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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.



The rules for 'Moving Assaulting Models' say (rulebook, pg 34): "Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible -- no holding back! Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy (going around impassable terrain, friendly models and enemy models in units not being assaulted). Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route...after moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others in any sequence you desire. There are some constraints on their movement though...if possible the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model. If there are no such models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with an assaulting model."

The rules for 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units' say (rulebook, pg 34): "As you move assaulting models, you may find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting. As usual, the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."





QUESTION: When making an assault that ends up engaging multiple enemy units, when exactly do you play that the assaulting models officially count as assaulting multiple enemy units (and are therefore bound to try to get into base contact with those models)?



OPTION A. I play that when you declare your assault you decide at that point which enemy unit(s) you intend to assault, which means all assaulting models after the first one must attempt to get into base contact against ALL the units they declared an assault against (but not against enemy units they didn't declare an assault against).

Example: The assaulting unit declares an assault primarily against enemy unit A, and also declares their intent to assault enemy unit B (but not enemy unit C). Therefore (assuming all moves result in the assaulting models remaining in coherency), all models in the assaulting unit would be compelled to assault unengaged enemy models in units A & B (but not unit C) that they can successfully reach.


OPTION B. I play that when you declare your assault you decide at that point whether you are making an assault against only your declared target or generally against 'multiple enemy units'. Meaning if an assault is declared against multiple enemy units, all assaulting models after the first must attempt to engage as many enemy models as possible from all enemy units they can successfully reach (while remaining in coherency with each other).

Example: The assaulting unit declares an assault primarily against enemy unit A, but also declares their intent to assault 'multiple enemy units' (a general declaration). Therefore (assuming all moves result in the assaulting models remaining in coherency), all models in the assaulting unit can be compelled to assault unengaged enemy models in enemy units B AND C that they can reach.


OPTION C. I play you declare assaults only against one enemy unit and if during the course of moving subsequent assaulting models they end up engaging other enemy units, then from that point forward, they start following the rules for assaulting multiple enemy units.

Example: The assaulting unit declares an assault only against enemy unit A. The first assaulting model gets into base contact with unit A, but there is not room for any other assaulting models to get into base contact with unit A. The next two assaulting models are moved into engagement range of enemy unit A (but not in base contact, as they can't make it) even though they *could* engage enemy unit B (but the assaulting player doesn't want them to). With the fourth assaulting model, the assaulting player then chooses to engage an enemy model in unit B. Now that the assaulting unit is making an assault against multiple enemy units, all further assault moves from the unit are compelled to engage models in enemy unit B that they can reach (assuming the moves keep the assaulting models in coherency with each other).


OPTION D. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.





Edit: A quick addendum here for those folks who don't understand the point of this question or poll.

The assault rules at first glance seem pretty clear about how multiple assaults are handled...you declare assaults against ONE enemy unit and then if during the course of your assault moves you end up engaging more than one unit, so be it!

However, once you start to dig deeper you realize the rules are fraught with grey areas.

1) The rules dictate that you are supposed to get as many models in base contact with as many enemy models as possible, but if you don't actually count as making an assault against multiple units UNTIL you actually engage a second unit then a player can easily move all the models he doesn't want to get into base contact with the second unit first and THEN finish up by moving the remaining models in against the second (or third) units. To some this may seem to be exactly what the rules allow, to others it goes squarely against what the rules are trying to instruct you to do (get as many models into base contact as possible) and therefore they don't play this way.

2) The assault rules have an element of 'you have to know what you're going to do with your assault' hidden in them. For example, you have to guess if any of your assaulting models will be forced to enter terrain with their assault moves BEFORE moving any of them. And obviously whether or not your models will have to enter terrain can be entirely based on whether or not you are assaulting multiple units (or just one). So at least in the case of assaulting when terrain is factor, you clearly have to know (regardless if this is considered an 'official' declaration) every enemy unit your assaulting unit is planning on assaulting.


Because of (at least) these two reasons I've seen people play this issue differently and I'm curious to know what percentage of people play it which way (and why).

So again, there is no 'right' answer here, just the answer that fits how you've been playing, along with the reason why if you care to share it.

I don't think I quite understand the choices?
Option C seems to be it thou.

I can understand how options A and B could come about, but that's countered by opening up the rulebook and pointing to page 33 where it instructs to "declare which enemy unit it is going to assault".

So Option C.

