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.

No, you can MOVE up to 3". It doesn't say that you don't count as moving.

Edit:
Additionally, your UNIT pile's in/consolidates as ONE. Every model moves individual distances, but you can't switch back and forth between units and there is no way to "skip" the pile-in step. You just say you choose to move the models 0".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, you're missing the entire game philosophy in the first sentence - models move and fight in units.

Pieceocake wrote:
This weird oscillation between model and unit based activation is what really gets me. According to the rules I can activate units to move AS MANY times as I want in the move phase. Now, I can only move each model once, but it just says to select another unit. No restriction on the whether the unit has moved. There is no logical way to get the rules to follow this statement that everyone seems to follow if movement is done solely model by model:

Actually, you only have the option of moving each model once. "Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in the unit [/u]until you have moved all the models yo want to." As soon as you're done with that unit, you've made the declaration that you've moved all the models that you want to in that unit. You don't get to try shenanigans like selecting the unit again later and moving something you haven't yet because you have already declared by moving on to another unit that you have moved all the models in that unit that you want to move. Even if you think you can select the unit again, you can't move any further models because you've already limited that unit to having already made all the moves with models in it that you want to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pieceocake wrote:
No, you can MOVE up to 3". It doesn't say that you don't count as moving.

Wrong. Pile in: "You MAY move each model up to 3" - "

Consolidate: "You MAY]move each model in the unit up to 3" - "

Note that they say MAY in both statement, That means it's optional - you may choose to move or you may choose to not move. If you don't choose to pile in or consolidate, the model would not count as having moved. That's how the English language works. Also note that they state it's the model moving, not the unit. moving. It's still movement on a model by model basis.

You don't get to try shenanigans like selecting the unit again later and moving something you haven't yet because you have already declared by moving on to another unit that you have moved all the models in that unit that you want to move.

Why is it shenanigans? I'm just using your "model by model" basis and applying it to rules. The rules state that you select a unit and move models until you don't want to. The rule then tells you to pick another unit. There is NO restriction on the unit you can pick (except maybe you could say 'another' would mean that you need 2 units to go back and forth). The ONLY restriction is a model cannot be moved more than once.

If you consider the ENTIRE UNIT to have MOVED, you don't need to resort to any sort of argument to deny someone the ability to select a unit again in the move phase. It is SIMPLER to play the game this way AND internally consistent with the other rules and statements (Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models).

Note that they say MAY in both statement, That means it's optional - you may choose to move or you may choose to not move. If you don't choose to pile in or consolidate, the model would not count as having moved. That's how the English language works. Also note that they state it's the model moving, not the unit. moving. It's still movement on a model by model basis.

Okay, so where does it say you can skip this step? The model not moving has nothing to do with whether it completed its pile-in or consolidation. You still have to complete each step, in order, unit by unit.

Good lord how does this thread have three pages?

Won't probably help much the discussion but where I play, we play the rules as the OP implies regarding shooting heavy weapons.

If a unit is selected to move, every model is considered having moved, even if none physically did. It just makes more sense to keep track of units rather than models.
Just like I would declare an advance with a dark shroud without actually physically moving it (but with the model still being considered as having moved) just to get the 4++ and stay in range of another unit that isn't moving.

While the shooting rules consider models, it can't do it in any other way as, inside units, models can have different weapons thus they need to be considered one by one.

I still understand the other interpretation though as if you take the rules as written, if a model didn't move (and "move" not being defined in the context of the rules), then you have no penalty to shoot. I just consider "move" being a unit order, not the result of me actually moving a model.

Pieceocake wrote:

You don't get to try shenanigans like selecting the unit again later and moving something you haven't yet because you have already declared by moving on to another unit that you have moved all the models in that unit that you want to move.

Why is it shenanigans?

You know it's shenanigans because you are trying to dodge that when they say to "choose another" unit they mean a unit you haven't chosen yet.

Pieceocake wrote:
I'm just using your "model by model" basis and applying it to rules. The rules state that you select a unit and move models until you don't want to. The rule then tells you to pick another unit. There is NO restriction on the unit you can pick (except maybe you could say 'another' would mean that you need 2 units to go back and forth). The ONLY restriction is a model cannot be moved more than once.

There's a restriction in that you have already moved all the model that you want to in the unit. If you have moved all the models you want to, then you obviously don't want to move any more models in the unit, so there's no reason to try to select the unit again to move a model you didn't the first time you selected a unit. "until you have moved all of the models you want to" is as much a restriction as not getting to move a model more than once. Also note that when they select another unit they say "until you have moved as many units as you have wished" So, they are treating the units as having moved. It's just that the units having moved does not mean each model in the unit has moved; as the movement rules have clarified, that is on a model by model basis.

