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.

So ITC have killed off multiple assault?

I'm also glad that you live in a fantasy world. You didn't the riddle on how 3 Knights with nearly 700 points to spare with bubblewrap won't kill off your marines. Also, do you seriously for a second believe that the bubblewrap is immobile and unable to move out of the way from the Knights? And somehow they will also cause them to get stuck for 5-7 rounds while you peacefully sit back and sit on objectives? Do you even hear yourself?

 Zewrath wrote:
So ITC have killed off multiple assault?

The rulebook killed off multi-assault with a single model.

 pretre wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
So ITC have killed off multiple assault?

The rulebook killed off multi-assault with a single model.

This. You can't multi assault unless you have more than one model to assault with.

Since when? The rulebook states that you can declare a secondary target to your primary target. There's no restrictions on single models.

This is also entirely irrelevant because we have now established that with 3 Knights they'll easily have a bubblewrap, which means that the Knights can delete 1-2 squads each, each turn and will literally kill the rest of your reserves just as fast as they enter the board. After turn 4, he will just clean up.

 Zewrath wrote:
Since when? The rulebook states that you can declare a secondary target to your primary target. There's no restrictions on single models.

This is also entirely irrelevant because we have now established that with 3 Knights they'll easily have a bubblewrap, which means that the Knights can delete 1-2 squads each, each turn and will literally kill the rest of your reserves just as fast as they enter the board. After turn 4, he will just clean up.

Sure, sure. We have established your opinion on the matter.

That your list will fold to the vast majority of competitive top list? Yeah, that's quite established. Good try though.

 Zewrath wrote:
That your list will fold to the vast majority of competitive top list? Yeah, that's quite established. Good try though.

Sure, sure. We have established your opinion on the matter.

If opinion is logic, then yeah.

 pretre wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
That your list will fold to the vast majority of competitive top list? Yeah, that's quite established. Good try though.

Sure, sure. We have established your opinion on the matter.

 Zewrath wrote:
So ITC have killed off multiple assault?

I'm also glad that you live in a fantasy world. You didn't the riddle on how 3 Knights with nearly 700 points to spare with bubblewrap won't kill off your marines. Also, do you seriously for a second believe that the bubblewrap is immobile and unable to move out of the way from the Knights? And somehow they will also cause them to get stuck for 5-7 rounds while you peacefully sit back and sit on objectives? Do you even hear yourself?

Holy emprah, calm down man.

Wait, is zewrath arguing that 6e drop pod marine spam made even better by 7e's free transports and extra grav options is not a good list when the top marine player in the ITC got there by using a 6e pod marine spam list?

Seriously, a whole bunch of obsec units showing up all over the board and constantly getting both maelstrom a turn, denying you maelstrom unless you roll up "kill 2 units," getting almost certain first blood/first strike, and either claiming or denying you the primary is actually pretty beast in the ITC missions. Especially when it goes 2nd. That means you only get 4-6 turns to kill it all, and some of it is off-table and not killable until after t2 or 3.

And while you may argue that multiassault is possible with single models in the core rules, the ITC FAQ clarifies that you can never assault more than one unit with one model.

niv-mizzet wrote:
Wait, is zewrath arguing that 6e drop pod marine spam made even better by 7e's free transports and extra grav options is not a good list when the top marine player in the ITC got there by using a 6e pod marine spam list?

Seriously, a whole bunch of obsec units showing up all over the board and constantly getting both maelstrom a turn, denying you maelstrom unless you roll up "kill 2 units," getting almost certain first blood/first strike, and either claiming or denying you the primary is actually pretty beast in the ITC missions. Especially when it goes 2nd. That means you only get 4-6 turns to kill it all, and some of it is off-table and not killable until after t2 or 3.

And while you may argue that multiassault is possible with single models in the core rules, the ITC FAQ clarifies that you can never assault more than one unit with one model.

No, he's arguing that said list has a mediocre damage output against knights with a bubblewrap and is not realistically going to so much else other than getting deleted 4-6 squads on average per turn. Furthermore, the other list was optimized around Calgar and drop pods with proper payload. Not a list were 5/13 of the units and HQ's are dead weigth. Furthermore, how did the 6th edition drop pod work? To my knowledge, you would lose if you didn't have anything on the table at the end of a turn, so unless he went first in all his match ups, how was that list even remotely reliable? Just curious.

 Zewrath wrote:
Since when? The rulebook states that you can declare a secondary target to your primary target. There's no restrictions on single models.

It's been that way since 6th Edition dude. You declare Primary and Secondary targets. The initial charger must move into base contact with the Primary Target - if he can't, then the charge fails. Any other model in the unit can move into base contact with either the Primary or Secondary targets (but can only move into the Secondary Target if it cannot reach an unengaged model in the Primary Target).

Therefore, a Single Model unit can only ever charge the Primary Target. I guess nothing stops you declaring a Secondary Target though, so they can get a free Overwatch on you??

 GoonBandito wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Since when? The rulebook states that you can declare a secondary target to your primary target. There's no restrictions on single models.

