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.

Magpie wrote: the rule for units made incoherent by misfortunes points you to that as well, they are required to re-cohere ASAP and the only way to know if their proposed move is legal is to measure the coherency so they'll know were to go.

Exactly, its daft.

Say I have a unit of marines, mauled by shooting.
Casualties leave me unsure if I am still in coherency, I'm not sure I should even look at them, as that may constitute "checking" them.

I want to stay stationary to shoot back, but I don't even know if I'm allowed to.

fuusa wrote:Its quite a loop then, as you "must" form the chain.
The chain "must" be formed before it is checked but according to you, there is no way to be sure of this or correct it if its wrong.
If you can't correct it, then you have failed the requirement to remain coherent which you "must" do.

I'm a little lost as to the point you're making here.

You have to make sure that your models are in coherency, yes. But you don't have to move each model so that it is always in coherency with others. You just have to ensure that coherency is there when the unit has finished moving.

What I am saying, is that there is no prohibition on measuring distances between models as you move them, none at all.

No, there's not. There's also no specific permission to do so, though.

Technically, you're not given permission to check coherency until the unit finishes moving. It's simply an accepted convention that you'll need to measure the distance between models as you move the unit in order for the game not to break when you finish moving and discover that the unit isn't actually in coherency.

For eg, the middle diagram on p12.
Lets say, I have moved the marines into the box-shape, but have yet to move the sergeant, who is 6" away, off the diagram.
The front 2 marines are 2.0001" away from the rear ones.

At this point, the unit is neither coherent, nor out of coherency ("My unit is incoherent!"), but, there is nothing that prevents me from measuring what is where.

This circumstance, makes it clear, that the only place I can put the sergeant, is where it is in the diagram, in order to be coherent.
This is not something I can do, if I want, I must.

This is more or less correct, yes, with the disclaimer as per the whole 'permission to measure' thing.

If that's true, the ic cannot leave the unit at all.
Only the ic can move in such a way as to purposefully break coherency.
If the ic moved off 6" thataway, the rest of the unit, would be compelled to follow as it must remain coherent.

The ability for the IC to leave the unit is a specific permission granted by the IC rules. You move the unit. When you check coherency at the end of their movement, if the IC is found to be more than 2" away he has left the unit.

It's the idea that coherency applies as the unit moves that would cause issues with the IC leaving the unit, and would require the unit to follow him if he tries to move away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magpie wrote:Just as you must measure the 6" to the enemy , the coherency status of the unit must be determined at the start of their movement phase, which is a rule that considers coherency at a point other than the end of the movement phase.

But which still has nothing to do with measuring coherency during the unit's movement, which has been your claim all the way through this thread. Nitpicking at one imprecise statement of mine doesn't change the fact that your entire argument (that coherency can be determined in the middle of the unit's movement) is not actually based on any existing rules.

The fact that the rules require to to sometimes check coherency before the unit moves does not mean that you can check coherency whenever you please.

insaniak wrote:The fact that the rules require to to sometimes check coherency before the unit moves does not mean that you can check coherency whenever you please.

I'm not saying you can measure it when you please I am saying you can measure it when the IC leaves the unit because the rules require you too as the permission is granted by the rule that states "the IC leaves the unit by moving out of coherency distance with it".

How is that not a permission ?

Magpie wrote:I'm not saying you can measure it when you please I am saying you can measure it when the IC leaves the unit because the rules require you too as the permission is granted by the rule that states "the IC leaves the unit by moving out of coherency distance with it".

How is that not a permission ?

It's a permission. It's just not a permission to do what you think it is permitting.

Because regardless of when you choose to measure the distance between models, the unit is not out of coherency until it has finished moving. Moving the IC away from the unit and immediately declaring him out of coherency means nothing, because he can't actually be out of coherency until the unit has finished moving... because that's when coherency is determined for a unit that is moving.

He doesn't have to be incoherent he just has to be outside coherency distance.

I don't see how that is any different to being 2" from a door way when you disembark and coherent or any of the vast range of situations where you have to measure throughout the movement phase.

Saying that there is no permission to measure but you have to measure coherency through out the move because otherwise you can end up incoherent and if you do there is no way to deal with it really doesn't make any sense to me.

Measure as you go = illegal situation avoided
Measure ONLY at the end = chaos

Magpie wrote:He doesn't have to be incoherent he just has to be outside coherency distance.

So, if you move him last, he has left the unit the moment the last squad member moves more than 2" away from him?

Being outside coherency distance during the unit's movement does not cause him to be out of coherency.

Saying that there is no permission to measure but you have to measure coherency through out the move because otherwise you can end up incoherent and if you do there is no way to deal with it really doesn't make any sense to me.

The permission to measure is a side issue. Yes, there is technically no permission to measure as you move. It's one of those things that we just have to assume, because otherwise the game breaks.

The whole point is simply that regardless of when you measure, coherency (or lack thereof) is not actually established until the end of the unit's movement. You can measure all you want while they move... but this measurement is purely for reference, to make sure that the game isn't going to break the moment the unit stops moving. You don't move one model, spot that it is now 6" away from its nearest squad-mate, and as such determine that the unit is now out of coherency... coherency doesn't apply while the unit is moving, just when they stop.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:He doesn't have to be incoherent he just has to be outside coherency distance.