Note that they say MAY in both statement, That means it's optional - you may choose to move or you may choose to not move. If you don't choose to pile in or consolidate, the model would not count as hav

Pieceocake wrote:
ing moved. That's how the English language works. Also note that they state it's the model moving, not the unit. moving. It's still movement on a model by model basis.

Okay, so where does it say you can skip this step? The model not moving has nothing to do with whether it completed its pile-in or consolidation. You still have to complete each step, in order, unit by unit.

Where are you coming up with that question; it shows you have no grasp on what they are saying. You don't skip the step at all. You have the step, but you can choose to not move any of your models. You've still gone through the step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neronoxx wrote:
Good lord how does this thread have three pages?

Someone doesn't want to accept what people are telling him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:
Won't probably help much the discussion but where I play, we play the rules as the OP implies regarding shooting heavy weapons.

If a unit is selected to move, every model is considered having moved, even if none physically did. It just makes more sense to keep track of units rather than models.
Just like I would declare an advance with a dark shroud without actually physically moving it (but with the model still being considered as having moved) just to get the 4++ and stay in range of another unit that isn't moving.

While the shooting rules consider models, it can't do it in any other way as, inside units, models can have different weapons thus they need to be considered one by one.

I still understand the other interpretation though as if you take the rules as written, if a model didn't move (and "move" not being defined in the context of the rules), then you have no penalty to shoot. I just consider "move" being a unit order, not the result of me actually moving a model.

You're playing it like a holdover from previous editions, where movement was considered on a unit by unit basis, and movement of one model meant that the unit and therefore every model in the unit moved. Rules for shooting and the like were set up for units that moved. In this edition the rules are set up for penaties on models that move, not units that move.

 doctortom wrote:

You're playing it like a holdover from previous editions, where movement was considered on a unit by unit basis, and movement of one model meant that the unit and therefore every model in the unit moved. Rules for shooting and the like were set up for units that moved. In this edition the rules are set up for penaties on models that move, not units that move.

I know about past editions and I think I said I understand why other players would do it on a model basis as its how it's worded. But the rules are still on a per unit basis afaik. The only debatable case I'm aware of is heavy weapons shooting. If a unit advance, the whole unit is considered advancing, if a unit charge, the whole unit charge, if a unit fall back the whole unit fall back, etc.

Without defining in the rules what "moving" means, both reading are valid to me though. One just makes more sense as far as i'm concerned (and we have a bunch of scenarios where we have to call upon our common sense already, it's not so far fetched to assume this is another one).

With your interpretation I can elect to move a unit but chose to not move its models and thus the unit isn't considered having moved since no models have moved.
Some keywords for this sentence to not look this silly would be great.

With mine I can move a unit and whatever I physically do with the models, it has moved.

dhallnet wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You're playing it like a holdover from previous editions, where movement was considered on a unit by unit basis, and movement of one model meant that the unit and therefore every model in the unit moved. Rules for shooting and the like were set up for units that moved. In this edition the rules are set up for penaties on models that move, not units that move.

I know about past editions and I think I said I understand why other players would do it on a model basis as its how it's worded. But the rules are still on a per unit basis afaik. The only debatable case I'm aware of is heavy weapons shooting. If a unit advance, the whole unit is considered advancing, if a unit charge, the whole unit charge, if a unit fall back the whole unit fall back, etc.

Without defining in the rules what "moving" means, both reading are valid to me though. One just makes more sense as far as i'm concerned (and we have a bunch of scenarios where we have to call upon our common sense already, it's not so far fetched to assume this is another one).

With your interpretation I can elect to move a unit but chose to not move its models and thus the unit isn't considered having moved since no models have moved.
Some keywords for this sentence to not look this silly would be great.

With mine I can move a unit and whatever I physically do with the models, it has moved.

That's HYWPI, which is absolutely fine as long as you discuss with your opponent before the game starts.

RAW is RAW however.

 skchsan wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You're playing it like a holdover from previous editions, where movement was considered on a unit by unit basis, and movement of one model meant that the unit and therefore every model in the unit moved. Rules for shooting and the like were set up for units that moved. In this edition the rules are set up for penaties on models that move, not units that move.

