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.

So... the wording from tank shock caught my eye...

When you move the enemy models, do they
A) go the shortest distance possible to get out from under the tank?
B) go the shortest distance WHILE still maintaining coherency

I read it as A... but I can see it as B... also...

If its read as A... if you break the coherency of a unit, the models that moved out of from under the tank are dead if they are no longer in coherency...

If its read as B... you really can't break coherency... and the last sentence in the paragraph makes no sense...

What do you guys think?

B. Shortest distance while maintaining coherency.

You move the shortest possible distance to avoid the vehicle. If this splits a squad then in the subsequent movement phase they MUST attempt to regain coherency, moving each turn until they do.
It does not cause casualties.

It does make for a useful tactic where you can split a squad and delay their movement by forcing them to move back together rather than towards their objective.

dkellyj wrote:
You move the shortest possible distance to avoid the vehicle. If this splits a squad then in the subsequent movement phase they MUST attempt to regain coherency, moving each turn until they do.
It does not cause casualties.

It does make for a useful tactic where you can split a squad and delay their movement by forcing them to move back together rather than towards their objective.

actually... if you read tank shock this way... it does cause casualties... lol

read the rule again its different than 5th ed

If they cannot move out from underneath the tank then yes there are casualties. However the likelyhood of you crushing someone in today's game is almost nil.

Since your allowed to move the shortest distance while maintaining coherency and staying on the table edge.

So to give a full rule for the pertinent part of tank shock:

"If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit if falling back or not), these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board. Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties. Crunch!"

To me, that's pretty clearly B:

You must move out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between them and the vehicle - while maintaining coherency and staying on that board.

Translation: You have to do A while maintaining all the provisions of B

Kills will come out of the situation like the mawloc - only models hit by the tank shock/forced to move by the tank shock CAN move. So if you tank shock into a clumped blob, or a unit hedged in, some models are going to be unable to move anywhere (I think, someone else reality check this for me)

It's B.

Note: If done right and your opponent does not take proper care tanks shocks are deadly. I always recommend players who use tank shocking vehicles to run through practice scenarios with one or more tank shocking vehicles against an enemy unit in various formations. Remember:

1. Only models that would end up under the tank can be moved and they must be moved outside of one inch from the vehicle.
2. If the unit is not in coherency at the end, the models were not moved 'while maintaining unit coherency'
3. If the unit is already out of coherency prior to a tank shock, none of the models can be moved 'while maintaining unit coherency'

It can be tricky but it's not nearly impossible. IE, you have 5 enemy terminators in a rough line. You park you tank on the middle three leaving the two on the ends untouched(they cannot be moved). The three you parked on cannot be stretched around the tank(must be one inch away) to maintain coherency. Since they cannot be moved 'while maintaining unit coherency' you get three dead terminators and two out of coherency.

I know you didn't ask but it bothers me that so many think it's so hard to pull off that it's useless when it's really not.

 Abandon wrote:

It can be tricky but it's not nearly impossible. IE, you have 5 enemy terminators in a rough line. You park you tank on the middle three leaving the two on the ends untouched(they cannot be moved). The three you parked on cannot be stretched around the tank(must be one inch away) to maintain coherency. Since they cannot be moved 'while maintaining unit coherency' you get three dead terminators and two out of coherency.

I know you didn't ask but it bothers me that so many think it's so hard to pull off that it's useless when it's really not.

That actually would not kill any models.

The 3 terminators can maintain coherency with the unit by ending up within 2 inches of any model that has not moved.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

It can be tricky but it's not nearly impossible. IE, you have 5 enemy terminators in a rough line. You park you tank on the middle three leaving the two on the ends untouched(they cannot be moved). The three you parked on cannot be stretched around the tank(must be one inch away) to maintain coherency. Since they cannot be moved 'while maintaining unit coherency' you get three dead terminators and two out of coherency.

I know you didn't ask but it bothers me that so many think it's so hard to pull off that it's useless when it's really not.

That actually would not kill any models.

The 3 terminators can maintain coherency with the unit by ending up within 2 inches of any model that has not moved.

Incorrect, one model is out of coherency putting the whole squad out of coherency. One model off by itself does not mean that only that model is out of coherency, the entire unit is. Therefore you did not move those three models 'while maintaining coherency'.

Except the models that moved did maintain coherency.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except the models that moved did maintain coherency.

Coherency is on a unit basis, not a model basis. If, after the move, there are models out of coherency then the models that did move didn't maintain coherency. Even if they are within 2" of someone else in their unit, the unit is not in coherency if a model is not in the chain. So in the 5 terminator line example they couldn't (assuming proper tank placement) maintain unit coherency and are destroyed, even if they could move to within 2" of a model.