I do have to admit that I've never run into a situation where I would ever want to move less models than possible into base contact. But I have had to explain to other people that one of the significant changes from 4th to 5th was that multiple assaults are no longer declared, they simply happen when convenient.

The wrench in the works to the three possible choices is on page 33, when you declare an assault which reads "Pick a unit. Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault." There is nothing that points to declaring two assault targets. However there is a statement that says, "as you move assaulting models, you may find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting." That statement is specific in that it is done while you are moving models, in other words, you do not declare an assault against the secondary target at any time. As this happens while you are moving models, it means that the time for declaring an assault against a second unit has passed.

I chose A. The reason for this is because 1) I've usually set my models in a way that I'm expecting to charge multiple units anyway and 2) announcing my intentions makes it easier for me to remember what I'm doing. I don't believe for a second that the rules say this is the right and only way, and if an opponent didn't announce a second target I would not have a problem.

What I would have a problem with, however, is what C suggests, which is moving some models into coherency only, and THEN moving more into base contact with the second enemy unit. I disagree with this because of the final paragraph on page 34, left column, which states how an assault should look if you follow the sequence, and the "assaulting multiple enemy units" rules that states you need to follow the rules for moving assaulting models. If you follow the rules, you should match up with the paragraph below, and should have as many models in base contact as possible.

Obviously, if base contact is impossible, then I won't see a problem with that, either.

FYI,

I added an addendum to the original post to clarify a bit on the point of the question and poll.

I play option C but after reading this post option A has definitive merits. Some more rumination is required methinks.
I think the word "declare" here is key and isnt clarified enough within the original GW rules =/

Of the answers, I play by 'A' as I declare exactly which units I will be assaulting and further clarifying what the 'main' unit I'm assaulting (IE: the first model I move to contact which enemy unit.)

This makes it very clear for my opponent as to my intentions as I believe assaults is the most complex phase of the game.

I voted B because of this line: "As you move assaulting models..." in the section regarding multiple assaults

This indicates to me the *time* in which you start a mulit-unit assault. As this shows the time frame is after you already declared an assault and are already in the process of moving your assaulting units.

Normally I play the option "A" as this seems friendly to me, and is helpful to the other player so they can follow what I'm doing and double check to make sure rules are followed. And often times I find myself in the option "C" zone because I find that getting to a certain unit requires contact with other models from different units.

But option B, seems the most correct from the GW rule book language they are using indicating that multiple assaults happen when you are already moving your models to assault.

I usually declare a main as normal and then say something along the line: And charge those if I reach, and possibly those and those. I pretty much state every single unit that I could possibly reach.

This in effect means that the result will end up as C, moving towards the target engaging more on the way. I'm just making it clear to the opponent that I will try to multiassault...which is kinda like B. :/

I'm confused about what I should vote for!

Option C, except for this:

all further assault moves from the unit are compelled to engage models in enemy unit B that they can reach

Why is this necessary? Why can't the unit go back to models in unit A (or a unit C!) provided they have range and stay in coherency?

(Genuinely asking)

I find this to be an interesting poll, but I haven't seen addressed something that I see happening at our FLGS quite often.

The situation is as follows:

A unit of, say CSM is in a grouping between two units of Longfangs. Each Longfang unit is approximately 4-5 inches away from the nearest CSM, and the CSM grouping is approximately 6" accross. The CSM player declares an assault against the Longfang unit to his right, and moves the nearest CSM model into base with that Longfang unit. The CSM player then selects his next model on the opposite side of the CSM unit to assault the Longfang unit to their left. The two CSM models who have made their assault move are now approximately 14" apart, so the rest of the CSM unit is left to merely move such that the unit stays in coherency, while only the two original models actually get into BtB with an enemy model prior to the SW player's pile in moves.

How does something like this fit into the poll circumstance?

You cant do that, as you have not followed the bullet ponits - each model AFTER the first model MUST end in coherency with a model that has already moved.

So they would have to build the bridge 1 model at a time, not by selecting on on the other side, as this is illegal.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cant do that, as you have not followed the bullet ponits - each model AFTER the first model MUST end in coherency with a model that has already moved.

So they would have to build the bridge 1 model at a time, not by selecting on on the other side, as this is illegal.

That's what I thought as well, but I was told that's a relic from 4th edition that doesn't exist in 5th. Unfortunately, I loaned my rulebook to a "friend" a while ago and have not received it back for me to check on that.

culsandar wrote:Option C, except for this:

all further assault moves from the unit are compelled to engage models in enemy unit B that they can reach

Why is this necessary? Why can't the unit go back to models in unit A (or a unit C!) provided they have range and stay in coherency?