I know about past editions and I think I said I understand why other players would do it on a model basis as its how it's worded. But the rules are still on a per unit basis afaik. The only debatable case I'm aware of is heavy weapons shooting. If a unit advance, the whole unit is considered advancing, if a unit charge, the whole unit charge, if a unit fall back the whole unit fall back, etc.

Without defining in the rules what "moving" means, both reading are valid to me though. One just makes more sense as far as i'm concerned (and we have a bunch of scenarios where we have to call upon our common sense already, it's not so far fetched to assume this is another one).

With your interpretation I can elect to move a unit but chose to not move its models and thus the unit isn't considered having moved since no models have moved.
Some keywords for this sentence to not look this silly would be great.

With mine I can move a unit and whatever I physically do with the models, it has moved.

That's HYWPI, which is absolutely fine as long as you discuss with your opponent before the game starts.

RAW is RAW however.

As you say, he is arguing HIWPI.

He is ignoring that in the movement rules they did have the statement ""until you have moved as many units as you have wished", so if you've selected the unit, the unit has moved even if the models didn't, disproving his statemen about my interpretation. With RAW, however, there's no statement that if the unit has moved that all the models within the unit are considered to have moved. The rules for heavy weapons are on a model by model basis; they don't ask whether the unit has moved. So, by RAW, you should be playing it that if the model with the heavy weapon didn't move, it doesn't get the -1 to hit.

The reason why this argument has gone on 3 pages is because the initial paragraph of the battle primer says:

Models move and fight in units, made
up of one or more models. 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. If anything causes
a unit to become split up during a battle,
it must re-establish its unit coherency the
next time it moves.

there's no statement that if the unit has moved that all the models within the unit are considered to have moved.

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

skchsan wrote:That's HYWPI, which is absolutely fine as long as you discuss with your opponent before the game starts.

RAW is RAW however.

I agree. If I had to play with someone outside of my group, I would just ask him how he plays it and roll with it.
Regarding RAW sometimes we all agree it doesn't make sense. Some other times, we can't and argue a lot and it's fine

doctortom wrote:
As you say, he is arguing HIWPI.

He is ignoring that in the movement rules they did have the statement ""until you have moved as many units as you have wished", so if you've selected the unit, the unit has moved even if the models didn't, disproving his statemen about my interpretation. With RAW, however, there's no statement that if the unit has moved that all the models within the unit are considered to have moved. The rules for heavy weapons are on a model by model basis; they don't ask whether the unit has moved. So, by RAW, you should be playing it that if the model with the heavy weapon didn't move, it doesn't get the -1 to hit.

Is "he" referring to me ? If it's the case I'm not really arguing. I'm just saying both interpretations seems really valid to me as what is considered "a move" isn't explained at all in the rules. I wasn't disproving anything at any time, I think ?
Also, maybe i'm missing something but you are saying in the same sentence that a unit can be ordered to move but not move its models at all and still being considered as having moved for rules intent but as well as have specific models being considered as not having moved inside that unit as long as they didn't physically move. I know that's what the heavy weapon's rules "tells" you by RAW but it really feels like a stretch (to me ofc).

dhallnet wrote:
Regarding RAW sometimes we all agree it doesn't make sense. Some other times, we can't and argue a lot and it's fine

Except here the RAW does make sense. A heavy weapon shouldn't have a penalty to hit just because Trooper Jenkins moved on the far side of the unit.

 Ghaz wrote:
A heavy weapon shouldn't have a penalty to hit just because Trooper Jenkins moved on the far side of the unit.

Unless Trooper Jenkins was wearing her most form fitting fatigues and moving just the right way. A distraction like that is enough to give any of us -1 to hit.

-

Pieceocake wrote:

there's no statement that if the unit has moved that all the models within the unit are considered to have moved.

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

When you're quoting me or someone else, please keep the tag to indicate who you're quoting. You just threw up a post that except for your first sentence consisted of different quotes from somewhere. I had to look to see that you're actually addressing me with this

As to your quote, that does not say that if a unit moves, all of its models are considered to have moved. Sorry, try again.

 Galef wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
A heavy weapon shouldn't have a penalty to hit just because Trooper Jenkins moved on the far side of the unit.

Unless Trooper Jenkins was wearing her most form fitting fatigues and moving just the right way. A distraction like that is enough to give any of us -1 to hit.

Private Jenkins is definitely not a woman, not that you could tell if someone were a woman in standard Cadian gear.

