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.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Yes, you have explained how a MODEL is engaged. (Though I don't think we quite agree.) But how is a UNIT engaged? Is it engaged when the first MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or each time a MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or something else? The rules are silent on this as UNITS being engaged is not a game mechanic.

Again, do we have another standard to work with?

Model actions and determinations can affect how a unit is considered. Consider the language in Stubborn or determining if the unit Charges. In Stubborn, only one model needs to have the rule, but "If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead". In determining if a unit can Charge, "The unit shot Rapid Fire weapons, Salvo weapons, Ordnance weapons or Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase" cannot Charge, but models are what actually do the Shooting, not the unit.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
OK, then how in my earlier hypothetical situation can the secondary target be engaged if it is not locked in combat?

Because it is within 2" of a "Friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy model in the same combat".

The model in base combat needs to be locked in the same combat, not the unit in question.

I run thundercav often and this happens quite a lot and no one has ever blinked twice at it.

Enemy Units are each 1 model units: E1, E2.
For argument's sake it's a star with a couple ICs.
Charge roll is 12.
E1 and E2 are 20 inches apart.


They fire overwatch.
E1....................CCCCCC.........................E2
First model charges the primary enemy unit and makes it. The primary target is now engaged.
E1C....................CCCCC.........................E2
So satisfying that all models in the primary target are engaged, the unit is free to assault a secondary target.
E1C.......................CCC.........................CE2
Now both targets are engaged in combat and the rest of the unit can charge whomever they like.
E1CCC..............................................CCCE2
Legal and out of coherency.

Where have any of the rules of assaulting been broken?

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
OK, then how in my earlier hypothetical situation can the secondary target be engaged if it is not locked in combat?

Because it is within 2" of a "Friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy model in the same combat".

The model in base combat needs to be locked in the same combat, not the unit in question.

Back to my previous hypothetical again... After the charge move the model in the secondary target is within 2" of a friendly model. That friendly model is in base contact with an enemy. But, that friendly model is not "in the same combat" as the model in the secondary target. So how is the model in the secondary target engaged?

 deviantduck wrote:
First model charges the primary enemy unit and makes it. The primary target is now engaged.
E1C....................CCCCC.........................E2

And right here, E2 is not engaged at the same time, nor could be considered within the engaged rage at the same time, or even possible, so not a valid target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Back to my previous hypothetical again... After the charge move the model in the secondary target is within 2" of a friendly model. That friendly model is in base contact with an enemy. But, that friendly model is not "in the same combat" as the model in the secondary target. So how is the model in the secondary target engaged?

Because it is within 2" of "a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat." Nothing requires the model to be in a unit locked in combat. Who can fight in a Combat is whoever is engaged.

After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

The rules then classify "engaged" as anyone in base contact in the fight or any friendly model close enough to them.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Charistoph,

You keep coming back to this rule: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Can you explain what you think it means for a unit to engage. This isn't defined in the rules as far as I know. We can't really argue about the timing of this act unless we know what this act is. I still hold that this entire sentence is descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus holds no weight at all.

This is correct. There are no rules defining what it means for a unit to engage; therefore the dictionary meaning of "engage" is in effect.

OED - "engage" = enter into conflict or combat with (an enemy)

This is pretty cut and dry. Charistoph's argument has a faulty premise (that unit engage = model engage) and therefore a faulty conclusion.

Until he can point to actual rules defining what it means for a unit to engage we have no other choice than to accept that the dictionary meaning of the word is in effect. His posts belong in the Proposed Rules forum since he is adding to the rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Yes, you have explained how a MODEL is engaged. (Though I don't think we quite agree.) But how is a UNIT engaged? Is it engaged when the first MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or each time a MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or something else? The rules are silent on this as UNITS being engaged is not a game mechanic.

Again, do we have another standard to work with?

Yes, we have the dictionary as noted above.

 Charistoph wrote:

Model actions and determinations can affect how a unit is considered. Consider the language in Stubborn or determining if the unit Charges. In Stubborn, only one model needs to have the rule, but "If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead". In determining if a unit can Charge, "The unit shot Rapid Fire weapons, Salvo weapons, Ordnance weapons or Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase" cannot Charge, but models are what actually do the Shooting, not the unit.

All of Charistoph's argument here is HYWPI and belongs in the Proposed Rules forum.

Further, all of his examples are erroneous. Stubborn specifically confers the ability of the special rule from a model having the special rule on its datasheet to the unit that contains that model. And units shoot and make shooting attacks per the rules, so shooting is something the BRB defines as happening individually at the model level AND collectively at the unit level.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Back to my previous hypothetical again... After the charge move the model in the secondary target is within 2" of a friendly model. That friendly model is in base contact with an enemy. But, that friendly model is not "in the same combat" as the model in the secondary target. So how is the model in the secondary target engaged?