It's been that way since 6th Edition dude. You declare Primary and Secondary targets. The initial charger must move into base contact with the Primary Target - if he can't, then the charge fails. Any other model in the unit can move into base contact with either the Primary or Secondary targets (but can only move into the Secondary Target if it cannot reach an unengaged model in the Primary Target).

Therefore, a Single Model unit can only ever charge the Primary Target. I guess nothing stops you declaring a Secondary Target though, so they can get a free Overwatch on you??

Fair enough. Never came up in my games so w/e. Still doesn't change anything in my point above.

In theory, if you've got three models stood in a V-shape and you're charging the middle one, a single model can end up in a multiple assault if the three targets are all equidistant from the middle of the V-shape, and the distance to that middle point is also the radius of your base (it gets wonky with oval bases, but still works in theory).

Good luck getting that scenario to happen in-game though.

 Zewrath wrote:
To my knowledge, you would lose if you didn't have anything on the table at the end of a turn, so unless he went first in all his match ups, how was that list even remotely reliable? Just curious.

End of any game turn not player turn.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
To my knowledge, you would lose if you didn't have anything on the table at the end of a turn, so unless he went first in all his match ups, how was that list even remotely reliable? Just curious.

End of any game turn not player turn.

Yes, in 7th. They made that distinction clear. Not in 6th.

Does anyone know if pedro kantor will be able to roll on the crimson fist traits as opposed to going with his stock warlord trait?

 th3maninblak wrote:
Does anyone know if pedro kantor will be able to roll on the crimson fist traits as opposed to going with his stock warlord trait?

Pretty sure character warlord traits always override rolling if they're your warlord.

Holy son of the emprah, craziness in this thread.

First of all, GoonBandito wins the prize for not only correctly recalling the rules, but describing it in a simple fashion that anyone can understand. Exalt for that!

For reference, the rule is on p.55 in bold under Multiple Combats: "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."

Multiple combat works when you have unit A with 2+ members charging units B and C. Once the model #1 in unit A charges unit B (or C, if B is unreachable), model #2 can decide whether it charges unit B or C. The BRB is actually pretty clear.

On the subject of drop pods, MSU, and Knights --

A lot of it is really skill level of the players involved. A skilled drop pod player is fearsome, but most drop pod players do goofy stupid things. Same with Knights.

Petre seems to know what he's talking about I share a few similar experiences, but I must say that my experiences playing more than 7 pods is very limited, because that's not the kind of game or style I like. But anyhow, drop pods are a army that have the potential to win in a wide variety of games, and I think that most of us can agree that Gladius Company gives pod armies more potential than a CAD drop pod army.

If you think you're going to have a near-100% win ratio against a CAD pod army, then you'll probably still do just fine against a pod Gladius Company played by the same people. It's not some magic potion.

Knights are also good, but they're hardly unbeatable.

The way it should be!

 Zewrath wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
To my knowledge, you would lose if you didn't have anything on the table at the end of a turn, so unless he went first in all his match ups, how was that list even remotely reliable? Just curious.

End of any game turn not player turn.

Yes, in 7th. They made that distinction clear. Not in 6th.

It was Game Turn in 6th as well. Pg 122 (If you still have a copy)

Zewrath wrote:Since when? The rulebook states that you can declare a secondary target to your primary target. There's no restrictions on single models.

You can, but you can only come into base contact with the 1 target (the primary, or if you can't reach it, the secondary). If you had a second model, it could choose which target, as long as it's in range. (see above for quoted rule)

Zewrath wrote:Furthermore, how did the 6th edition drop pod work? To my knowledge, you would lose if you didn't have anything on the table at the end of a turn, so unless he went first in all his match ups, how was that list even remotely reliable? Just curious.

You are right, of course. ANY game turn where only 1 player has no models, the other player wins. But, assuming that you have some warlord (Calgar, Captain, whatever), just park him out of range near an objective on your own side of the table.

Yes, yes but I don't give a hoot about the multiple assault crap. As I said it's irrelevant now.
3 Knights will delete 4-6 5-man squads on average per turn. On average you can expect 4 extra drop pods the next round, all of which are incapable of doing jack against the Knights and will die at the same pace as they enter the board, unless they are dropped far away, in which case the Knights will use their turn to easily clean 3-5 drop pods. Fast forward to turn 3 and the Knights will just go around the map and clear up the useless remains of the drop pods / MSU units, while quite possibly holding objectives meanwhile, due to their fast movement
I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone fails to see this.

 Zewrath wrote:
Yes, yes but I don't give a hoot about the multiple assault crap. As I said it's irrelevant now.
3 Knights will delete 4-6 5-man squads on average per turn. On average you can expect 4 extra drop pods the next round, all of which are incapable of doing jack against the Knights and will die at the same pace as they enter the board, unless they are dropped far away, in which case the Knights will use their turn to easily clean 3-5 drop pods. Fast forward to turn 3 and the Knights will just go around the map and clear up the useless remains of the drop pods / MSU units, while quite possibly holding objectives meanwhile, due to their fast movement
I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone fails to see this.

