mattjgilbert wrote:

It's only in effect as much as you need to consider the final positions of all models to ensure the unit is in coherency once all models (which intend to) have moved. If you move a model and then the next one 4" away from it but then fill the gap with another model that's fine.[/quote]
That's a yes then? The coherency rule is in effect throughout the individual moving of the models within the unit, even though coherency is never "complete" or perhaps "achieved" until the end of the move.

This, of course, implies that it is ok, to choose a unit, move part of it, then justify moving the other part of it, because it is no-longer the other part, after the ic has (shall we say) "refused coherency???

mattjgilbert wrote:If an IC want's the separate from a unit, declare that and move them away from each other at their own speeds.

That's what I think, but I was surprised (by a couple of threads that were seriously debated) that others would disagree.

timewizard wrote:The first bullet point says ICs join units by moving so that at the end of their movement phase, the IC is within 2" coherency of the unit. Nothing in the first bullet point gives the unit permission to move within 2" of the IC and join it.

Does anything prevent it though?

The way I see it, an ic voluntarily leaves a unit.
When it comes to joining, this happens at the end of the phase, which allows for other units to have moved. If a unit moves within 2" of an ic, the ic will be compelled to join it (supposing only one unit). This may not be "voluntary" but the ic would be joining, not the other way around.

timewizard wrote:So by these two rules, an IC on a bike can turbo boost away from a unit it have been joined to,

This is why I used a biker for demon stration (!).
Turboing is voluntary isn't it? It highlights the unit break (how far do you move???).

timewizard wrote:The IC would have to be moved first because the unit cannot leave the IC, and if you move the unit, the IC is still joined to it and must follow bullet point three.

But, if the "coherency principle" is correct, this doesn't matter.
If, in our 5 man + ic unit, we move the 5 models out of coherency with the ic, its ok. We still have the option to maintain coherency by moving the ic suitably.

But! He doesn't have to, only the others do! Not only that, but they have!

timewizard wrote:But then bullet point eight says

Bog! Footy is on in a sec, see 'ya tomorrow!

That's a point, tomorrow, I hope you lot get me something better than socks for the "grand '44!!!"

You can move the unit away from the IC or the IC away from the unit or both or neither.

We've always played that if an IC is within 2" of a unit at the end of a movement phase, the IC joins the unit - that doesn't matter if the IC moved first or the unit did - just their proximity to each other after all moves.

mattjgilbert wrote:We've always played that if an IC is within 2" of a unit at the end of a movement phase, the IC joins the unit - that doesn't matter if the IC moved first or the unit did - just their proximity to each other after all moves.

Which begs the question of;

An IC with jump packs, like Shrike, is joined with a tac squad.
They are 14" away from an enemy unit.
In the Movement phase, Shrike moves 8", leaving his unit, so is now 6" away from the enemy unit.
The tac squad now moves its max of 6", putting it within 2" of Shrike. So now they are joined to Shrike and are again 1 unit.
Now Shrike moves 6" and assaults the enemy unit and his unit moves up 6" and joins in the attack.

So this is legal and allowed?

If the IC and the unit must maintain coherency and move at the speed of the slowest model, then if they were 1 unit they would only be able to move 6". But if the IC moves away first, it can move at its maximum speed, correct?

And if a unit can join an IC by being in coherency at the end of the movement phase, then what I detailed above can occur?

Pretty sure that the IC and unit can't separate and join again in the same movement phase.

Baragash wrote:Pretty sure that the IC and unit can't separate and join again in the same movement phase.

But there's nothing in the rules to prevent it it the unit can join the IC by moving into coherency with it.

I have always understood it to be very simply that if the IC is in coherancy with another unit then he/she/it is part of that squad (whether you want to or not).

If you dont want to be part of a given unit dont end your movement near it.

This game is complicated enough as it is.

Simples.

I'm not looking to complicate it further here. Absolutely not!

However, if you are part of a squad simply by being in coherency with it, it raises more questions than it answers.

I have always played it that an IC cna join or leave a unit by moving into or out of coherency with it.

But a unit cannot join a character, so it must remain 2" away from the character at the end of its movement.

That's the way I play it, but am open to other people's suggestions and opinions.

timewizard wrote:

Baragash wrote:Pretty sure that the IC and unit can't separate and join again in the same movement phase.

But there's nothing in the rules to prevent it it the unit can join the IC by moving into coherency with it.

If you accept the use of "vice versa" elsewhere in the rules to say the joining of ICs and units works in "both directions"*, despite the IC rules being written in a "single direction" (ie IC -> unit), then you also accept that the limitation works in both directions.

*Which IMO is the way GW would clarify it if the issue was raised.

Baragash wrote:If you accept the use of "vice versa" elsewhere in the rules to say the joining of ICs and units works in "both directions"*, despite the IC rules being written in a "single direction" (ie IC -> unit), then you also accept that the limitation works in both directions.

*Which IMO is the way GW would clarify it if the issue was raised.

But there is no limitation in the rules.

Here's another example.
I have a unit of 9 DE wyches and an archon.
They are embarked in a raider and as per the rules on page 67 are joined together.
I disembark the wyches leaving the archon on board the raider. The raider is free to move.
I move the raider 12" to within 8" of a different wych unit.
The wyches embark onto the raider and are now joined with the archon as one unit.
This move is allowed by the rules on pages 66 and 67.
So here we have an IC leaving one unit (even thought the unit left him) and joining another unit in the same turn.

If you look through the rules on page 48, the last bullet point opens the door to a unit joining an IC merely by being in coherency with the IC at the end of its (the unit's) move.

Say you have an IC on the table. It is not joined with any unit.
The IC moves. It is still more than 2" away from any unit on the table.
An infantry unit just under 8" from the IC moves towards him.
The infantry unit ends its move within 2" of the IC.
Are the infantry unit and the IC now joined as one unit?

According to page 48, there is nothing to prevent it.

In your first example - the IC leaves one unit and joins another. That sounds fine.
What is clearly not right though is deliberately "leaving" a unit and joining it again in the same turn.

In your second example, at the end of the phase the unit and the IC are within 2" of each other and so the IC joins the unit.

mattjgilbert wrote:In your first example - the IC leaves one unit and joins another. That sounds fine.
What is clearly not right though is deliberately "leaving" a unit and joining it again in the same turn.

I agree with you that it is not right.
Unfortunately there is nothing solid in the rule to prevent it.
The unit was prevented form joining an IC in every rule on page 48 with the exception of the last bullet point.
That one sayd that a unit can join an IC by ending their movement in coherency with the IC.

In the embarking and disembarking rules a unit is specifically prohibited from voluntarily both embarking and disembarking in the same movement phase.
There is no such prohibition regarding an IC leaving and then joining the same unit.

Again, I don't play it this way, but it is a legal move by rule.

GW could have countered this entire issue by taking the "...and vice versa..." out of bullet point 8 on page 48.
But there it sits picking buggers out of its nose making life miserable for anyone who notices it.