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 a purely RaW observance. The RaI is clearly not intended this way, but academically this is an issue with the RaW.

The question is: RaW, can you set up (deploy) or move if you are not in a ruin or other piece of multi-level terrain?

DESIGNER'S COMMENTARY FAQ wrote:Q: What happens if a unit that has become split up during battle cannot re-establish unit coherency the next time it moves?

A: In this case the unit cannot move.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

40k rulebook wrote:
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: this is called unit coherency. (Emphasis mine)

Note this says "within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically" they use 'and', where maybe they meant 'or'?

As it stands models have to be 'within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically of another model from their unit'. If you are not in a ruin, or other piece of multi-level terrain, you can not be within 2" and 6" respectively, and therefore are not in coherency, and as such can not be set up or move.

Have i missed anything? or is the RaW observances I have collected from the quotes technically correct?

P.S.

If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Also change your forum password, I think another ‘regular poster’ has hacked it, judging by this post’s content...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Incorrect. Vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom. The same plane is not at right angles

Also change your forum password, I think another ‘regular poster’ has hacked it, judging by this post’s content...

LOL no, I am not BCB. But since what I posted seems to be true even he does not play by RaW as he claims, since no one does unless they deploy and move in ruins only.

If you're on the same level, you're at 0" vertically compared to other models. That is under 6", and thus within 6"

0" is within anything that is within >0"

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Incorrect. Vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom. The same plane is not at right angles

Also change your forum password, I think another ‘regular poster’ has hacked it, judging by this post’s content...

LOL no, I am not BCB. But since what I posted seems to be true even he does not play by RaW as he claims, since no one does unless they deploy and move in ruins only.

I’m not incorrect. Your OP is based on flawed logic, I’m afraid.

 DeathReaper wrote:
LOL no, I am not BCB. But since what I posted seems to be true even he does not play by RaW as he claims, since no one does unless they deploy and move in ruins only.

That's EXACTLY what BCB would say if he indeed hacked your account!

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Incorrect. Vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom. The same plane is not at right angles

Also change your forum password, I think another ‘regular poster’ has hacked it, judging by this post’s content...

LOL no, I am not BCB. But since what I posted seems to be true even he does not play by RaW as he claims, since no one does unless they deploy and move in ruins only.

I’m not incorrect. Your OP is based on flawed logic, I’m afraid.

I see what you are saying, but it does not read that way to me.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Incorrect. Vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom. The same plane is not at right angles

Also change your forum password, I think another ‘regular poster’ has hacked it, judging by this post’s content...

LOL no, I am not BCB. But since what I posted seems to be true even he does not play by RaW as he claims, since no one does unless they deploy and move in ruins only.

I’m not incorrect. Your OP is based on flawed logic, I’m afraid.

I see what you are saying, but it does not read that way to me.

Johnny's interpretation seems to be most accurate. Normally, taking a bird's eye POV on the battlefield, a model can only move in X and Y axis. Once you are in a ruin, or any other multi-level buildings, you are now moving in Z direction.

The coherency RAW states that you must be within 2" horizontally and 6" vertically. This roughly translates to 'in order to maintain coherency, models in a unit must be within 2" in either X or Y axis direction AND 6" in Z axis direction. Hence, you will have broken coherency if two models are within 2" in horizontal direction, as seen from above at a 2D plane, but are more than 6" in vertical direction. It's a two-part condition.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Incorrect. Vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom. The same plane is not at right angles

Also change your forum password, I think another ‘regular poster’ has hacked it, judging by this post’s content...

LOL no, I am not BCB. But since what I posted seems to be true even he does not play by RaW as he claims, since no one does unless they deploy and move in ruins only.

The chance of the table being perfectly flat is near 0. Other models in the unit are likely microns higher or lower, thereby having a verticle distance from eachother that is greater then 0 but less then 6.

I see BCBs signature growing again

If this truly meant you had to be within 6" on the same straight vertical line, as well as within 2" on the same horizontal plane, the only way to accomplish that would be by having the models occupying the same space, at least partially.

It doesn't mean that though. The rule means you have to be within 2" measured horizontally as well as 6" measured vertically. You're allowed to make use of both numbers, such as by being above and to the left of another squad member as long as your horizontal position isn't more than 6" above him, and your vertical position isn't more than 2" to the left.

EDIT: This isn't like BCB at all, because BCB is usually technically correct. OP isn't.

Following the rule of 'horizontally 2" and vertically 6"' would mean that the two models are in coherency, when measured from base to base (i.e. diagonally), if they are within 6.32" from each other.

 skchsan wrote:
Following the rule of 'horizontally 2" and vertically 6"' would mean that the two models are in coherency, when measured from base to base (i.e. diagonally), if they are within 6.32" from each other.