 Ghaz wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
Regarding RAW sometimes we all agree it doesn't make sense. Some other times, we can't and argue a lot and it's fine

Except here the RAW does make sense. A heavy weapon shouldn't have a penalty to hit just because Trooper Jenkins moved on the far side of the unit.

Since you like RP in rules discussions, would the heavy gunner not be annoyed if his whole squad rushed in front of/around him ? That might be enough to upset his aim. I dunno.

But yeah RAW, not moving while moving at a slow pace can be considered as "not moving" but not moving while moving really fast is considered as moving fast, as long as you are in the shooting phase.

I think the philosophy behind not being able to shoot while Advancing is because Advancing is an ordered maneuver. As in, the unit was ordered by their commander to double step. For a heavy weapon gunner to shoot afterwards would show that he disobeyed his commanders orders.
I dunno

Normal movement would be what is currently called Individual Movement Techniques and would be designed not to impede the squad's heavy weapon's fire. Advancing would be more akin to moving 'on the double' where covering ground is more important than keeping open fire lanes for the heavy weapon.

Galef wrote:I think the philosophy behind not being able to shoot while Advancing is because Advancing is an ordered maneuver. As in, the unit was ordered by their commander to double step. For a heavy weapon gunner to shoot afterwards would show that he disobeyed his commanders orders.
I dunno

It would apply to the "move" order too I guess

Ghaz wrote:Normal movement would be what is currently called Individual Movement Techniques and would be designed not to impede the squad's heavy weapon's fire. Advancing would be more akin to moving 'on the double' where covering ground is more important than keeping open fire lanes for the heavy weapon.

Maybe that's why the heavy weapon can still fire at -1 instead of having to wait for the rest of the squad to stand still. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, as I previously said, I can't disagree with any "side" of this argument. Just wanted to show some support to the op

Pieceocake wrote:

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

Nothing in that rules quote prevents rules also being applied on a model-by-model basis. There is absolutely nothing in that quote that results in what you're trying to argue. What that rule is actually describing is unit coherency. Having models fight in units doesn't mean the status of the unit necessarily transfers to all models in it. In some cases it does, in others it doesn't. The specific rules describe these situations. Advancing is an example of a rule that applies to a whole unit. The Heavy weapon penalty is an example of a rule that is applied at the model level, rather than unit. How do we know this? The rule itself tells us.

dhallnet wrote:

Galef wrote:I think the philosophy behind not being able to shoot while Advancing is because Advancing is an ordered maneuver. As in, the unit was ordered by their commander to double step. For a heavy weapon gunner to shoot afterwards would show that he disobeyed his commanders orders.
I dunno

It would apply to the "move" order too I guess

Not necessarily. Units are often given autonomy to use their training to find the best positions to achieve the main objective of their mission.
But when the commander or squad leader determines they need to pick up the pace or move "on the double" heavy gunners should forego attempting to take shots to comply with this order.
I feel this a fair reason why GW designed the rules to deny models from being able to shoot if their unit Advanced. GWs likely standpoint is that if the player chooses to Advance a unit, all models "should" be Advancing. The leave it open to prevent weird situations where forcing all models to do so might cause problems, but I can see their intent.

Remember, one of the big issue with GW rules design is that it isn't always for game balance, but for thematic game play.
GW wants you to play the game the way they have it in their head, but that doesn't always translate to the actual rules

-

Thanks for the support dhallnet!

I agree with him that neither of the two opposing viewpoints is wrong because of how poorly the rules are written. It would definitely be decided by T.O. or a roll off, or a mutual agreement before the game.

Slipspace: The issue I see with your argument is that then there is absolutely NO text that states that a status of a Unit EVER applies to a model, if you dismiss the Unit paragraph. I would challenge you to find other text that states A Unit action is directly applied to a Model.

Saying a unit advanced means nothing if it doesn't apply to the models, since weapon rules always go model by model. Especially since we have to break the game to even select the unit to fire assault weapons in the first place.

If you decouple Units and Models, MANY things in the game break. Any rule that strictly references units and happens to leave out a reference to models, really. I play Tau - Kauyon/Montka references Units, not models at all, and would have no effect since units aren't actually shooting, its models that get to shoot.

Really its a hierarchy: Anything that applies to the unit ALSO applies to all models. Anything that applies to a single model, does NOT apply to the unit, just the model.

Pieceocake wrote:


Slipspace: The issue I see with your argument is that then there is absolutely NO text that states that a status of a Unit EVER applies to a model, if you dismiss the Unit paragraph. I would challenge you to find other text that states A Unit action is directly applied to a Model.