Because it is within 2" of "a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat." Nothing requires the model to be in a unit locked in combat. Who can fight in a Combat is whoever is engaged.

After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

The rules then classify "engaged" as anyone in base contact in the fight or any friendly model close enough to them.

Just to be clear, you are proposing that a model can be engaged in combat, and be eligible to pile in and strike, even though that model's unit is not locked in combat? I don't think you will get anyone to agree with that.

"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."

You seem to be implying that the "friendly model" must be "in the same combat" as the "enemy model(s)" it is in base contact with. Am I correct in this assumption? If that were true, the entire phrase "in the same combat" is completely extraneous as there is no way for anything else to possibly be true. I believe that the "friendly model" must be "in the same combat" as the model we are currently checking the engagement status of.

Cal Hoskins wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Back to my previous hypothetical again... After the charge move the model in the secondary target is within 2" of a friendly model. That friendly model is in base contact with an enemy. But, that friendly model is not "in the same combat" as the model in the secondary target. So how is the model in the secondary target engaged?

Because it is within 2" of "a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat." Nothing requires the model to be in a unit locked in combat. Who can fight in a Combat is whoever is engaged.

After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

The rules then classify "engaged" as anyone in base contact in the fight or any friendly model close enough to them.

Just to be clear, you are proposing that a model can be engaged in combat, and be eligible to pile in and strike, even though that model's unit is not locked in combat? I don't think you will get anyone to agree with that.

One big problem here is that a unit has to be locked in combat in order to participate in the assault phase. If a unit is not locked in combat it is skipping all of the assault phase which includes piling in and striking of course.



So basically the rules defeat Charistoph's argument.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Just to be clear, you are proposing that a model can be engaged in combat, and be eligible to pile in and strike, even though that model's unit is not locked in combat? I don't think you will get anyone to agree with that.

Not entirely. To Pile In, a model must be in a unit that is locked in combat. To be Engaged, a model just needs to be in close enough. And it is entirely possible for a model to be "locked in combat" and not "Engaged", as well.

As for striking blows, well, the rule does state, "any model... who is engaged with an enemy model must fight".

Cal Hoskins wrote:
"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."

You seem to be implying that the "friendly model" must be "in the same combat" as the "enemy model(s)" it is in base contact with. Am I correct in this assumption? If that were true, the entire phrase "in the same combat" is completely extraneous as there is no way for anything else to possibly be true. I believe that the "friendly model" must be "in the same combat" as the model we are currently checking the engagement status of.

"Friendly model" is either from the same Faction and Army or at least a Battle Brother. "Enemy model" is a model that is part of the your opponent's army. That part is rather self-explicative, I would think. It is explained in several parts of the rulebook, after all.

The "same combat" is the Combat that has been chosen to be resolved at that time. If the "same combat" was for the model we were referencing, it would be better placed before the mention of the "friendly model". But that could also be classed as an interpretive difference as well.

Compare:

A model is engaged in combat if It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

A model is engaged in combat if in the same combat with a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models and within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of that model.

Now, relevance could indicate that it is only considering models already locked in that same Combat, but it doesn't specify such, either. It is a rather general statement. After all, why would you consider a model not locked in that combat?

"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."

In your opinion, what exactly has to be "in the same combat" as what? There is the model we are currently checking to see if it is engaged. There is a friendly model. There is at least one enemy model.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Just to be clear, you are proposing that a model can be engaged in combat, and be eligible to pile in and strike, even though that model's unit is not locked in combat? I don't think you will get anyone to agree with that.

Not entirely. To Pile In, a model must be in a unit that is locked in combat. To be Engaged, a model just needs to be in close enough. And it is entirely possible for a model to be "locked in combat" and not "Engaged", as well.

As for striking blows, well, the rule does state, "any model... who is engaged with an enemy model must fight".

Incorrect. A unit that is not locked in combat skips the assault phase altogether, as noted above and proved with BRB citation, and cannot participate in the determination of what models are engaged.

So to be engaged a model must be close enough to an enemy that it is locked in combat with.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."

In your opinion, what exactly has to be "in the same combat" as what? There is the model we are currently checking to see if it is engaged. There is a friendly model. There is at least one enemy model.

I am stating that the "a model is engaged" is not required to be locked "in the same combat". The model we are checking to see if they are engaged should be within range of a "friendly model in Base Contact" which is "in the same combat" as the Combat as we are processing the Initiative Step for. That is what I referenced before when I stated, "The "same combat" is the Combat that has been chosen to be resolved at that time".

