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 recently I have come across some game clubs that have been going off a supposed Ard Boyz finals ruling reguarding a Multi Assault. While I have never personally seen it played differently then my view of one of the options below, I am hearing now of several areas that are going with the Ard Boyz ruling. I wanted to bring this to the community at large and see if the differing opinion was on a wider scale then what I thought.

So with that, the options.

OPTION A: When attempting a multiple assault you first move closest to closest on the declared target unit. Once this is done you may freely move models from the assaulting unit into a seperate unit(s) (ie not the one originally declared) as long as you maintain unit coherancy.

OPTION B: When attempting a mutiple assault you first move closest to closest on the declared target unit. Once this is done you must then move as many of the assaulting models into base contact with the target unit as possible. Once every model in range of base to base of the target unit has been moved, then you may move models from the assaulting unit into base contact with a seperate unit(s) as long as you maintain unit coherancy.

OPTION C: Something else entirely. Please describe in your response.

Option A is how I play it, and how the rules say to do it.

Option B is a fairly common misinterpretation of the rules.

I've always played as A.

I checked the rules before voting, or reading the response or looking at the vote results, and I still came up with A. Seems pretty clear to me.

What was the 'Ard boys ruling?

Option A is correct.

Option B is correct if you happen to find yourself in a time machine that has traveled to 3rd edition.

Apperantly the Ard Boyz ruling was along the lines of Option B.

Personally I go with Option A.

A is correct, how it is played everywhere I can think of in the UK, and follows the rules exactly

Another "me to" for option A.

Bullets 2, 3, and 4 on pg.34 only mention "enemy model" without ever placing a restriction on which unit said "enemy model" belongs to.

A.

Honestly thought it was B before I gave the rules a once-over. That makes multi-assaulting a bit easier...

Grakmar wrote:Option A is correct.

Option B is correct if you happen to find yourself in a time machine that has traveled to 3rd edition.

This. Third edition required engaging the first unit as completely as possible before engaging a second or subsequent units. 5th does not.

Although it's not 100% correct, as Option A as presented has a mistake in its phrasing:

OPTION A: When attempting a multiple assault you first move closest to closest on the declared target unit. Once this is done you may freely move models from the assaulting unit into a seperate unit(s) (ie not the one originally declared) as long as you maintain unit coherancy.

The last seven words should be replaced with "as long as you obey all the bulleted requirements on page 34" (of which coherency is but one).

If, for example, to engage the second unit you would need to build a "bridge" between the two enemy units of an assaulting model not in base contact, to maintain coherency, you could NOT legally do so if that model could have reached base contact with a model in the first declared target unit. You can only engage the second unit IF you are able to do so while obeying all the bullet points.