Thanks Chrysis, I was going to ask this, but you answered my question. It is how I thought it should work, you can't move a model out of unit coherency, so therefore any models that can't be moved and maintain coherency should be eliminated, crushed under the tracks etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And thanks Abandon!

I disagree with your interpretation of unit coherency. I get what you are saying, but if units are in a line and you tank shock the middle you seperate the two halves. By your interpretation of how unit coherency works each individual model must maintain unit coherency as it moves. However unit coherency is something that is checked after all models have moved, while models in coherency with a unit is something that can be checked on a model by model basis. Since the unit as a whole does not move in a tank shock, nor does the unit count as having moved, checking unit coherency as you suggest it can not be done.

As further proof, assume in the 5 terminator example that enough space exists that the terminator unit can be in coherency to it's non tank shocked flank but only after all 3 shocked models have moved. Under your interpretation, when you move the first model you would move out of coherency with some of the shocked models under the tank, in order to begin building your C shape around the tank while bieng in coherency with one end of the C. According to your incorrect interpretation this first moved model breaks "unit" coherency before the other 2 shocked models have a chance to move, and thus dies before the other 2 models move and DO establish coherency.hence coherency does not work like you say it does.

DevianID wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation of unit coherency. I get what you are saying, but if units are in a line and you tank shock the middle you seperate the two halves. By your interpretation of how unit coherency works each individual model must maintain unit coherency as it moves. However unit coherency is something that is checked after all models have moved, while models in coherency with a unit is something that can be checked on a model by model basis. Since the unit as a whole does not move in a tank shock, nor does the unit count as having moved, checking unit coherency as you suggest it can not be done.

As further proof, assume in the 5 terminator example that enough space exists that the terminator unit can be in coherency to it's non tank shocked flank but only after all 3 shocked models have moved. Under your interpretation, when you move the first model you would move out of coherency with some of the shocked models under the tank, in order to begin building your C shape around the tank while bieng in coherency with one end of the C. According to your incorrect interpretation this first moved model breaks "unit" coherency before the other 2 shocked models have a chance to move, and thus dies before the other 2 models move and DO establish coherency.hence coherency does not work like you say it does.

"...these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board." Page 85 BRB emphasis mine.

"...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" We call this 'unit coherency'." Page 11 BRB

1. There is no individual model coherency unless it is a unit of one model which is always in coherency. Single models are only used to measure coherency distance which is not the same.

2. It specifically states, though it does not need to do so, that unit coherency must be maintained so it must be checked.

3. Unit coherency by default is checked after moving all models, why would you check earlier?

I really don't understand where people get the idea that any form of partial unit coherency exists in any way. A unit either is in coherency or it is not. Please cite rules defining unit coherency differently.

 Abandon wrote:
I really don't understand where people get the idea that any form of partial unit coherency exists in any way.

Because, if it doesn't, charging any significant distance is impossible - 'unit coherency' is checked for every charging model individually.

I think this is a case of people talking across each other.
A unit is in a binary state in or out of unit coherency.
Abandon's point is that a unit is out of coherency, models might be outside of 2" of a squad mate but the models aren't out of coherency, the unit is.

Coherency is a description of the group rather than a description of individual models. Models may have to move to regain unit coherency but that is not the same as models moving so the model can be coherent. A model isn't coherent on it's own, the co- prefix means together.

Coherency isn't checked at every second of play, it's only checked when moving, charging etc, essentially when the unit is physically moved.

Pyrian wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I really don't understand where people get the idea that any form of partial unit coherency exists in any way.

Because, if it doesn't, charging any significant distance is impossible - 'unit coherency' is checked for every charging model individually.

....against models that have already moved to insure you have in the end, among other things, maintained unit coherency as the section states. Normally coherency is checked only at the end of a move. Charge rules tell you to check for it sooner but only with models that have already moved. It does not tell you to check for coherency with models that have not yet moved and thus you will still, if you follow the rules, find the unit is in coherency at any point you are told to look for it. In the end, just like normal, all models in the unit must be in coherency so I'm still not seeing the post movement scenario where part of the unit is in coherency and part of it is not.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think this is a case of people talking across each other.
A unit is in a binary state in or out of unit coherency.
Abandon's point is that a unit is out of coherency, models might be outside of 2" of a squad mate but the models aren't out of coherency, the unit is.

Coherency is a description of the group rather than a description of individual models. Models may have to move to regain unit coherency but that is not the same as models moving so the model can be coherent. A model isn't coherent on it's own, the co- prefix means together.

Coherency isn't checked at every second of play, it's only checked when moving, charging etc, essentially when the unit is physically moved.

TY, that sums up much of what I've been trying to say nicely.

