I'm in a head-banging argument on seer, here http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325890

Most of it, imo, is nonsensical, but it builds up to reasonable questions.

Bash holes in this reasoning, if you will ...

1. My movement phase, I select a unit to move. That one!
I must complete its move before going on to another unit.

2. If I wish to remain stationary, it must be coherent. If I am unsure, I need to check.

3. I pick up a model, measure, then place it down. = fine (or is it?).
4. I pick up another model and do the same. It is not necessary to place it within 2" of the other, but, I do need to place the model in a location, that, after I move all of my models, can be legal for coherency purposes.
I'll refer to that as the "coherency pricipal."

5. The coherency principal does not require sequential movement of models in such a way to "keep" a conga line between the models I have moved, the whole unit has to be coherent at the end of its movement.

6. Assuming the unit is not falling back or something, it is entirely forbidden for me to place a model in a location that will lead to a non-coherent (incoherent!) unit.
7. This means that the coherency rule is in force during my move and not just after I finish moving.

8. All this means, that none of my models can move in such a way as to prevent coherency.

?????

Can I draw a line under that and continue?

6. Assuming the unit is not falling back or something, it is entirely forbidden for me to place a model in a location that will lead to a non-coherent (incoherent!) unit.

Lead is the key word in that rule for me, as in if I move 5 models (no 1 to 5) I move 1,2 and 3 all into BrB with each other I now can't move no 4 to be greater than 5 inches away from the closest base of 1,2 or 3 because when I move no 5 it will LEAD to no 4 been out of 2 inch regardless of how I place no 5

I believe that's the intended meaning.

Am I even discussing the same thing as you?

Yes, the point is to prove that coherency is effecting you as you move, even though its only required after you finish.

It is possible to move a model in such a way, as to entirely prevent eventual coherency, so you can't do it.

Say if we have 5 models in a straight line, exactly 2" apart.
If I move the one on the left 6" away from the others, along the plane of the line = ok.

Now if I move the one on the right 6" away to the right (haven't checked this), I may have buggered up already.
If not, the next one keep alternating moving the models on the left to the left 6" and the right to the right, sooner or later, you will reach a point where coherency becomes impossible.

That cannot be done, because of the "coherency principle."

Eh?

So long as the unit is in coherency at the end of the unit's move, it doesn't matter what order you move the models in.

What am I missing here?

I'll have to go over to 'seer and look at the argument, but as I see it so far;

ruffian4 wrote:3. I pick up a model, measure, then place it down. = fine (or is it?).

If you are checking to see if the model is in coherency, why pick it up?
Even if you are planning to move it, again why pick it up off the table?
The rule on page 11 says, "It is perfectly fine to measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else..." you can even decide not to move it at all.
Once you pick up a model, you have moved it. How can you pick it up and then measure. Are you measuring to where it is, up in the air, to where it was on the table, to where it will be when placed back?

If you are moving it, then again you would measure from the model first, then pick it up and move it to the new location.
(Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying at this step!)

ruffian4 wrote:4. I pick up another model and do the same. It is not necessary to place it within 2" of the other, but, I do need to place the model in a location, that, after I move all of my models, can be legal for coherency purposes.
I'll refer to that as the "coherency pricipal."

5. The coherency principal does not require sequential movement of models in such a way to "keep" a conga line between the models I have moved, the whole unit has to be coherent at the end of its movement.

Correct on both. Coherency is checked once the unit has finished moving.

ruffian4 wrote:6. Assuming the unit is not falling back or something, it is entirely forbidden for me to place a model in a location that will lead to a non-coherent (incoherent!) unit.

Even units that are falling back must maintain coherency. Failing to do so would prevent the unit from regrouping. Under the section for trapped on page 45 the rules say the unit can move around obstructions to move towards their table edge maintaining unit coherency.

ruffian4 wrote:7. This means that the coherency rule is in force during my move and not just after I finish moving.

8. All this means, that none of my models can move in such a way as to prevent coherency.

I see nothing wrong with this logic. Since you must have unit coherency at the end of the movement phase, you certainly can't move in such a was as to end the phase out of coherency.

ruffian4 wrote:Can I draw a line under that and continue?

Sure! I don't think you even have to invent a new term, the rules are pretty clear on this.
You can't move your models in such a way as to be out of coherency at the end of the movement phase.

Why did this even come up?
Is someone saying they can end their movement phase with their unit out of coherency because in the shooting phase they can run and restore coherency?

mattjgilbert wrote:Eh?
So long as the unit is in coherency at the end of the unit's move, it doesn't matter what order you move the models in.