That is not a 90 degree angle. Vertically literally means at right angles to a horizontal plane, which would be directly above said model.

 Cream Tea wrote:
EDIT: This isn't like BCB at all, because BCB is usually technically correct. OP isn't.

I am if you know what vertically means

Nice catch DeathReaper, it should indeed read "and/or" for it to work. Where do I send the royalties for my signature too?

Add this into the fact that you can technically deploy a 4+ model unit in 2 halves separated by infinite distance (at least you could when 8th dropped, I can't remember if they ever Special Snowflake FAQed it) and 8th has the WORST written coherency rules of any edition.

The 7th coherency rules worked just fine, why change them?

Also, glad to see certain posters get special treatment when it comes to Rule 1. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Incorrect. Vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom. The same plane is not at right angles

Regardless of how you want to define vertical, if you look at the models and examine their relative vertical distance are they within 6"? A model on a plane has a vertical distance of 0" to other models on that plane, so it is within 6" vertically.

The rest of the unit coherency rule requires you to also be 2" horizontally.

Not much room for confusion IMHO.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Incorrect. Vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom. The same plane is not at right angles

Regardless of how you want to define vertical, if you look at the models and examine their relative vertical distance are they within 6"? A model on a plane has a vertical distance of 0" to other models on that plane, so it is within 6" vertically.

The rest of the unit coherency rule requires you to also be 2" horizontally.

Not much room for confusion IMHO.

The rules don't ask for "relative vertical distance" though. You're adding in words. It just asks for "vertical distance".

Is .0001" inch within 6"?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re on the same level you’re within 6” vertically.

Incorrect. Vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom. The same plane is not at right angles

Regardless of how you want to define vertical, if you look at the models and examine their relative vertical distance are they within 6"? A model on a plane has a vertical distance of 0" to other models on that plane, so it is within 6" vertically.

The rest of the unit coherency rule requires you to also be 2" horizontally.

Not much room for confusion IMHO.

The rules don't ask for "relative vertical distance" though. You're adding in words. It just asks for "vertical distance".

You're arguing for the sake of it.

What do you think we are measuring, if not a relative distance, when we are asking if a model is within 6" of another model?

JakeSiren wrote:
What do you think we are measuring, if not a relative distance, when we are asking if a model is within 6" of another model?

The rules do not ask to measure "if a model is within 6" of another model?" it asks "if a model is within 6" of another model vertically?"

Now, there are a lot of things that the game has to rely on the English language for. What a "dice" is, what a "roll" is, what the word "the" means.

I think we can all agree that vertical means "perpendicular to horizontal" and "perpendicular" means "denoting the latest stage of English Gothic church architecture, prevalent from the late 14th to mid 16th centuries and characterised by broad arches, elaborate fan vaulting, and large windows with vertical tracery."

Wait wrong definition

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
What do you think we are measuring, if not a relative distance, when we are asking if a model is within 6" of another model?

The rules do not ask to measure "if a model is within 6" of another model?" it asks "if a model is within 6" of another model vertically?"

Now, there are a lot of things that the game has to rely on the English language for. What a "dice" is, what a "roll" is, what the word "the" means.

I think we can all agree that vertical means "perpendicular to horizontal".

How does that disqualify what I said before?

Thanks for dodging the question though. As I said before

Regardless of how you want to define vertical, if you look at the models and examine their relative vertical distance are they within 6"? A model on a plane has a vertical distance of 0" to other models on that plane, so it is within 6" vertically.

You're adding the word "relative" when the game is not asking for that. I believe that, lacking an explicit instruction, vertically means the absolute measurement, not the relative.

That being said, I agree it could easily be argued either way, and a clarificatory FAQ on the subject should be added to the Rulebook FAQ asap.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You're adding the word "relative" when the game is not asking for that. I believe that, lacking an explicit instruction, vertically means the absolute measurement, not the relative.

That being said, I agree it could easily be argued either way, and a clarificatory FAQ on the subject should be added to the Rulebook FAQ asap.

You're missing an important piece of information, absolute to what?

To whatever you define Horizontal to be. The rule says 2" horizontally and 6" vertically, that to me means that you need to be within 2" on whatever you've defined the Horizontal Axis to be, and within 6" on the Axis that is perpendicular to that.

The game does not ever check coherency in any other direction, including diagonal. A model at a 45 degree angle "above" another is not within 6" vertically and the game never asks to check at a 45 degree angle.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
To whatever you define Horizontal to be. The rule says 2" horizontally and 6" vertically, that to me means that you need to be within 2" on whatever you've defined the Horizontal Axis to be, and within 6" on the Axis that is perpendicular to that.

The game does not ever check coherency in any other direction, including diagonal. A model at a 45 degree angle "above" another is not within 6" vertically and the game never asks to check at a 45 degree angle.