 Abandon wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I really don't understand where people get the idea that any form of partial unit coherency exists in any way.

Because, if it doesn't, charging any significant distance is impossible - 'unit coherency' is checked for every charging model individually.

....against models that have already moved...

...Which is partial coherency, the exact thing you just got done telling us doesn't exist at all anywhere in the rules period end of story how could anyone ever even think of such a thing OMG.

 Abandon wrote:
...to insure you have in the end, among other things, maintained unit coherency as the section states.

Note that this fails in Pile-In (which references the same rule). It's easy and indeed not uncommon for units to break coherency in close combat, and then restore "unit coherency" by model without ever restoring the unit's full coherency.

 Abandon wrote:
...I'm still not seeing the post movement scenario where part of the unit is in coherency and part of it is not.

5 guys in a line in close combat. Puds #2 and #4 die, while #3 kills any models in base contact. #1 and #5 are still in base contact. #3 must pile in - left or right, either way, total unit coherency is lost, but he's still expected to be within 2" of a friendly model.

You're talking like this stuff is unprecedented, but for my Wyches it happens almost every game.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think this is a case of people talking across each other.

It's a pretty clear case of different people having different opinions about what a model's unit coherency means when other models in the unit are ineligible to move at that moment. You and others are claiming that individual unit coherency simply doesn't exist. I have disproven this assertion. You can find a new argument, or you can "talk across" as you put it.

I think Abandon is right.
In the aforementioned example, 3 terminators did move. I suppose the vehicle is big enough to avoid C shaped formation with complete coherency. A land raider should work I suppose.
Unit coherency is defined on a unit basis and terminator squad coherency is broken.
Tank shock rule refers only to "models" getting destroyed, which to me means those models that had to move because of tank shock, as defined at the beginning of the paragraph.
Unit coherency is just a state of the unit, as said above. It is yes or no, 1 or 0.
By your assumption such a case is possible:
5 terminators in arrow formation 2" from each other, 60 degree angle. The first one dies, you now have two groups of two terminators each. Those are in partial coherency. I do not need to restore coherency by your claim and I just stay there, dodging blasts and the like. This is just absurd and will break the game, i don't even want to imagine a charge in a situation like that.

In the assault phase things change. Nowhere in assault phase is said that models out of coherency are dead obviously, as in tank shock. You won't even check that. Models locked in close combat are not even able to move or run, so they cannot try to restore unit coherency, why would you check that? They simply don't mind, they have better to do.
Moreover as i read it, models locked in a multiple combat are not forced to pile in to regain coherency and neither do models locked in a "normal" combat.
Let's say I have 2 witches out of coherency and i'm fighting in a big combat with tactical marines to the left and terminators to the right. A witch, the one fighting tacticals, killed let's say 2 men in btb with her. She now has to pile in. I decide to pile her with another tactical marine going to the left even more. This is completely possible because pile in only requires to move 3" toward an enemy unit which fought in the combat.

Partial coherency is never defined in the rulebook. We are quite inclined to that because it is the most common case to happen.

Unit coherency means 1 thing, it's what the rule book says. There is no such thing as partial coherency, that's like saying "I've dug half of a hole" it just doesn't make sense as a phrase.
Unit coherency is when all the models of the unit are within 2", if there is any other type of coherency please provide a quote.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Unit coherency means 1 thing, it's what the rule book says. There is no such thing as partial coherency, that's like saying "I've dug half of a hole" it just doesn't make sense as a phrase.
Unit coherency is when all the models of the unit are within 2", if there is any other type of coherency please provide a quote.

I make a 10 inch charge move with the initial model.
The second model must (first bullet point) move into coherency with a model that has already moved.
Since I am only checking coherency with some models in the unit and not all, that's the definition of partial coherency.

If I must check unit coherency for the entire unit (as you're insisting) I can never move a second model in a charge outside of unit coherency.

Being able to nuke units as proposed may be RAW (I don't care enough to look and figure that out) but I don't believe it's intended.
But insisting that "partial coherency" doesn't exist is literally ignoring rules.

It is clearly a case of badly written rules.

Unit coherency is defined on a unit basis in Movement Phase. In Assault Phase it is unclear. It seems that by saying "unit coherency with a model" they meant within 2" of the model. They had to write "in coherency" or "within 2 inches" instead of that. Two models in a bigger unit cannot mantain unit coherency as defined in Movement Phase.

Rules are just contradicting themselves and don't make sense here.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Unit coherency means 1 thing, it's what the rule book says. There is no such thing as partial coherency, that's like saying "I've dug half of a hole" it just doesn't make sense as a phrase.
Unit coherency is when all the models of the unit are within 2", if there is any other type of coherency please provide a quote.

