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.

As shown in the diagram, is this RAW legal?
https://i.imgur.com/g3Udtp9.jpg

Yes, that's legal. I can see it potentially causing problems for new players as it seems as though it's designed to allow for fire teams to be split off from the main unit whereas gamers with experience of previous editions will assume it should still work how it always has.

I've not seen anyone actually do this yet and I believe it's an unintended loophole, but I think GW need to FAQ it to make the intent clearer.

It's 7th edition Aegis line all over again…
Raw it's legal, but probably not intended.
I sure hope that every person trying to pull that off gets one of the small 2-person team assaulted, and end up with all the other ones completely useless.

And good luck keeping track of which models are in the same unit.

By raw it seems legal. Also stupid. Like tactically stupid. The first two-man-team to eat a casualty would cause the entire spread out unit to become non-coherent.

Also incredibly likely to not be rai.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
As shown in the diagram, is this RAW legal?
https://i.imgur.com/g3Udtp9.jpg

I'd appreciate if people could try to look through the first page (at least) of the forum and try the search function to make sure a topic hasn't already been covered. It seems like the same questions keep getting posted over and over and over again.

The word 'group' has a meaning. So in that example, the unit has not finished as a group, it has finished as multiple groups.

Yes, the semantics of this can be argued over ad nauseam, but since nothing has changed on the wording of coherency in the last several editions except not including a diagram this time around, this is completely a non-issue.

Also, try reading the part before the part you underlined. Do those models look like they are part of A (i.e. singular) group?

The answer is, of course, no. This is, IMO, neither RAW or RAI. You have to consider the whole sentence.

Sure but it's 1 unit so if I can't see your lascannon, but 2 of those other guys walk out in front of my Predator. Wounds still get allocated to the entire unit.

If two of them get assault and 2 are all the way across the table and you fail 4 saves the 2 all the way across the table die.

Because there is no rule allowing them to split into separate units. So they count as 1 unit if I can hit 1 of them I can hit all of them no matter where they are.

FAQ fixed this problem anyway.