So, if you move him last, he has left the unit the moment the last squad member moves more than 2" away from him?

Being outside coherency distance during the unit's movement does not cause him to be out of coherency.

Saying that there is no permission to measure but you have to measure coherency through out the move because otherwise you can end up incoherent and if you do there is no way to deal with it really doesn't make any sense to me.

The permission to measure is a side issue. Yes, there is technically no permission to measure as you move. It's one of those things that we just have to assume, because otherwise the game breaks.

The whole point is simply that regardless of when you measure, coherency (or lack thereof) is not actually established until the end of the unit's movement. You can measure all you want while they move... but this measurement is purely for reference, to make sure that the game isn't going to break the moment the unit stops moving. You don't move one model, spot that it is now 6" away from its nearest squad-mate, and as such determine that the unit is now out of coherency... coherency doesn't apply while the unit is moving, just when they stop.

If he stands there while the squad moves away it is quite clear he cannot leave the unit because he has to leave the unit cannot leave him. He has to do the moving to leave and he does so by moving out side the coherency distance of a unit that has not yet moved.

So we have to assume we can measure in the movement phase otherwise the game breaks? How does this not completely overturn the assumption that you cannot measure until the end of the turn?
"The rule says this but we actually have to do this" to me means that the interpretation of the rule is incorrect.

LOL, so we have to assume we can measure in the movement phase otherwise the game breaks?
How is an IC running about being a part of something that no longer exists not broken?

Magpie wrote:So we have to assume we can measure in the movement phase otherwise the game breaks? How does this not completely overturn the assumption that you cannot measure until the end of the turn?

You've apparently completely misinterpreted my point.

Whether or not you measure during the unit's movement makes no difference to when you determine if they are actually in coherency.


We assume that we have to measure as they move because that's the only way for the coherency rules as written to work. But that measurement during movement doesn't determine whether or not the unit is in coherency... it's purely for reference, so that we know that the unit will be in coherency when the rules call for them to be.

"The rule says this but we actually have to do this" to me means that the interpretation of the rule is incorrect.

In this particular case, what it actually means is simply that the rule is badly written. That happens from time to time.

How is an IC running about being a part of something that no longer exists not broken?

It's not broken, but it is a little silly. Which is why I pointed out some time ago that I don't agree with that interpretation.

So how do we resolve the disembarking situation?

"When the unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle’s access points, and within unit coherency."

I'm not seeing the problem. You disembark them within coherency. Then you move them if you choose, and if they are able.

That's a specific situation in which you are told to check coherency.

So why is the specific situation of an IC leaving coherency held over to the end then ?

How is the requirement to disembark within coherency different to moving out of coherency distance ?

Magpie wrote:So why is the specific situation of an IC leaving coherency held over to the end then ?

Because you don't determine if the unit is in coherency while it is moving... You can't, because the unit has to break coherency to move more than 2" at a time.

How is the requirement to disembark within coherency different to moving out of coherency distance ?

It's not. In both cases, you are given specific times to determine if the unit is in coherency. For disembarking, you have to place the models in coherency outside the vehicle. For movement, you have to place the models so that when the unit has finished moving the models are all in coherency.



Edit: Note that under your interpretation that you determine coherency during the action, and you apply that equally to disembarking, then it would actually be impossible to ever disembark units with more than one model unless you can put them all on the table at exactly the same time. The moment you place your first model, he is not in coherency with the rest of the unit.

for the movement of a unit yes it has to end in coherency but the IC dosn't have to end it's move out of coherency to have left, it simply has to move out of the coherency distance.

Given that the unit hasn't moved yet the coherency status of the unit isn't an issue, it is the relationship of the IC to the unit.

Magpie wrote:... it simply has to move out of the coherency distance.

...which it hasn't done until it comes time to determine coherency. Which is at the end of the unit's movement.

To clarify here a little: you can (or at least the general convention is that you can...) measure for coherency at any point in the unit's movement. You have to, or the game breaks.

But you don't determine coherency until the rules tell you to. Which is after the unit's movement has finished.


So you can measure that the IC is more then 2" away from the unit whenever you please. But he hasn't left the unit until the unit finishes moving.

Given that the unit hasn't moved yet the coherency status of the unit isn't an issue, it is the relationship of the IC to the unit.

The IC is a part of the unit until he leaves it. So the coherency status of the unit most definitely is the issue.

No the rule quite clearly says he leaves by moving outside coherency distance without qualification.

Yes, that's what the rules says.

It doesn't mean what you think it means.


But I think I've explained why about as many different ways as I can, so I'm about done here.

It doesn't mean what you think it means so, yeh I guess we are.

No Magpie, you are ignoring when you check coherency (at the end of a units move) and trying to claim youy can check it during the units move

One has support in the rules, one doesnt. Yours is the latter.

In your view, which I respect if not accept.

It's just we cannot see how you can parse an explicit defined period when you check coherency as being anything but that explicit defined period.

That is the problem, you'd need to work on it a bit to see it from my view point I guess.