I make a 10 inch charge move with the initial model.
The second model must (first bullet point) move into coherency with a model that has already moved.
Since I am only checking coherency with some models in the unit and not all, that's the definition of partial coherency.

If I must check unit coherency for the entire unit (as you're insisting) I can never move a second model in a charge outside of unit coherency.

Being able to nuke units as proposed may be RAW (I don't care enough to look and figure that out) but I don't believe it's intended.
But insisting that "partial coherency" doesn't exist is literally ignoring rules.

Bolllox, I'm not saying that. You're putting words in my mouth.
If we follow your example we can never move any model ever as it says models must maintain unit coherency when moving. If you move one then you cannot move any more as the unit isn't coherent anymore. All of page 11 talks about coherency as a unit attribute, not individual models'.

My reading doesn't break down in the assault rules, they have a more restrictive rule about assaulting. It prevents you putting models in certain places to maximise their effect in combat. You did read the line you referred to, it says unit coherency. So not only are you wrong but the example falls to my side of the argument. So the rules remain consistent that coherency is a unit attribute and that in the charge phase there is an additional restriction that coherency must be maintained and it is traced from the 1st model to charge.

Seem to me to be B, but maybe in a different way the what others are thinking.

But the unit coherency argument is really interesting. The way I see it as per page 11 if any members of a unit are not within 2" of any other member of the unit, the unit is out of coherency. In the rules for tank shock, page 85, when it talks about models under the tank it says they must move a minimum distance while maintaining unit coherency, if not they are removed. Of course, coherency is only checked after any type of movement, page 11 again, so you would move each model making sure it is within 2" of another model. But after everyone is moved and the if there is any model not in unit coherency, then all the models that were moved would have to be removed since UNIT coherency has not been maintained.

So taking the 5 terminators in a widely spaced line (nearly 2" apart from each other). Terminator A is on the conservative..., I mean far right hand side of the line and terminator E is on the far left trying to avoid conflict, with the rest in a straight line alphabetically. Tank ends movement and has run over B,C, and D. Move B a minimum distance while maintaining 2" to A. Then move C so it is within 2" of B. Then move D making sure he is within 2" of either C or E. Then, if turns out D is not within 2" of both C and E, since its not possible for A,B, or C to be within coherency of E unit coherency is broken and B, C and D are removed. And next turn A and E have to try to move to get within coherency.

Will fully admit I can understand arguments following the logic that since A,B, C and D are within coherency of each other, even if E is out of coherency then B,C and D stay on the board. But its the unit coherency rules and how they work in this situation that makes me think that isn't right. Plus, it makes tank shock almost useless.

TY, now I know where people get this idea of partial coherency. Still don't agree because a unit is not out of coherency until it is found to be out of coherency and following the rules telling you when and how to check during the charge move you will never find some models are in coherency and some are not because you do not check for it with models that have not yet moved just as you would not check for it at all during the middle of a normal move. It does not really matter though as the charging rules expressly alter the normal way coherency is checked.

For purposes of this topic the normal coherency checking procedure must be used as it does not specify any alternate method and I believe we can agree the standard method does not include any 'partial unit coherency'. They either have it or they don't.

Are there any rules that explicitly states a unit not in coherency counts as destroyed?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Are there any rules that explicitly states a unit not in coherency counts as destroyed?

No. The only place that "unit coherency" and "destroyed" are used together is in the tank shock rule and "destroyed" applies only to the models run over, not the entire unit.

helotaxi wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Are there any rules that explicitly states a unit not in coherency counts as destroyed?

No. The only place that "unit coherency" and "destroyed" are used together is in the tank shock rule and "destroyed" applies only to the models run over, not the entire unit.

Not to the models run over, the models the tank comes to a halt over. Just clearing it up in case of any confusion.

Pictures are worth a thousand words. Any of you guys feel like drawing some diagrams to support your various cases?

The bit that gets to me is the fact the sentence is a list of instructions and not a list of requirements to be met.

It would make more sense to say:
If you couldn't move a model the shortest distance to be outside of the 1" range then 'crunch.'
If the shortest distance puts the unit outside of 2 inches to another then 'crunch.'
If it moves you off the board or into impassable terrain then 'crunch.'

However, because it is a list of instructions that makes it so easy to avoid 'crunch.' This leads to the ridiculous situation where a tank is unable to run over a single man in a densely packed platoon of 30, but able to run over a man or two out of a much smaller and already spread out squad. Logically driving a tank into a large group of people is likely to kill more then driving into a smaller, already spread out, group but rules as written makes the reverse true. It renders the tactic useless for anything other then hoping to force a fall back or that one in blue moon situation where the enemy are positioned just right.