAC shenanigans.

Its only valid if you believe a) start has duration or b) TGAs bizarre interpretaton of what instantaneous allows for.