You keep overlooking the fact that a unit that is not locked in combat has no permission to be participating in any aspects of the assault phase.


A model cannot engage an enemy model that is in a unit that is not locked in combat.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."

In your opinion, what exactly has to be "in the same combat" as what? There is the model we are currently checking to see if it is engaged. There is a friendly model. There is at least one enemy model.

I am stating that the "a model is engaged" is not required to be locked "in the same combat". The model we are checking to see if they are engaged should be within range of a "friendly model in Base Contact" which is "in the same combat" as the Combat as we are processing the Initiative Step for. That is what I referenced before when I stated, "The "same combat" is the Combat that has been chosen to be resolved at that time".

So, using this interpretation would you allow a model that never charged and was never the target of a charge to get involved in a combat?

Cal Hoskins wrote:
So, using this interpretation would you allow a model that never charged and was never the target of a charge to get involved in a combat?

In a way. The rules state that those that fit in this category can fight. The level of involvement does get a little odd in some areas, as they are not allowed to Pile In to this fight, and must be in place when this Combat is selected to Fight.

And it is this level of engagement we are looking for at a minimum when we see if we can declare a Multiple Charge. There is no single way a unit 20" away from the nearest model of a Primary Target could possibly fit in to either of these definitions of engagement at the same time. Any Charge movement would involve engaging that second unit after you have engaged the Primary Target, not while you were engaging the Primary unit.

-----------------------
And if anyone is wondering, I have col_ignored on Ignore. I can see that he has posted, but I have to actually go out of my way to see what he has posted. I find his posts to generate toxic discussions, and this is the best way to avoid temptations. If any of the rest of you wish to understand my view on what he has posted, present the question and I will address it.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
So, using this interpretation would you allow a model that never charged and was never the target of a charge to get involved in a combat?

In a way. The rules state that those that fit in this category can fight. The level of involvement does get a little odd in some areas, as they are not allowed to Pile In to this fight, and must be in place when this Combat is selected to Fight.

And it is this level of engagement we are looking for at a minimum when we see if we can declare a Multiple Charge. There is no single way a unit 20" away from the nearest model of a Primary Target could possibly fit in to either of these definitions of engagement at the same time. Any Charge movement would involve engaging that second unit after you have engaged the Primary Target, not while you were engaging the Primary unit.

You still have not shown permission for a unit not locked in combat to participate in the assault phase (specifically the Fight Sub Phase).

Also, you continue to confuse 'model engage' with 'unit engage'. The former has rules. The latter has no rules so the dictionary definition is in play. If you force 'model engage' onto 'unit engage' you are making up rules.

Even further, your argument is based on the false premise that we should read "at the same time" hyper-literally when the BRB in all other cases uses "at the same time" to mean "in the same game action/step". So long as the player thinks he can reasonably complete a charge move (which is a single game step) against a Primary and Secondary target then he can declare a Primary and Secondary target.

Basically, your line of reasoning has no rules support and belongs in the Proposed Rules section.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
So, using this interpretation would you allow a model that never charged and was never the target of a charge to get involved in a combat?

In a way. The rules state that those that fit in this category can fight. The level of involvement does get a little odd in some areas, as they are not allowed to Pile In to this fight, and must be in place when this Combat is selected to Fight.

And it is this level of engagement we are looking for at a minimum when we see if we can declare a Multiple Charge. There is no single way a unit 20" away from the nearest model of a Primary Target could possibly fit in to either of these definitions of engagement at the same time. Any Charge movement would involve engaging that second unit after you have engaged the Primary Target, not while you were engaging the Primary unit.

Should we let everyone know that all the units prevented from charging due to Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Scout, firing Heavy Weapons, and whatever else can still get into a combat just by getting close to one? It seems like it could potentially change every game ever played.

Here's a few rules quotes:

"All units in close combat fight; this is an exception to the normal turn sequence in that both sides fight, not just the side whose turn it is."
"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other."
"If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase."

I can't find any mention of units that aren't in base contact with an enemy unit being able to fight in close combat.

Don't you think it more likely that you are misinterpreting the test to see if a model is engaged, rather than that everyone everywhere has been playing incorrectly since 7th came out?

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Should we let everyone know that all the units prevented from charging due to Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Scout, firing Heavy Weapons, and whatever else can still get into a combat just by getting close to one? It seems like it could potentially change every game ever played.