That's actually a bit of a strawman argument. Let's look at advancing. "A unit that advances can't shoort or charge later that turn." Step 1 of Shooting is "Choose a unit to shoot with". Step 1 of Charging is "Choose a unit to charge with" Advancing prevents you from choosing the unit at step 1, so you don't get to go to the further steps where you would see things on a model by model basis.

Unfortunately it becomes very relevant when you need to select an advancing unit in order to shoot your assault weapons.

Not to mention the fact that aura's and such tend to target Units (a lot of rerolls come to mind). How do those models ever check for Unit-wide buffs? It's not the Unit shooting, but the models. if you confer every unit benefit (or penalty or action) down to the models, things work out for the most part.

Pieceocake wrote:
Unfortunately it becomes very relevant when you need to select an advancing unit in order to shoot your assault weapons.

Not to mention the fact that aura's and such tend to target Units (a lot of rerolls come to mind). How do those models ever check for Unit-wide buffs? It's not the Unit shooting, but the models. if you confer every unit benefit (or penalty or action) down to the models, things work out for the most part.

Unit wide buffs affect all models in the unit even if only 1 model is within the range of the aura, unless otherwise stated (i.e. models wholly within x"). It might seem inconsistent at times but it's just how the game works as per RAW.

Pieceocake wrote:
Unfortunately it becomes very relevant when you need to select an advancing unit in order to shoot your assault weapons.

Not to mention the fact that aura's and such tend to target Units (a lot of rerolls come to mind). How do those models ever check for Unit-wide buffs? It's not the Unit shooting, but the models. if you confer every unit benefit (or penalty or action) down to the models, things work out for the most part.

It depends on what the aura says. Like every special rule. What does the rule say? There's auras that say units within X", and there's auras that say models within X". It's case by case.

Pieceocake wrote:

Slipspace: The issue I see with your argument is that then there is absolutely NO text that states that a status of a Unit EVER applies to a model, if you dismiss the Unit paragraph. I would challenge you to find other text that states A Unit action is directly applied to a Model.

That's not actually a problem at all. The rules work perfectly fine if some things affect units and others affect models. I really don't know how else to explain this to you, but you don't seem to be grasping the concept at all. Advancing is a good example of a unit effect - it specifically says it applies to the whole unit, rather than being on an individual basis. Other rules, such as whether a model counts as having moved, don't say that. In fact, there are no specific rules detailing the status of "moved" for individual models so we have to use the basic English definition when it comes to determining that for things like Heavy weapons and the movement penalty.

As for auras, there are some that affect models and some that affect units, illustrating my point yet again. Blood Angels actually have one (the Standard of Sacrifice) that does both at once. It gives a 5+ save against any wounds to models within 6" while simultaneously giving re-roll 1s to wound to units within 6". Again, the specific aura will tell you whether it affects units or models. If it affects units, all models in the unit get the buff/debuff. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but this is not a problem. I have no idea why you think it is.

Pieceocake wrote:I can answer your question:

A Unit is selected to have moved in the movement phase. 4 bolter models move and a heavy weapon remains stationary. The unit is designated as "Moved" and can no longer be selected in this phase.

In the shooting phase the bolters look at their rapid fire weapons and see that they have no benefit or penalty for the Unit moving.

The heavy weapon looks at it's rules and sees that being in a unit that moved causes a -1 to hit penalty.

If the whole unit does not move, the heavy weapon receives no penalty.

Similar scenario:
Choose to advance with 4 bolters and 1 assault weapon

In the shooting phase the bolters look at their rapid fire weapons and see that they cannot override the "if a unit advances, it cannot shoot" restriction.

The assault weapon looks at it's rules and sees that being in a unit that advanced causes a -1 to hit penalty, but it can still shoot.

The reason to mention the special rules is so that you can make the choice up front to move the unit to get in rapid fire range, at the expense of the heavy weapon or sit still to fire the heavy more accurately. At that moment, which action is more valuable?

This is incorrect as weapons go by a model by model basis on if they moved or not. The heavy weapon in this scenario does not receive a -1 to hit because the model did not move.

Pieceocake wrote:This weird oscillation between model and unit based activation is what really gets me. According to the rules I can activate units to move AS MANY times as I want in the move phase. Now, I can only move each model once, but it just says to select another unit. No restriction on the whether the unit has moved. There is no logical way to get the rules to follow this statement that everyone seems to follow if movement is done solely model by model:

Each unit can be selected once in the movement phase.