(Genuinely asking)

The goal of example C was to try to portray that only one model in the assaulting unit could reach any model in enemy unit A. The player wanted to get more models into 'engagement range' to strike unit A so he holds off multi-charging until he moves a few more models into engagement range.

Then once he starts multi-charing he's going to be compelled to move models into base contact with the other units he's now engaging, as the assaulters can't reach base contact with any more models from enemy unit A.

Oscarius wrote:I usually declare a main as normal and then say something along the line: And charge those if I reach, and possibly those and those. I pretty much state every single unit that I could possibly reach.

This in effect means that the result will end up as C, moving towards the target engaging more on the way. I'm just making it clear to the opponent that I will try to multiassault...which is kinda like B. :/

I'm confused about what I should vote for!

You seem to be mistaking the overall point of the poll, which isn't *how* the models end up assaulting multiple units, but rather how and when the effects of multi-charging compel your assaulters to engage certain enemy models.

Choice 'A' allows you to pick exactly which units you are going to multi-charge ahead of time and then you are compelled following the normal rules for moving assaulting models, to try to get as many models engaged with those declared enemy units.

Choice 'B' says that once you declare you are going to 'multi-charge' you are then compelled to get as many of your assaulting units in against as many enemy models as possible...you effectively have no choice (within the normal rules for assaulting)...if a model's only option to get into base contact with an unengaged enemy model is go after an enemy in a unit that hasn't been engaged yet, then he absolutely has to!

Choice 'C' says that the player is effectively able to choose how and when he will have to follow the rules for multi-charging by holding off assaulting a 2nd (or subsequent unit) until he gets some of his assaulting models into 'engagement range' (but not in base contact). Then (and only then) when the player wants to start following the multi-charge rules he moves a model into combat with the 2nd enemy unit which from that point on dictates how the rest of his assaulting models from that unit must move.


Does that make anymore sense?

Saldiven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cant do that, as you have not followed the bullet ponits - each model AFTER the first model MUST end in coherency with a model that has already moved.

So they would have to build the bridge 1 model at a time, not by selecting on on the other side, as this is illegal.

That's what I thought as well, but I was told that's a relic from 4th edition that doesn't exist in 5th. Unfortunately, I loaned my rulebook to a "friend" a while ago and have not received it back for me to check on that.

Nope, other way round.

You MUST move ALL models after the first such that they end up in coherency with a model that has already moved. No other options.

Nos is right. This (and the other bullet points) prevents a lot of multi-assaults against widely-spaced units.

I voted A. I think C is more technically correct by the rules, but declaring secondary and tertiary assault targets is the only way to deal with a secondary assault target which is in Difficult Terrain when the primary isn't.

Awesome, thanks Nos and Man.

If possible, could y'all get me a page number for this? I've had this type of multi-assault pulled against me twice in the last couple of weeks, and one was pretty meaningful in the outcome of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On topic, I opted for A simply as that makes the most sense to me. I think it is very important if one of the units you wish to multi-assault is in cover. If you've already started moving into BtB with a unit not in cover, and then want to add in a unit that is in cover, how do you handle the difficult terrain test? If you roll badly, do you have to go back and shorten the distance that models moved in regards to assaulting the original unit? A seems the best compromise.

(BTW, dunno if you can edit this, but I accidentally clicked on "B" when I meant to click on "A")

Reading through the options again, I think C is a bit off, as cuisandar pointed out.

Let's say that you declare an assault against A, and B's nearby. So you move some models into contact with A, that's simple. But once you've moved models into contact with B, now moving models have to get into base contact with either A or B if they can, rather than just Unit B as described.

That's the version of C that I intended to vote for.

Agree with Solkan & Option "1" in the addendum.

Saldiven - just the assault section - you cant miss it, there are a few bullet points you have to follow, one of which states the requirement above.

As a followup, since it looks like I spent way too much time between writing and posting my previous post, all of the talk about declaring the multiple assault makes me nervous on one critical point: what happens if you're out of range? If Unit B's about six inches away, and it turns out to be 6.5 inches, I don't know what people expect to happen when they've declared a "failed" multiple assault.