Maybe. At the very least, they can all be Charged before they have a chance to Charge, which would involve them in Combat. What you choose to tell your group is up to you. Meta rules are more about having a fun game between people then being literal. I am just literal here because that is the only thing I can specifically state is the same across all of those reading this.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Here's a few rules quotes:

"All units in close combat fight; this is an exception to the normal turn sequence in that both sides fight, not just the side whose turn it is."
"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other."
"If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase."

I can't find any mention of units that aren't in base contact with an enemy unit being able to fight in close combat.

Don't you think it more likely that you are misinterpreting the test to see if a model is engaged, rather than that everyone everywhere has been playing incorrectly since 7th came out?

I have quoted and referenced the rule before, and it is in the same place we have been looking at defining "engaged" this whole thread. Here it is again:

Determine Who Can Fight
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

At this point, units are not in consideration, just the models. The models would technically contribute to the fight even if their unit is not locked in combat due to the standards set here. Also keep in mind that this standard applies to the models that ARE locked in to this combat as well. If you have 25 models in a unit over 2" away from any of those in base contact, those models are NOT engaged. Remember, "engaged" and "locked" are NOT presented as being synonymous at any point. But either way at this point, that is another discussion.

For the purposes of this thread's original question, though, it is THIS standard which we are considering when we declare a Multiple Charge. This standard must be possible to be fulfilled at the same time a unit Charges a Primary Target in order to properly declare a Multiple Charge. If your unit cannot bring a Secondary Target's model within 2" of a model they will be in base contact with, it cannot Charge it at the same time. A unit that has its nearest model 20" to a Charged unit could never qualify as such. This makes a conga line Charge as suggested in the Original Post illegal within the base rules.

 Charistoph wrote:
I have quoted and referenced the rule before, and it is in the same place we have been looking at defining "engaged" this whole thread. Here it is again:

Determine Who Can Fight
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

At this point, units are not in consideration, just the models. The models would technically contribute to the fight even if their unit is not locked in combat due to the standards set here. Also keep in mind that this standard applies to the models that ARE locked in to this combat as well. If you have 25 models in a unit over 2" away from any of those in base contact, those models are NOT engaged. Remember, "engaged" and "locked" are NOT presented as being synonymous at any point. But either way at this point, that is another discussion.

Have I ever implied that "engaged" and "locked" are the same? I do believe that one is required for the other to be true, but they are not the same.

Can we agree that "in the same combat" has an implied "as SOMETHING" at the end of it? You have posited that the SOMETHING is the combat we are currently conducting while I hold that the SOMETHING is the "It" found at the beginning of the sentence.

 Charistoph wrote:
For the purposes of this thread's original question, though, it is THIS standard which we are considering when we declare a Multiple Charge. This standard must be possible to be fulfilled at the same time a unit Charges a Primary Target in order to properly declare a Multiple Charge. If your unit cannot bring a Secondary Target's model within 2" of a model they will be in base contact with, it cannot Charge it at the same time. A unit that has its nearest model 20" to a Charged unit could never qualify as such. This makes a conga line Charge as suggested in the Original Post illegal within the base rules.

There are several problems with your "standard" here, though. We don't agree on how models are engaged. We don't agree on the length of the "at the same time" interval. And most importantly, we don't even agree that "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." is a rule rather than flavor text.

As far as "at the same time" goes, do you believe it to be a single instant, the time during the movement of a charging model, the time of moving a charging unit, or something else entirely? If anything, I see it as during the charge move of the unit.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Have I ever implied that "engaged" and "locked" are the same? I do believe that one is required for the other to be true, but they are not the same.

In a way. You have implied that they require the same conditions to be fulfilled. Engagement only has any indication that it requires being locked in combat by it being the Initiative Step process. However, that is not concrete evidence of exclusivity, as numerous other rules are listed in similar situations, but still provide usability outside those cases. Look Out Sir rules are one such an example.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
Can we agree that "in the same combat" has an implied "as SOMETHING" at the end of it? You have posited that the SOMETHING is the combat we are currently conducting while I hold that the SOMETHING is the "It" found at the beginning of the sentence.

I think that has already been well established. This is where interpretation is largely on the reader to make. They certainly did not make it plain as to which one they meant as they have in other rules.

But even if that was the case, it still only changes things for consideration outside of a Multiple Charge. It still provides the definition of capacity for a Multiple Charge. Anything else requires ignoring too many things to justify it.

Cal Hoskins wrote:
There are several problems with your "standard" here, though. We don't agree on how models are engaged. We don't agree on the length of the "at the same time" interval. And most importantly, we don't even agree that "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." is a rule rather than flavor text.