You are grossly overvaluing knights. Where are you pulling this 4-6 figure from? Do you visualize your opponent placing his marines in opportune positions for you to clear 4-6 a turn? Is the battlefield in your minds eye a barren wasteland devoid of all LOS blocking terrain?

Dude, just let it go. He has his opinion and is not to be swayed.

From wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Yes, yes but I don't give a hoot about the multiple assault crap. As I said it's irrelevant now.
3 Knights will delete 4-6 5-man squads on average per turn. On average you can expect 4 extra drop pods the next round, all of which are incapable of doing jack against the Knights and will die at the same pace as they enter the board, unless they are dropped far away, in which case the Knights will use their turn to easily clean 3-5 drop pods. Fast forward to turn 3 and the Knights will just go around the map and clear up the useless remains of the drop pods / MSU units, while quite possibly holding objectives meanwhile, due to their fast movement
I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone fails to see this.

You are grossly overvaluing knights. Where are you pulling this 4-6 figure from? Do you visualize your opponent placing his marines in opportune positions for you to clear 4-6 a turn? Is the battlefield in your minds eye a barren wasteland devoid of all LOS blocking terrain?

With multiple battle cannons, ap3 rocket launchers and ap3 rending Gatling cannons on squads that the person claims that he will land near the Knights? Is this hard for people? Really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Dude, just let it go. He has his opinion and is not to be swayed.

Except yours don't add up to reality. I already explained how bad your list would fare against 3 Knights with wrap. It gets even worse with 5 Knights lined up. Is it so hard to admit that your precious little list folds against a certain list?

 Zewrath wrote:

From wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Yes, yes but I don't give a hoot about the multiple assault crap. As I said it's irrelevant now.
3 Knights will delete 4-6 5-man squads on average per turn. On average you can expect 4 extra drop pods the next round, all of which are incapable of doing jack against the Knights and will die at the same pace as they enter the board, unless they are dropped far away, in which case the Knights will use their turn to easily clean 3-5 drop pods. Fast forward to turn 3 and the Knights will just go around the map and clear up the useless remains of the drop pods / MSU units, while quite possibly holding objectives meanwhile, due to their fast movement
I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone fails to see this.

You are grossly overvaluing knights. Where are you pulling this 4-6 figure from? Do you visualize your opponent placing his marines in opportune positions for you to clear 4-6 a turn? Is the battlefield in your minds eye a barren wasteland devoid of all LOS blocking terrain?

With multiple battle cannons, ap3 rocket launchers and ap3 rending Gatling cannons on squads that the person claims that he will land near the Knights? Is this hard for people? Really?

Of course, we are incorrect. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 pretre wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

From wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Yes, yes but I don't give a hoot about the multiple assault crap. As I said it's irrelevant now.
3 Knights will delete 4-6 5-man squads on average per turn. On average you can expect 4 extra drop pods the next round, all of which are incapable of doing jack against the Knights and will die at the same pace as they enter the board, unless they are dropped far away, in which case the Knights will use their turn to easily clean 3-5 drop pods. Fast forward to turn 3 and the Knights will just go around the map and clear up the useless remains of the drop pods / MSU units, while quite possibly holding objectives meanwhile, due to their fast movement
I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone fails to see this.

You are grossly overvaluing knights. Where are you pulling this 4-6 figure from? Do you visualize your opponent placing his marines in opportune positions for you to clear 4-6 a turn? Is the battlefield in your minds eye a barren wasteland devoid of all LOS blocking terrain?

With multiple battle cannons, ap3 rocket launchers and ap3 rending Gatling cannons on squads that the person claims that he will land near the Knights? Is this hard for people? Really?

Of course, we are incorrect. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I know. Thank you. Here's a treat.

From wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Yes, yes but I don't give a hoot about the multiple assault crap. As I said it's irrelevant now.
3 Knights will delete 4-6 5-man squads on average per turn. On average you can expect 4 extra drop pods the next round, all of which are incapable of doing jack against the Knights and will die at the same pace as they enter the board, unless they are dropped far away, in which case the Knights will use their turn to easily clean 3-5 drop pods. Fast forward to turn 3 and the Knights will just go around the map and clear up the useless remains of the drop pods / MSU units, while quite possibly holding objectives meanwhile, due to their fast movement
I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone fails to see this.

You are grossly overvaluing knights. Where are you pulling this 4-6 figure from? Do you visualize your opponent placing his marines in opportune positions for you to clear 4-6 a turn? Is the battlefield in your minds eye a barren wasteland devoid of all LOS blocking terrain?

When presenting a hypothetical scenario that involves 'unbeatable army A' vs. the 'lolz actually sucks army B', army 'A' always has perfect positioning & LoS while army 'B' is always in perfect clumped-up formation for maximum damage, and the game is played entirely on Planet Bowling Ball.

And with that we should probably shift the list building debates to the appropriate sub-fourm.

Thanks!