Translocation Clarification

[Mortus]

I was playing a game the other day and I wanted to bring in some liberators from reserve close to enemy territory but he was doing a good job of screening them out. However, I could fit three models. Could I place three and let the other 2 die?

Here is the list if anyone is interested:

Allegiance: Stormcast Eternals

- Stormhost: Hammers of Sigmar (Scions of the Storm)

- Grand Strategy: Survivor's Instinct

- Triumphs:

 

Leaders

Lord-Relictor (150)

- General

- Command Trait: High Priest

- Artefact: Gryph-feather Charm (Galletian Champion)

- Prayer: Translocation

- Aspect of the Champion: Tunnel Master

Neave Blacktalon (110)**

 

Battleline

10 x Judicators with Boltstorm Crossbows (380)*

- Reinforced x 1

5 x Liberators (120)*

- Heavens-wrought Weapon and Shield

5 x Liberators (120)*

- Heavens-wrought Weapon and Shield

5 x Liberators (120)**

- Heavens-wrought Weapon and Shield

 

Core Battalions

*Galletian Sharpshooters

**Galletian Command

 

Total: 1000 / 2000

Reinforced Units: 1 / 4

Allie

s: 0 / 400

Wounds: 62

Drops: 6

[Dogmantra]

It's frustratingly ambiguous. There isn't anything in the rules saying that you can arbitrarily remove your own models, so we'd have to look somewhere else. The Coherencey rules make the most sense to look at - after all, if a unit is not coherent, you remove models until it is. So the question becomes: if a unit won't fit in a given space, can you deliberately set it up such that it's not coherent, and just remove the models that don't fit?

1.3.3 Coherencey has this to say about unit coherencey:

Quote

Units must be set up and finish every move as a single coherent group.

Both Translocation and setting up from reserve via Scions of the Storm are "set up" actions, so yeah it seems pretty cut and dry. You must set units up as a single coherent group.

However, it goes on to say, two sentences later

Quote

If a friendly unit is not coherent at the end of a turn or after you set it up, you must remove models in the unit from play, one at a time, until it is coherent.

Which suggests that it is possible to set a unit up out of coherencey, otherwise why would there be a rule covering this possibility? I do find this argument much less compelling though as it requires you to second guess the designers' intent as to why they used that exact wording, whereas the previous phrase is extremely clear.

Ultimately if I was asked to make a ruling on this as a TO, I would say that (unless I have missed something), you cannot voluntarily lose models to make a unit fit in a smaller space for Translocation or similar rules, I think "Units must be set up [...] as a single coherent group" is far too ironclad to really argue against. I can, however, understand people who would argue that the presence of a rule for if a unit is not set up coherently means you can do so.

Edited May 19 by Dogmantra

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

Ultimately if I was asked to make a ruling on this as a TO, I would say that (unless I have missed something), you cannot voluntarily lose models to make a unit fit in a smaller space for Translocation or similar rules, I think "Units must be set up [...] as a single coherent group" is far too ironclad to really argue against.

purely anecdotal but I have asked this exact question to a TO (here in France) in the past and this was the answer he gave to me -which seems fair.

[Mortus]

Thanks for you comprehensive answers. The rules are ambiguous and I thought as you described I could use the removing of incoherent models as a way out. But as you said, that is not how the rules were designed