Eh?
Not saying it does.

I'm asking does each model have to be placed with eventual coherency in mind and is that the coherency rule in action, during and not just after your move?

timewizard wrote:If you are checking to see if the model is in coherency, why pick it up?

No, if I want to remain stationary, I have to check coherency.
If I don't want to, I need not check.

mattjgilbert wrote:Eh?

Eh?
Actually, I see what you mean, I have phrased the question oddly, it looks like I am attempting to stay stationary by picking up models then placing them back down again!
Remarkable!

I have a unit. If I want to stay put, I check, if I don't and I want to move,I then go on to ...

timewizard wrote:Once you pick up a model, you have moved it. How can you pick it up and then measure. Are you measuring to where it is, up in the air, to where it was on the table, to where it will be when placed back?

Apologies mate! I have right botched up the question.

I measure then move the model ...

timewizard wrote:Even units that are falling back must maintain coherency. Failing to do so would prevent the unit from regrouping. Under the section for trapped on page 45 the rules say the unit can move around obstructions to move towards their table edge maintaining unit coherency.

I mean that its possible for you to be forced to go in a certain direction, even at top speed and not be able to regain coherency in 1 move.

This would be fine as you are trying to reform the unit and so have permission to place units out of coherency.

timewizard wrote:Why did this even come up?

My oppo's logic ...

Pick a unit, complete its move before moving other units.
Coherency only has to be checked at the end of the move, so coherency "does not exist" during the move.

I've hit him with all manner of crap, but all he does is change the reasons why that makes sense.

Okay. You don't have to check coherency after you move each and every model in a unit, but it certainly does exist during the move.
I mean, it is something you have to be aware of as you move your unit because the models in the unit must be in coherency at the end of the unit's move.
I can see your point that if you had a conga line set up of models 2" apart, and moved the leftmost one 6", you really couldn't move the rightmost one 6" because there is no way you would be able to restore coherency when you have finished moving the unit.
I started to wade my way through the thread on 'seer.
Does this have to do with ICs and when they leave a unit?

Okay (and apologies for the double post, but I didn't want to edit the one above and get it lost!) I think I get it.

First and foremost, you do not check coherency at the end of the unit's movement.
You check for coherency all through and during the unit's movement.
That's because the rule says nothing about checking a unit's coherency at the end, or after it moves. What it says is:

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain...."

Nothing about checking a unit's coherency, just being in choerency and restoring coherency.

So your "coherency principle" being defined as continually checking a unit's coherency during its move is spot on. That is precisely what the rules instruct you to do.

Now if you want to discuss independent characters joining and leaving units, go on from here or start up a new thread and I'll give you my take on that.

Bad time in work at the moment and my brain is fried so I'm struggling with this.

What exactly is the problem here you are trying to solve?

mattjgilbert wrote:What exactly is the problem here you are trying to solve?

Baragash wrote:Not just you

How very rude, Matt is not a problem to solve.

Not got to solve point yet, just laying foundations for how everything works before colliding with rulebook inconsistency. So ...

Would we be in agreement that the "coherency principle" is at work during a units movement, it stops you from moving (or placing a model) "illegally", that it really is the coherency rule in effect and that its the nature of normal unit members to be compelled to retain coherency?


So now onto ic's and when exactly they leave and/or join units.

An ic leaves a unit by moving out of coherency with it.

So I have a unit of tac marines with biker librarian attached.
I select this unit to move. I must complete its movement before I go on to move other units.

If I don't want the ic to leave, I can move the unit (coherency-wise) as if they were all normal squad members. Ok?

If I want the libby to move away, a few things crop up.
If the biker is moving with the infantry, he would still be a biker, but limited to the speed of the infantry. For instance, if they move through difficult terrain, the biker is slowed by the infantry but still hits a dangerous terrain test.

If the ic were a jetbiker, he would be limited in speed, but would be able to move over other models.

In choosing to move 1 unit, I intend to create 2, or at least an additional 1.

At the start of the units move, the ic is most definately part of the unit. Does this slow him down to infantry speed when he leaves?
Lets say for arguments sake, that I move the biker ic 6" thataway.

He is out of coherency, has he now left and I have 2 units?
If yes, then everything is fine, nil desperandum (you can stop here if you like). But ...

... if not, there still exists the rest of the unit.
I chose 1 unit to move and I have to complete its movement.