Since this is a "How do you play it?" question, I have to say that I haven't been in a situation where "Engage when you want" and "Engage as soon as possible" would have produced a significantly different end position. So maybe I should clarify my position as "C" with a good faith effort to engage as much as possible because normally that's what you want--as many models in base contact as possible.

But you could still end up playing movement order games with a multiple assault to reduce the number of base contact models below what you could achieve, just like you can with a regular assault.

solkan wrote:Reading through the options again, I think C is a bit off, as cuisandar pointed out.

Let's say that you declare an assault against A, and B's nearby. So you move some models into contact with A, that's simple. But once you've moved models into contact with B, now moving models have to get into base contact with either A or B if they can, rather than just Unit B as described.

That's the version of C that I intended to vote for.

As I explained above, the example states that no more models from the assaulting unit can get into base contact with enemy unit A. So once the door is opened to assault unit B, the assaulting models HAVE to go there if they can get into base contact.


Or let's put this in a more solid example:

'OPTION C' is this:


You have a unit of Orks containing a Nob with a Powerklaw. Within assault range is both a unit of Space Marines AND a Land Raider. However, due to terrain, etc, only TWO Orks can possibly make it into base contact with the Space Marines, although a whole lot more will be able to move up behind them and be in 'engagement range'.

Now, the Ork player wants to get the Nob in against the Land Raider but he doesn't want to send any other boys over against the Land Raider.

So, after moving the closest model into contact with the closest Space Marine, he then moves one more Ork into base contact with the only other marine in the unit he can get into base contact with. He then proceeds to pile up as many Orks behind them in 'engagement' range EVEN THOUGH these models could all easily get into base contact with the Land Raider if the unit was assaulting it.

NOW, after ALL the regular Orks have finished moving, the player then chooses to move the Nob model into base contact with the Land Raider, thereby 'initiating' the multiple combat.


THAT is 'option C' above.

It basically allows players to ignore the proviso that they have to get as many models into base combat as possible as long as they hold off initiating the multiple combat until they've only got the models left to move that they want to assault the 2nd unit with.

With Yak's new explanation of 'C' above, I chose 'C' as that is how we play it.

Even after that explanation, Yak, I still think that multi-assaults should have to be declared. What if the Nob wanting to hit the Land Raider had to go over a fence to do so, and would have to make a difficult terrain roll to get there? What if the Ork player rolled a 1,1 for the dif terrain, but didn't make that roll until after all the other Boyz had moved? How would you reconcile that situation?

Saldiven wrote:Even after that explanation, Yak, I still think that multi-assaults should have to be declared. What if the Nob wanting to hit the Land Raider had to go over a fence to do so, and would have to make a difficult terrain roll to get there? What if the Ork player rolled a 1,1 for the dif terrain, but didn't make that roll until after all the other Boyz had moved? How would you reconcile that situation?

Don't take my explanation as a sign that's how I play! I voted 'A' and play that way much to my own troops' detriment. But I've seen quite a few people play the other two ways as well, so I was curious to see how a poll would shake out.

And really, Options A & B are relatively similar to each other (at least compared to 'C') so its not too surprising to see the poll pretty much 50/50 split between C & A/B.

Now that I read the last example yakface, I think I have always read it as C, though I cannot say why.

Interesting points and now I really want to read it a few more times.

I feel that I've been playing it wrong all along. Generally if I assault I declare against one target and move my first model. Then I decide if a) there are other units I can get into assault with and b) is it advantageous to get into assault with the additional units. If the answer to these two questions is yes then I move my models into base contact with both however I see fit. I try to get as many models into base contact with whichever unit will give me the best advantage in the assault (as well as getting my IC's into base contact with the unit(s) they can do the most damage to. I always felt that there was leeway in the rules for this kind of maneuvering but now I'm second guessing that assumption.

I voted for a very strong A and would almost think C was cheating. However, it might work like that and everyone looks at it differently.

The main reason I dont like C is"
1. You have already moved models. This presents an opportunity for someone to move models past their original 6" movement. An extreme No Go IMO.
2. If you dont think you can make it dont declare it. Its the same if you declare a multi-assault and your found to be out of range. The Charge then fails! The same as you were going through DT and you roll low it fails.
3. I am really surprised at the number that voted C

I've always played A, which may be a relic of an earlier time. I try to always declare every unit I will charge and what order I'll do it in.

I've also always tried to engage all of Target 1 that I can first, then moved models to Target 2, then Target 3 and so on.

Maybe I'm being unnecessarily harsh on my assaults.