If you consider the Unit to have moved, then, guess what, it actually works where when you move a unit, everything is considered to have moved. At that point, who cares if you can select the unit, because you cannot move any models after they are considered to have moved.

But hey, it appears we are at an impasse. I've not seen any evidence of another action that acts in a similar way to cause me to doubt, and y'all don't agree with the basic premise of Move being equivalent to Advance/Fall Back/Charge/Shoot/Fight/Consolidate/Pile-in

Units activate in the different phases by a unit by unit basis. However the actual part of the phase where things are done is actually resolved model by model within the unit itself.

Example is the unit is selected for the movement phase, but the models in the unit resolve their individual movements.

This is the same with shooting, Close Combat ect.

An advance would be classified as a unit blanket effect. Much like adding another phase on to the unit (in this case MOVEMENT + ADVANCE) in which the advance rule has it's own restriction that applies to the unit

dhallnet wrote:Won't probably help much the discussion but where I play, we play the rules as the OP implies regarding shooting heavy weapons.

If a unit is selected to move, every model is considered having moved, even if none physically did. It just makes more sense to keep track of units rather than models.
Just like I would declare an advance with a dark shroud without actually physically moving it (but with the model still being considered as having moved) just to get the 4++ and stay in range of another unit that isn't moving.

While the shooting rules consider models, it can't do it in any other way as, inside units, models can have different weapons thus they need to be considered one by one.

I still understand the other interpretation though as if you take the rules as written, if a model didn't move (and "move" not being defined in the context of the rules), then you have no penalty to shoot. I just consider "move" being a unit order, not the result of me actually moving a model.

This is false. The unit is considered "activated" for the phase. However it's movement (which is a specific function in the phase) is resolved model by model.

This feels like you have brought in mechanics from previous editions. Which do not apply in this edition because it is a completely new ruleset.

Forget about what you remember last editions. Because it won't help you in this edition.

You just have to remember, UNITS "activate" on the phases. MODELS "activate" in the phases.

It's a simple thing to remember. One part is used on the phase, and one part is used in the phase

Slipspace:
but you don't seem to be grasping the concept at all.

I understand exactly what you are saying: Since the "Moving" heading/ movement phase block doesn't explicitly state "All models in a unit selected to move count as having moved" (or something similar), and the rules tell you that you can choose not to move individual models when you activate the unit to move, you default to the heavy weapon special rule to provide you with the interpretation that models can be in different sates of moved or not. The issue that GW has here is that they already used the keyword Move and it is just a stat block telling you the legal distance any individual model can move, not an action like everything else in the game.

I am telling you that I think movement works the same way as every other action rule - and that GW told us, albeit more subtly.

"UNITS
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models. 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. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves." P.2 Battle Primer

There are a few things here that tell me GW wanted models to take actions (including the move action) together:

Models move and fight in units

This statement is completely unnecessary to the rest of the paragraph. Describing coherency only requires that you state that Units are made up of groups of one or more models and that they must maintain a certain distance.
Why add that they must "move and fight" in units? This statement sets up the basic premise of the game: Models do actions in groups, called Units. While they may be equipped differently, they still act as one - a model isn't fighting while the rest of his unit shoots.

A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group...

The rule continues on stating that a unit MUST set up or finish a move as a GROUP.

If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves.

Finally, the rule states that if a UNIT becomes split up, it [the UNIT] must re-establish its [the UNITs] unit coherency the next time it [the UNIT] moves
Another reference to the entire unit moving together.

I'd also like to point out the turn summary on the right-hand side of battle primer pg. 2:
"1.Movement phase
Move any units that are capable of doing so.
2.Psychic phase
Psykers can use powerful mental abilities.
3.Shooting phase
Your units may shoot enemy units.
4.Charge phase
Your units may move into close combat against enemy units.
5.Fight phase
Both players’ units pile in and attack with melee weapons.
6.Morale phase
Test the courage of depleted units."

Notice the reference to "Move any units" and that there is a complete lack of reference to "models".

mchammadad wrote:
You just have to remember, UNITS "activate" on the phases. MODELS "activate" in the phases.

Sorry no, afaik there is no model activation in the ruleset.
You "activate" a unit and then resolve the unit's action model by model because, guess what, units are made of 1+ model(s)
For example, shooting doesn't tell you to pick a model to shoot with, it tells you to pick a unit and then resolve model by model inside that unit.
It's actually one of the clearest thing in the book, units are comprised of models and a unit's models do everything together.