Except that it is the only thing that qualifies as defining a Secondary Target. It comes right after defining what the Primary Target is. It provides a case of qualifications. The second sentence in that paragraph does not provide any definition or qualifications, just a reminder of the basics of a valid Charge target. So the second sentence could not be it. There is nothing else that could define a Secondary Target at this point.

So, if this is something you don't agree on, what defines the qualifications of a Secondary Target in the rules aside from this sentence?

Cal Hoskins wrote:
As far as "at the same time" goes, do you believe it to be a single instant, the time during the movement of a charging model, the time of moving a charging unit, or something else entirely? If anything, I see it as during the charge move of the unit.

It has to be done during the Charge move of the unit. However, even when doing a Charge Move, each and every model is moved one at a time. Unlike in the Shooting Sequence, there is no mention that these models are considered Charging together. Unless you can demonstrate in the rules that you can move two models in such different directions at the same time, your case has no hope.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
As far as "at the same time" goes, do you believe it to be a single instant, the time during the movement of a charging model, the time of moving a charging unit, or something else entirely? If anything, I see it as during the charge move of the unit.

It has to be done during the Charge move of the unit. However, even when doing a Charge Move, each and every model is moved one at a time. Unlike in the Shooting Sequence, there is no mention that these models are considered Charging together. Unless you can demonstrate in the rules that you can move two models in such different directions at the same time, your case has no hope.

You keep confusing "model engage" with "unit engage". The former has rules associated with it. The latter has no rules so the dictionary definition is used instead. And when we use the dictionary definition everything works fine in the rules.

OED - engage = enter into conflict or combat with (an enemy)

Let's revisit the rule in question.



Clearly, the BRB is referring to "unit can engage" and not "initial charger model can engage" so Charistoph's argument has no rules support. If the BRB meant "initial charger model can engage" it would have stated as much.

Charistoph needs to start marking his posts as HYWPI since he has veered well off the RAW. You are not allowed to swap "unit" with "model".

Also, I find it wonderfully ironic that he wants to be hyper-literal with the application of "at the same time" but intentionally vague in his smudging of "unit" and "model" together. The rule statement cannot logically be hyper-literal and vague at the same time.

Thank you both for the time you've taken to discuss this.

The resolution my friend and I came to is:

The charging unit has to maintain cohency when charging,

it then has to make base contact with everything in the primary unit

Then the secondary

Then all models that can engage the primary (I. E.within 2" of a model in base contact have to do so),

then any left over models can be used to link the two combats.

In practice it means you can multi charge two units separated by a large distance (more than 8" or so) but you have to greatly outnumber them. (Approx double the number of chargers to defenders but that's just a house rule / guide)

 deviantduck wrote:

So satisfying that all models in the primary target are engaged, the unit is free to assault a secondary target.
E1C.......................CCC.........................CE2

A model can only move onto a secondary target if it cannot reach base contact with a model from the primary. So in your example here, your model would only be able to move onto E2 if E! is outside his charge range, or if there is no room for him to make base contact.

You're also constrained by the requirement to finish your charge in coherency with an already-moved model. So E1 would have to be unreachable, and E2 close enough that your second charging C would finish his charge within 2" of the first charging C.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ninkey wrote:
it then has to make base contact with everything in the primary unit

While that's fine for a HIWPI resolution, it's not quite the requirement in the rules. You don't have to base everything in the primary unit before moving onto the secondary, but you can only charge the secondary with models who can't reach base contact with the primary.

Ignore what Charistoph is saying. If multi charges worked like that, they would a) be essentially impossible to pull off, and/or b) allow you to 'charge' models in to combat that otherwise couldn't, and to 'pull' models in to combat that you didn't charge against.



So the rules are:

0* The first charge must be a direct line from the closest model in the charging unit to the closest model in the primary target.
1* If possible, a charging model must end its charge move in unit coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved. If it is not possible for a charging model to move and maintain unit coherency, move it as close as possible to another model in its own unit that has already moved instead. (Errata)
2* If possible, a charging model must move into base contact with an enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with another charging model. If there are no such enemy models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with a charging model.
3* If a charging model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" horizontally/6" vertcally of one of its own units models that is already in base contact with an enemy. If this is impossible, it must simply stay in unit coherency.

The next sentence implies this is a sequence: you must try to do #1 before doing #2.

Then the additional rules for multi assaults:
* If the initial charger successfully moves into base contact with the primary target, remaining models can charge models belonging to either the primary or secondary target units, as long as they follow the rules for moving charging models.
* A charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
* Remember that the charging unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of charge.


So it is POSSIBLE to conga-line. However, it is quite difficult, and especially difficult the higher charge distance you roll, the more enemy models you are charging.