All the units models will technically leave unit coherency and rejoin it every time you move them. They are not actually considered in or out of coherency untill you are done moving them though.

I'm of the camp that says the IC is no longer a part of the unit as soon as they are removed form the board. The only way you can choose for him to leave a unit is to move him out of coherency during movement but if the unit has been wiped out he can never perform this action.

Bear in mind that if you consider him a part of the unit after they have been removed he can never leave them and will be considered as that unit the rest of the game. You cannot, after all, move out of coherency with a unit which only has one model.

Except he isnt "that unit", he is the IC unit seeing if he is within 2" of a non-IC unit, which you certainly can measure.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except he isnt "that unit", he is the IC unit seeing if he is within 2" of a non-IC unit, which you certainly can measure.

You are saying he is still a part of the unit and can't leave it until his movement phase but the rule your referring to says he must move out of coherency with the unit and as he is the only member of that unit left this cannot happen. A unit consisting of one model cannot move out of coherency. This would create absurd scenarios where he cannot join a unit becase he can't leave his current one. If he falls back he'll never regroup because his units at less than half strength. Actually his unit size is zero because he does not count toward unit size... ect.

That is also only a rule for how he may leave a unit. Once the unit has suffered 100% casualties I'd say they have been seperated without choice.

I'm very confused about some of the shenanigans in this thread, so if for no other reason, I'm going to participate just to figure out what is going on. To do this I will demonstrate how I've been playing a specific scenario in my games.


Scenario 1:

Abaddon the Despoiler, a Fearless IC, is attached to a unit of Chaos Terminators, non-fearless elites.

They suffer wounds equal to or greater than 25% of the unit, counting Abaddon as a member of the unit for this purpose.

They must take a leadership test at the end of the phase. If they fail, they fall back. Providing that this is in the Shooting phase or they are not destroyed in a Sweeping Advance in CC, they move 2d6" towards my table edge.

If the squad is less than half strength, NOT counting Abaddon for this purpose, the unit may no longer rally and continues falling back at the beginning of my next turn. (Also applies if enemy models are found to be within 6" when I attempt to rally, even if above 50%).

If any single model's base would contact my table edge, the unit is immediately removed, including Abaddon. They also count as destroyed at the end of the game even if they are still on the table.



Scenario 2:

The above steps are repeated except that every Terminator in the unit is destroyed and only Abaddon remains. When wounds and saves are complete and either combat resolution or the normal period for a morale test arrives, the only remaining unit is Abaddon, who is Fearless, and as such cannot flee from wounds suffered in the shooting phase and is forced to take additional armor saves if the enemy won close combat.

Abandon - he is a member of the unit until you determine if he is out of coherency with the unit he joined. As per the rules for an IC.

You determine coherency AFTER moving, not before.

insaniak wrote:You have to make sure that your models are in coherency, yes. But you don't have to move each model so that it is always in coherency with others. You just have to ensure that coherency is there when the unit has finished moving.

It sounds like I need to clarify.

It is not necessary to keep any particular models in coherency as they move.
Back to the middle diagram on p12.

I move the tac marines into the box formation, they are all more than 2" apart. No problem.
When it comes to moving the sergeant, the only place he can go, is in the centre. If he does go there, the unit will have finished moving and the unit will be in coherency = fine.

This ^ may be obvious to the eye, it may not, it requires checking.
In the book, where does it specifically mention that this should be checked? It doesn't.
Even though it is obvious that it needs to be checked, it doesn't ask you to, it just tells you what you must do.
It doesn't ask you to check, so it certainly doesn't limit you to checking at the end, but the burden of proof, lies in the checking.
That's what it is, proof that you have obeyed the rule.

When I decide to move the sergeant, in order to know where I must place it, because there is only 1 place he can go (give or take a few mm), I have to check.
This may be by sight or measuring, if its unclear.

Just by looking and deciding that is true, I have checked and conformed to the rule.
Coherency doesn't have to be a line that is drawn through the models as you move, but, it is an overriding concern as you move them, because you cannot, that is cannot, move a unit, in such a way, that it is out of coherency at the end of its movement.
Rather, you must move the models in such a way, as to make it possible, even if its the last model that moves that proves it, to form a coherent unit.

Tac squad, unsure if its coherent at the start of its movement phase. Can I justify not moving it so I can fire over 24"?

fuusa wrote:In the book, where does it specifically mention that this should be checked?

Page 12. Once a unit has finished moving.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - he is a member of the unit until you determine if he is out of coherency with the unit he joined. As per the rules for an IC.

You determine coherency AFTER moving, not before.

He would not be out of coherency with the unit at that time as he is the only member of the unit left. A model cannot be out of coherency with itself.

The IC rules you are referring to only specify a means to voluntarily leave a unit which they cannot preform after the rest of the unit has been wiped out.

Youre again ignoring the rules for ICs, whereby they check to see if they are in coherency with the unit they joined. He is a "normal member" of the unit he joined, but that doesnt override the IC rules for joining and leaving.

You are never in coherency with yourself, that is a chronic misreading of the coherency rules - which specify a chain between members of a unit. Coherency is not relevant for single model units.