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.

Facet_X wrote:Question about some of these examples.

Do you think it would bother you or your opponent if you turned your Nob Biker and assaulted the side of his Fire Warrior just to maintain unit coherency?

I mean fun is fun, and the rules are stated a certain way but come on!? Really?

As I said, the 48" thing was a perfect situation, and unlikely to come up ever. The initial charge cuts down on that somewhat, because the closest model has to move towards the closest enemy model in a straight line.

Bike bases are an extreme example, though, because of there oval shape. Think about another friendly unit mounted entirely on 60mm round bases, in a fluffy and characterful size...like 8 Bloodcrushers of Khorne. 60mm is approximately 3 inches. And taking Khorne in squads of 8 is fluffy!

So a squad of 8 bloodcrushers could theoretically span a gap of 38"! Add a herald, and they span 43"!

Completely unlikely to ever occur, of course. I just want to put paid to this misconception that some people have that assaulting more multiple units is either impossible or the next closest thing to. It's simple (although not necessarily easy), especially with units that have semi-decent movement.

Playing against someone who doesn't understand the moving into assault rules, when you do a multi-assault, it can lead to bad feelings, even after you walk them through the assault rules. That's not my fault...its the rules, and its theirs, for misunderstanding the rules. It also doesn't help that the units most able to assault multiple units also tend to be extremely dominant HTH units - and with the deadliness of HTH in 5th edition 40K, that means that those units become exponentially more effective with the right generalship.

The really important lesson to take from all this?

If you want to defend against a multi-assault, the only real defense is to make it so that enemy models physically cannot reach the unit you want to protect. This means you have to surround them with a combination of impassable terrain, the board edge, and models from other units that are spaced close enough together to prevent enemy models from moving between them. This is the ONLY way to reliably keep enemy units from multi-assaulting.

I was on the receiving end of two large Bloodcrusher squads that landed right next to my IG firebase (backed up by Fateweaver of course).

Needless to say, after loosing 2 infantry squads, a LRBT and a HW squad to ONE assaulting unit... I realized the importance of positioning and movement in 5ed (and the dominance of assault, but that is another thread).


But then I remembered that movement only matters in fantasy. I mean they have facings! FACINGS!!!

Flavius Infernus wrote:Not sure, but I think there may still be a disagreement here. I'm saying that it's within the rules to move biker #3 into base contact with a fire warrior first, then immediately move biker #4 into base with a *drone* without moving bikers 1 & 2 as long as biker 4 ends movement in coherency with biker 3.

Looking at page 34, I see that the rules require models after the first to move "into base contact with an enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an enemy model." Nowhere on page 34 do I see any restriction that all enemy models from the unit fired at/declared on must all be in base contact before a second unit can be contacted--that's a 4th edition holdover.

A drone fits the definition of "enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an enemy model" even though there are also fire warriors in reach that are not in base contact. So biker #4 can move into the drones immediately after biker 3 contacts the fire warriors and before bikers 1 & 2 assault.

Ah the reason why I didnt go stright for the 4th biker to move is that I would be dubious to where ever or not bikers's #3 & #4 would be within coherency.

Centurian99 wrote:

Facet_X wrote:
Bike bases are an extreme example, though, because of there oval shape. Think about another friendly unit mounted entirely on 60mm round bases, in a fluffy and characterful size...like 8 Bloodcrushers of Khorne. 60mm is approximately 3 inches. And taking Khorne in squads of 8 is fluffy!

So a squad of 8 bloodcrushers could theoretically span a gap of 38"! Add a herald, and they span 43"!

Actually, 60 mm is 2.34 inches (2.56 cm per inch), so the spannable gap would be a little less than 33". Still pretty impressive, but I was feeling anal retentive today.

This is a great thread - the final (correct) breakdown by centurian99 is very useful.

I find people violate the "each model must end its assault move in coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved" most often violated, and that makes this messy/difficult. People will move their models in a way that the final result is in coherency, but not each individual move.

I love the image of the 48" away multi-charge with the bikers. With a unit with a 12" move it would be pretty easy to set yourself up exactly where you needed to be. I can just imagine what it would look like if the fight went a couple rounds - since pile-in doesn't require coherency you could end up with parts of the nob squad 40" apart after combat ended. That would be sweet.

(edited for failing at english)

lambadomy wrote:I can just imagine what it would look like if the fight went a couple rounds - since pile-in doesn't require coherency you could end up with parts of the nob squad 40" apart after combat ended. That would be sweet.

Oh man that would cause problems. What happens if one half wipes out their enemy? Do they even get to move in the movement phase to try and reintegrate coherency? Would the only move available be the pile in move at the end of combat? What happens if this straggling half gets assaulted itself. ARGH! Zee Mind! She Boggles!

lambadomy wrote:This is a great thread - the final (correct) breakdown by centurian99 is very useful.

I find people violate the "each model must end its assault move in coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved" rule is the one that is most often violated, and makes this messy/difficult. People will move their models in a way that the final result is in coherency, but not each individual move.

I love the image of the 48" away multi-charge with the bikers. With a unit with a 12" move it would be pretty easy to set yourself up exactly where you needed to be. I can just imagine what it would look like if the fight went a couple rounds - since pile-in doesn't require coherency you could end up with parts of the nob squad 40" apart after combat ended. That would be sweet.

That's the potential problem from multi-charging...if your unit is spread out enough, you put yourself in a situation where they essentially can't do anything for a turn or three, as they have to try and get into coherency.

Centurian99 wrote:

lambadomy wrote:This is a great thread - the final (correct) breakdown by centurian99 is very useful.

I find people violate the "each model must end its assault move in coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved" rule is the one that is most often violated, and makes this messy/difficult. People will move their models in a way that the final result is in coherency, but not each individual move.

I love the image of the 48" away multi-charge with the bikers. With a unit with a 12" move it would be pretty easy to set yourself up exactly where you needed to be. I can just imagine what it would look like if the fight went a couple rounds - since pile-in doesn't require coherency you could end up with parts of the nob squad 40" apart after combat ended. That would be sweet.

That's the potential problem from multi-charging...if your unit is spread out enough, you put yourself in a situation where they essentially can't do anything for a turn or three, as they have to try and get into coherency.

But the thing is, can they even attempt to move in the movement phase to get into coherency?

Page 12 wrote:During the course of a game, it's possible a unit will get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it takes casualties. If this happens, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next Movement phase. If the unit cannot move for some reason in its next turn (because they are pinned down by a barrage or sniper fire, for example), then they must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity.

Page 40 wrote:While a unit is locked in combat it may only make pile in moves and may not otherwise move or shoot.

Emphasis mine. Since the whole unit counts as locked so long as one model is in B2B, the "stranded" models technically wont be able to move in the movement phase.

Yeah, that is how it would work. If one end won and the other didn't, it would just keep piling in 6 inches every assault phase until it got into b2b or as close as it could get, or until the combat ended. It would never move in the movement phase.

If the entire combat ended, the unit would spend its movement phase moving back into coherency until it was able to end its move in coherency - then it could go back to acting as normal.

I have a relevant question about multicharging. Since, in most cases, any model within one inch is considered to be 'in combat', does that mean that if I charge unit A, and as a result one of the models from my unit is within about a quarter inch, but not in BtB with Unit B, that I have also assaulted unit B? Or does it have to be actual BtB contact? Keep in mind that models from Unit A and in BtB with Unit B as well.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but here goes.

If you have a MODEL in base to base with a MODEL in an enemy unit, then their UNITS are in close combat

If you do not have any models from your unit in base to base with the enemy unit in question, then you are not in close combat with it, even if you're within 1". You have to be in base to base.