To help with the conga-line strategy:
* In the movement phase, weight your unit towards the secondary target. Place as few models close to the primary target as possible and get your conga line started.
* You want to roll low for your charge distance. If you have fleet or jump packs, use the re-roll for low distance.
* Clever positioning of the 2nd/3rd/4th chargers can severely restrict the options for subsequent models and thus improve your ability to get in to multi assault. Because you can't move through friendly models, you can position one model so he blocks other models from making B2B, even if they could have made B2B if they'd moved first.
* Likewise, positioning the fewest number of models to engage / be in B2B with the largest number of enemy models allows you to begin your conga line earlier.
* You don't have to move your full charge distance. As long as you can't make BTB with an an enemy model or coherency with a friendly model in BTB, you can finish your move anywhere in coherency: these are the models you need to use for your conga line.
* You really need to manipulate the order that models have to move in. The first charger is determined for you, but after that you can start charging with the furthest away models.

So while your inital setup might look like

X
X ABCD E F HG Y Y Y
X

Your final positioning after the charge might be more like:

X
XCDE B A F HGYYY
X


There's a bit of a guide here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/08/09/launching-a-multi-assault-in-7th-edition/

Trasvi wrote:
Ignore what Charistoph is saying. If multi charges worked like that, they would a) be essentially impossible to pull off, and/or b) allow you to 'charge' models in to combat that otherwise couldn't, and to 'pull' models in to combat that you didn't charge against.

Incorrect. They just wouldn't be able to be conga-lined across the table. Models would not be "pulled in to combat", as they wouldn't be locked in combat unless one of their unit members was in base contact.

In order to pull off a multiple Charge, models in a Secondary Target have to be within 2" of a Primary Target model you can reach. That really isn't that hard to pull off if the two units are that close. The reason for this is because some would try and use that proximity to prevent a normal Charge (you can't get within 1" of a model in a unit you are not Charging). There is no indication of intention to Charge 2 units 20" apart from each other.

Trasvi wrote:
So the rules are:

0* The first charge must be a direct line from the closest model in the charging unit to the closest model in the primary target.

And in Line of Sight, all the usual Charge restrictions.

Trasvi wrote:
The next sentence implies this is a sequence: you must try to do #1 before doing #2.

Kind of hard to do #2 without doing #1 in most cases as your target should also be in unit coherency for a single target. It is possible they may be out of Coherency due to Shots from the previous Phase or just a very stupid Deployment, but the has a minimal case of encounter.

Not to mention, these 3 last points are not rules for setting up the Charge, but doing the actual move of the Charge.

Trasvi wrote:
Then the additional rules for multi assaults:
* If the initial charger successfully moves into base contact with the primary target, remaining models can charge models belonging to either the primary or secondary target units, as long as they follow the rules for moving charging models.
* A charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
* Remember that the charging unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of charge.

Those are the rules for MOVING a Multiple Charge, not all the additional rules for a Multiple Charge. You are ignoring the definitions of the targets for a Multiple Charge. Ignoring those definitions is the same as ignoring the requirements for Declaring a single Charge.

To repeat them:
* Primary Target is the Charging unit's main target. There is little difference of note here.
* A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.

Notations regarding not being able to charge a unit you cannot reach and see are mentioned, as well as all targets being charged being declared at the same time.

What is "engaging"? Being within 2" of a model in the same combat, not 20".

 Charistoph wrote:
* A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.

I'm going to pretend that this is a sentence full of well defined rules that must be strictly adhered to. I think I can charge two targets 6" apart, therefore I can.

 Charistoph wrote:
[

Trasvi wrote:
Then the additional rules for multi assaults:
* If the initial charger successfully moves into base contact with the primary target, remaining models can charge models belonging to either the primary or secondary target units, as long as they follow the rules for moving charging models.
* A charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
* Remember that the charging unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of charge.

Those are the rules for MOVING a Multiple Charge, not all the additional rules for a Multiple Charge. You are ignoring the definitions of the targets for a Multiple Charge. Ignoring those definitions is the same as ignoring the requirements for Declaring a single Charge.

The primary difficulty of doing what OP wants to do is moving models in such a way so it can be done.

To repeat them:
* Primary Target is the Charging unit's main target. There is little difference of note here.
* A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.

The second sentence there isn't a rule.

