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 to be in coherency, a model needs to be within 2" of another model in the unit.

What prevents the unit from breaking into pairs as long as each model is within 2" of another model in the Unit


Very rules lawyery / exploit.

I believe it is possible by the wording. Would never do it, but is it legal? I think it may be.

FAQ'd very early on after endless discussion.

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.

Rulebook FAQ page 3.

I was sure it had been FAQ'd, since it's a question that often comes up in previous editions of 40k, but I can't seem to find it (I have checked the Rulebook FAQ, Designers Commentary, Stepping Into A New Edition, Chapter Approved 2017 FAQ, and The Big FAQ for the word "coherency").

One thing that might crop up if you're not careful in removing casualties is (from the Designer's Commentary):

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.

Note that the rules concerning unit coherency apply any time that a unit is moved, including charging, piling in, consolidating, etc. Again, if a unit cannot end such a move in unit coherency, it cannot make the move.

{Edit} Ah, thanks for that JohnnyHell, silly me for thinking a rule about coherency would use the word "coherency" {/Edit}

I've provided the FAQ reference and quote above.

Off the top of my head? When any model in on of the "pairs" is killed, the only movement action the unit can do in the next turn is to attempt to regain coherency.
That could get pretty messy.
EDIT: Thanx Johnnyhell, that was pretty cut-n-dry

-

From the Warhammer 40,000 8th edition Rulebook (emphasis added):

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.

Not two or more groups but "... as a group..." and further clarified by the FAQ that JohnnyHell referenced.

For what it's worth, what the OP described WAS possible pre-Special-Snowflake-FAQ, since that is what the RaW states.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
For what it's worth, what the OP described WAS possible pre-Special-Snowflake-FAQ, since that is what the RaW states.

Which is 100% irrelevant because it has been FAQ’d.

The RAW now includes all FAQ and Errata and does not allow it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
For what it's worth, what the OP described WAS possible pre-Special-Snowflake-FAQ, since that is what the RaW states.

It was not legal, as "A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group"

Not two or more groups... As a (a meaning single) group.

People misreading a rule does not mean it was possible before the FAQ.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
For what it's worth, what the OP described WAS possible pre-Special-Snowflake-FAQ, since that is what the RaW states.

It was not legal, as "A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group"

Not two or more groups... As a (a meaning single) group.

People misreading a rule does not mean it was possible before the FAQ.

But... but... he is never wrong because reasons!

And I agree, the FAQ in no way changes anything. It just clarified the rule for the awkward and the intractable who thought they’d found a killer strategy.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
For what it's worth, what the OP described WAS possible pre-Special-Snowflake-FAQ, since that is what the RaW states.

It was not legal, as "A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group"

Not two or more groups... As a (a meaning single) group.

People misreading a rule does not mean it was possible before the FAQ.

But... but... he is never wrong because reasons!

And I agree, the FAQ in no way changes anything. It just clarified the rule for the awkward and the intractable who thought they’d found a killer strategy.

Well his arguments are wrong sometimes. This thread is a perfect example of that.