Due to the nature of the rest of the unit, they have the coherency principle to fullfill. They are compelled to move so as to form coherency with the wayward ic.
So, what would happen, if I moved the unit away from the ic, in a way that would form that part as coherent, then, as the ic does not have to follow the principle, he is free to go wherever he likes?

He could leave a unit by moving out of coherency with it, even though it looks like the unit has left him? Does he even have to move? Can I say I'll move him 0"?

That ^ looks ok at first, but, the book has it, that its possible, for an ic to leave a unit and for that unit to remain stationary and not count as moving in the firing phase (p48, bullet 5).

There is, even another complication with this, that states you select a unit to move, you detach the ic from it by moving away, the rest of the unit is stuck.

ruffian4 wrote:Would we be in agreement that the "coherency principle" is at work during a units movement, it stops you from moving (or placing a model) "illegally", that it really is the coherency rule in effect and that its the nature of normal unit members to be compelled to retain coherency?

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.

If at the end of the unit's move it looks like a model is not in coherency, move it back enough so it is (making sure no model moved more than allowed from its starting point) and it's job done.

I can't see any other way you would play it without it becoming inflexible or bogging the game down in overly strict and unnecessary procedure.

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

ruffian4 wrote:So, what would happen, if I moved the unit away from the ic, in a way that would form that part as coherent, then, as the ic does not have to follow the principle, he is free to go wherever he likes?

He could leave a unit by moving out of coherency with it, even though it looks like the unit has left him? Does he even have to move? Can I say I'll move him 0"?

That ^ looks ok at first, but, the book has it, that its possible, for an ic to leave a unit and for that unit to remain stationary and not count as moving in the firing phase (p48, bullet 5).

There is, even another complication with this, that states you select a unit to move, you detach the ic from it by moving away, the rest of the unit is stuck.

There is one glaring problem with the entire IC and unit rules.

mattjgilbert wrote:If at the end of the unit's move it looks like a model is not in coherency, move it back enough so it is (making sure no model moved more than allowed from its starting point) and it's job done.

I can't see any other way you would play it without it becoming inflexible or bogging the game down in overly strict and unnecessary procedure.

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

I agree withruffian and Matt that you should be continually 'checking' coherency as you move units. And I agree that waiting until the models in the unit are done being moved, then checking for coherency and adjusting them or moving them will bog the game down.

Now back to my statement about the problem with the ICs rules. All the references are from page 48 or the main rulebook.

At the start, the rule says ICs are allowed to join other units. Not that units are allowed to join ICs. So far, so good.

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. In fact, the rule says "If a character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase."
This would mean that since a unit cannot normally join with and IC, the only way for them to become joined is for the IC to move, then no unit could end its move within 2" of an IC. Just the same way that you could not move a vehicle so that it ended its move within 2" of an IC, becasue the IC cannot join the vehicle.

The third bullet point says that while the IC is part of the unit, they must move at the speed of the slowest model and must maintian coherency.

The fourth bullet point says the IC can leave a unit by moving out of coherency with it.

So by these two rules, an IC on a bike can turbo boost away from a unit it have been joined to, since it is moving out of coherency with the unit and no longer has to follow the "combined unit" rule of moving at the speed of the slowest member. As Matt said, it's as simple as declaring that the IC is leaving the unit. 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.

The fact that IC can join and leave units and not that units can join or leave ICs if further stated in bullet point five where if an IC joins or leaves a unit that did not move, the IC counts as having moved but the unit does not.

Bullet points six and seven also discuss when an IC may join or leave a unit, and still do not give permission for a unit to join or leave an IC.

But then bullet point eight says "If an independent character joins a unit tha has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and vice versa." {emphasis mine}
Now here is everyone's WTF? moment. the "and vice versa" implies that a unit can join an IC that has gone to ground, even thought this goes against the wording of every other paragraph and bullet point on the page.

So what are the thoughts on this?

And I agree that waiting until the models in the unit are done being moved, then checking for coherency and adjusting them or moving them will bog the game down.

Isn't that the opposite of what I suggested?

Not exactly the opposite. I thought we were both of the mind that as you move the units you are mindful enough of coherency requirements that at the end of the unit's movement a quick check would be sufficient.

TBH, most of the time the people I play against keep their models close enough to each other than coherency is not really an issue.

When I move my units, if I stretch them out a bit, I usually check for coherency quiclky as I mve them.

But, while I have your attention, what's your take on a unit moving into coherency with and joining with an IC? Good or not?