- There is no definition of 'target of opportunity'.
- There is no sequence defining 'at the same time'. You're interpreting it to mean "ONE model from the charging unit must be engaged with a model from both the primary and secondary units at the end of its charge move" but there is nothing to support that extremely narrow interpretation.
-There is no restriction on whether you 'think you can do' impossible things.
- And it seems evident that 'engage' here is being applied as a common language term, not a defined rules term. Even if it were, as others have pointed out, there is a defined concept of models engaging other models but not units engaging other units. Even if you want to apply 'engage at the same time' here as a rules term, why isn't it true that if two separate models from a charging unit are simultaneously engaging a model from each of two target enemy units, that the charging unit isn't engaged with multiple units at the same time?

Cal Hoskins wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
* A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.

I'm going to pretend that this is a sentence full of well defined rules that must be strictly adhered to. I think I can charge two targets 6" apart, therefore I can.

Can you have a second target engagement range when only in base contact with the first?

Trasvi wrote:The primary difficulty of doing what OP wants to do is moving models in such a way so it can be done.

By which we cannot employ the definitions involved.

Trasvi wrote:

To repeat them:
* Primary Target is the Charging unit's main target. There is little difference of note here.
* A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.

The second sentence there isn't a rule.

Prove it. It provides a definition of what a Secondary Target is just as much the first sentence defines what a Primary Target is. It is as definitive as you can get. If you think a definition does not have the force of a rule, you need to review some things.

Trasvi wrote:- There is no definition of 'target of opportunity'.

There is one, and it is not redefined in the rulebook. The operative noun is "target" which is entirely applicative to something that we are defining as a "Secondary Target". "Of opportunity" is then defined in the following portion of the sentence. In other words, what makes the "opportunity" is "can be engaged at the same time as the Primary Target". This is basic english.

Trasvi wrote:- There is no sequence defining 'at the same time'. You're interpreting it to mean "ONE model from the charging unit must be engaged with a model from both the primary and secondary units at the end of its charge move" but there is nothing to support that extremely narrow interpretation.

"At the same time" is not a sequence? How interesting.

And no, I am not defining it as you say, and if you have actually read what I have written, you would know that. I am defining it as "a model in the Secondary Target must be within 2" of a model in the Primary Target that a model of the Charging Unit CAN become in Base Contact with".

It is using the terms "can" in their proper use, "engage" in the rulebook's definition provided previously in the section, and "at the same time" to mean exactly what it says it means.

Trasvi wrote:-There is no restriction on whether you 'think you can do' impossible things.

What impossible things? "Engage" is defined at this point in the rulebook. What is impossible is to consider one unit "engaged" by the same combat that the nearest friendly model is 20" away. And that is the definition from the rulebook, not mine.

Trasvi wrote:- And it seems evident that 'engage' here is being applied as a common language term, not a defined rules term. Even if it were, as others have pointed out, there is a defined concept of models engaging other models but not units engaging other units.

What tells you "engage" in this instance is a "common language term"? There is absolutely no evidence of this except in your own mind. "Engage" is specifically defined in this same section of the rulebook (i.e. Assault Phase). At no point is it ever stated to be anything different up to, and including, this point.

Trasvi wrote:Even if you want to apply 'engage at the same time' here as a rules term, why isn't it true that if two separate models from a charging unit are simultaneously engaging a model from each of two target enemy units, that the charging unit isn't engaged with multiple units at the same time?

I never stated that. What I have said that if you are Charging one unit, the model 20" away from the Charged unit will not be "engaged" by that Charge. In order to be "engaged", a model has to either be in base contact with a model in that fight, or be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact in that fight.

A model that is within 2" of an enemy model in that fight, and not withing 2" of a friendly model, will not be engaged according to the definition provided.

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Even if you want to apply 'engage at the same time' here as a rules term, why isn't it true that if two separate models from a charging unit are simultaneously engaging a model from each of two target enemy units, that the charging unit isn't engaged with multiple units at the same time?

I never stated that. What I have said that if you are Charging one unit, the model 20" away from the Charged unit will not be "engaged" by that Charge. In order to be "engaged", a model has to either be in base contact with a model in that fight, or be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact in that fight.

A model that is within 2" of an enemy model in that fight, and not withing 2" of a friendly model, will not be engaged according to the definition provided.

Hence the conga line. The first model charges the primary target. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th models move according to the rules for chargers but end their movement in a line towards the secondary target. The 5th model can then make it to BTB with, and thus engage, a model in the secondary target. Multi assault over 20" complete.






Lets focus on this clause then:
"that the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."

You seem to be interpreting this as
"that a single model in the charging unit could possibly end its charge movement simultaneously engaged with a model in both the primary and secondary target"

Whereas everyone else who has ever played 40k interprets this as:
"that, after all legal assault moves are finished, is engaged with at least one model in the charging unit".