Stop being vague. What do you define it as in this situation?

Nothing you have said so far has disqualified my assertion. I requoted it below for your convenience (without the word "relative" as you seem to have a problem with it for some reason that you haven't adequately addressed yet.)

Regardless of how you want to define vertical, if you look at the models and examine their vertical distance, are they within 6" of eachother? A model on a plane has a vertical distance of 0" to other models on that plane, so it is within 6" vertically.

Ok, example picture time:


Imagine you're looking at bases from the side, the distances don't matter but let's pretend the distance in 3D space base to base is like, 3".

The red secton is the cylinder that comprises of all points in 3 dimensional space that are within 6" vertically of your base. The red section doesn't intersect the upper base, thus you are not within 6" vertically.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ok, example picture time:


Imagine you're looking at bases from the side, the distances don't matter but let's pretend the distance in 3D space base to base is like, 3".

The red secton is the cylinder that comprises of all points in 3 dimensional space that are within 6" vertically of your base. The red section doesn't intersect the upper base, thus you are not within 6" vertically.

Why are you considering position rather than distance?

If we use your image it's position is not directly vertically above, but the vertical component of its distance is 3" and its horizontal component is (let's say) 1.5". It then fulfills the coherency requirements.

Because you can't measure vertically without having a position to start from?

However, the "Stepping into a New Edition" FAQ actually says "Q: How do vertical distances work for movement and measurements? "A: All distances are measured in three dimensions..." so I will actually concede that I am wrong here due to the presence of an actual FAQ I idiotically missed, although the FAQ isn't actually explicit on the matter and only uses an example for movement.

So, since "vertically" as per the FAQ does indeed mean the vertical component, RaW this might be a loophole but whether you consider the FAQ clarificatory or Special Snowflake, it fixes the issue.

On a side note, GW, why the heck do you have 3 random FAQs like that when it should all be in the Rulebook FAQ I mean really!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because you can't measure vertically without having a position to start from?

However, the "Stepping into a New Edition" FAQ actually says "Q: How do vertical distances work for movement and measurements? "A: All distances are measured in three dimensions..." so I will actually concede that I am wrong here due to the presence of an actual FAQ I idiotically missed, although the FAQ isn't actually explicit on the matter and only uses an example for movement.

So, since "vertically" as per the FAQ does indeed mean the vertical component, RaW this might be a loophole but whether you consider the FAQ clarificatory or Special Snowflake, it fixes the issue.

On a side note, GW, why the heck do you have 3 random FAQs like that when it should all be in the Rulebook FAQ I mean really!

What I mean is why, when you are considering the vertical component (within 6" vertically), are you also considering the horizontal component? Think of each model as being a point on a line because that's what we are doing when we take a single component of their distance.

The rule breaks down into 2 checks
Within 2" horizontally
And within 6" vertically.

So check each separately. If we had a situation where both models were on the table (ie, not elevated), they would have a vertical distance within 6" of each other. It doesn't matter if they are 1.5" apart horizontally or 60" apart horizontally. Weather or not they are in coherency of course depends on both checks being fulfilled.

I’m having a hard time seeing how this rule is unclear to anyone. As JakeSiren says it’s two simple checks:

- Within 2” horizontally.
- Within 6” vertically.

Just read and apply the sentence and it functions just fine.

Diagram time:



As in understand it, all models in this image are within 2” of each other horizontally and 6” vertically. I don’t make it that you can only be separated by levels if directly above or below a squadmate.

If you prefer 7th coherency well, guess what? 8th’s is largely a simplified version of the same wording, sans diagrams, that has the same meaning. They missed out “imaginary chain” but the FAQ (below) fixes that bit for anyone trying shenanigans. 7th still used ‘horizontally’ and ‘vertically’ wording, so unless you have been kicking off about the use of ‘vertically’ since 2014 it’s not new news, so I’m not sure why it’s suddenly an issue for two people! (Btw let’s not turn this into an analysis of 7th rules - stick to discussing the current ones - my commentbis provided by way of illustration not an intention to derail into 7th chat).

To BCB’s “multiple groups”, nope. That was clarified ages ago (Sept?) in the first Rulebook FAQ:

Q: Can I set up a unit, or finish any sort of move with a unit, so that its models form several separate groups (where each group consists of models from that unit that are within 2" horizontally and 6" vertically of at least one other model from their group)?
A: No. The unit must set up or finish any sort of move as a single group.

As a mathematician this thread hurts my head.

The distance between two points in 3D space can be said to have a vertical and horizontal component. This is basic convention for discussing distances in 3D space.

A model that is 6" higher and 2" horizontally across from another has a vertical component to their distance of 6". They are therefore vertically 6" apart regardless of the fact the higher model is not directly above the lower model.

The rule as written works perfectly.