Why do you think that the clause implies that both primary and secondary target must be (able to be) engaged by the same model?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If you don't think this, can you explain why you think a conga line doesn't work?

What I mean by 'sequencing' is:
Does 'at the same time' mean 'as part of a single models' charge movement'? (your interpretation)"
Or does it mean 'after all models in the assaulting unit have moved' - or more generally, considering engagement is a status rather than an action, you can be engaged with two units at the same time if, at any point in time, you have the engaged status with both units. Eg "I think I can hold both an apple and an orange at the same time" does not mean I must pick them both up at the same instant.

Isn't this whole argument a moot point now? Unless I've missed it, it looks like there's no mention in the newly published FAQ that you don't have to maintain unit coherency. So, the coherency rules still apply, and this whole argument doesn't matter any more since the coherency rules help put a limit on how far away the secondary target can be (you have to maintain unit coherency with your unit, but if you can't fulfill the requirements of getting into combat with the primary target you could attack a secondary unit while maintaining coherency.

Trasvi wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Even if you want to apply 'engage at the same time' here as a rules term, why isn't it true that if two separate models from a charging unit are simultaneously engaging a model from each of two target enemy units, that the charging unit isn't engaged with multiple units at the same time?

I never stated that. What I have said that if you are Charging one unit, the model 20" away from the Charged unit will not be "engaged" by that Charge. In order to be "engaged", a model has to either be in base contact with a model in that fight, or be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact in that fight.

A model that is within 2" of an enemy model in that fight, and not withing 2" of a friendly model, will not be engaged according to the definition provided.

Hence the conga line. The first model charges the primary target. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th models move according to the rules for chargers but end their movement in a line towards the secondary target. The 5th model can then make it to BTB with, and thus engage, a model in the secondary target. Multi assault over 20" complete.

Two problems:
1) Has it been checked to see to see if they can get in to Base Contact with their Primary Target while creating a conga line? Failing that, at least getting as many other Primary Target models engaged?

2) How is the Secondary Target engaged at the same time as the Primary Assault when it is not within 2" of a friendly model in the Primary Assault?

Trasvi wrote:

Lets focus on this clause then:
"that the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."

You seem to be interpreting this as
"that a single model in the charging unit could possibly end its charge movement simultaneously engaged with a model in both the primary and secondary target"

Whereas everyone else who has ever played 40k interprets this as:
"that, after all legal assault moves are finished, is engaged with at least one model in the charging unit".

Why do you think that the clause implies that both primary and secondary target must be (able to be) engaged by the same model?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If you don't think this, can you explain why you think a conga line doesn't work?

Incorrect. You are applying your definition of "engage" to my case or simply not paying attention to the provided definitions and what I have repeatedly stated. By definition, the only method an enemy model by itself may engage another model is by being in base contact. The other method is the model has to be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model to be engaged. This other method is not a direct relationship, but a secondary relationship.

If I Charge a Land Raider and there is a unit from the same army and faction within 2" of that Land Raider, it could be classified as "engaged", and could be classified as a Secondary Target provided the Charging unit could see it and could Charge around the Land Raider. The same thing in reversal applies. If I can Charge past the Land Raider to that other unit, then the Land Raider would be an equally viable Secondary Target.

A Charging model does not have to reach within 2" of a model in the Secondary Target in order to qualify the Secondary Target. Aside from the basic rules of a Charge (Line of Sight, distance, etc), there only needs to be enough Charging Models to get in to Base Contact with a Primary Target model 2" from a Secondary Target model in order to qualify it as a Secondary Target.

Trasvi wrote:
What I mean by 'sequencing' is:
Does 'at the same time' mean 'as part of a single models' charge movement'? (your interpretation)"
Or does it mean 'after all models in the assaulting unit have moved' - or more generally, considering engagement is a status rather than an action, you can be engaged with two units at the same time if, at any point in time, you have the engaged status with both units. Eg "I think I can hold both an apple and an orange at the same time" does not mean I must pick them both up at the same instant.

"At the same time" is not a case of sequencing when performing a check. It means exactly what it states. At no point are we informed to treat all Charging models as moving at the same time, as we are when Shooting Weapon Groups.

I interpret that "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" to be, "if you were going to Charge a lone unit, the models in these other units would be close enough to be considered Engaged or interfere with you placing your Charging models as they would not be able to get within 1" of them".

I do not interpret "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" to be, "if you feel like Charging two directions, you can so long as you can be locked in combat with both units when the dust settles".

This is going by the definitions of "engage", "same time", and "primary assault", without any instructions to consider any Charge Movement as happening "at the same time".