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.

Hey all, quick question. I had two vindicators lined up with the back ends touching, but the fronts facing different dirrections by about 3 inches (like this: \/ ). Opponent charges with squad of 6 termies, and claims Multi-Assault. He then moves towards me (within the 6" move), and spreads his THs out so that the squad is in coherency, but 3 are in base contact with each Vindicator. So, in the end, he had a line of termies across my vindicators. He resolved 3 TH against each, and wound up destroying them both. This okay/legal?

..TH.....TH................TH......TH
VVVVVVVV..TH.....TH..VVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVV.............VVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVVV.........VVVVVVVVV
.VVVVVVVVVV......VVVVVVVVV
..VVVVVVVVVVV..VVVVVVVVV

V for Vindicator, TH for location of termies.

Charging is nearest to nearest. As long as he followed that, its perfectly fine.

Khe-Loc wrote:Charging is nearest to nearest. As long as he followed that, its perfectly fine.

First model has to be nearest to nearest. Every one else can move their distance as they like so long as ... a) it brings them into B2B or B) moves them closer to the enemy.

And C) maintains coherency.

I'll just add that.

ceorron wrote:
And C) maintains coherency.

I'll just add that.

knew there was a C) ... good catch

Tri wrote:

Khe-Loc wrote:Charging is nearest to nearest. As long as he followed that, its perfectly fine.

First model has to be nearest to nearest. Every one else can move their distance as they like so long as ... a) it brings them into B2B or B) moves them closer to the enemy.

Ok didn´t know that... thanks

Also he does not need to declare a multicharge, he just has to move his models appropriately within the rules to engage multiple enemies.

Tri wrote: B) moves them closer to the enemy.

This is actually not in the rules anywhere.

Nothing says you must move closer to the enemy.

1. Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the closest one to the enemy.
2. Each model you move into assault must end it's move within 2" of a model that has already moved into assault.
3. If you can reach an unengaged model, you must do so
4. If you can't do 2, but can reach an enganged model, you must do so
5. If you can't do 3, you must follow 1

If you can not reach a model from the enemy unit you must simply keep coherency, this could end up taking you further away from the unit you are assaulting then you started.

DeathReaper wrote:
2. Each model you move into assault must end it's move within 2" of a model that has already moved into assault.

4. If you can't do 2, but can reach an enganged model, you must do so

Nevermind. I misread what you wrote.

DeathReaper wrote:

Tri wrote: B) moves them closer to the enemy.

This is actually not in the rules anywhere.

Nothing says you must move closer to the enemy.

... To quote word and verse " If a model can cannot get into B2B with the enemy then he must move within 2" of its own units models that is already in B2B" and if you can do even this then at least keep coherency.

While I will admit that isn't the same, the effect is almost identical. The whole unit will end up getting closer to the enemy.

See post below

That tail of 4 marines would be illegal... they should have moved up to within 2" of the models in base contact, which in your example they certainly appear to have the range to do.

insaniak wrote:That tail of 4 marines would be illegal... they should have moved up to within 2" of the models in base contact, which in your example they certainly appear to have the range to do.

Not the whole unit, in fact some models may well end up quite far away from the enemy that was assaulted.

The black box is a building, the black lines show the movement of the assault marines against a Hive tyrant.

As you can see some marines can end up further away than where they started, though this is a rare situation it can come up in games.

Edit: the image on the left of the red box is before the marines move.

To the right of the red box we have the marines before they assault, and the lines showing where they move in relation to the Hive Tyrant and the building.

It is hard to tell distances with the diagram, but the tail of marines did not have the movement to get around the three marines that are within 2" of the marines in B2B

Edit Fixed the picture

There's room for them in between the 2nd rank. One right over on the left, two in between the 3 2nd rank models, and the guy who was rear-most on the irght in the starting diagram looks to have range to fit on around on the right...

not as far as vassals range rules is concerned, there is less than a base size between the marines in the second row, so the farther marines cant get through there.

And the 7th guy (The one that starts the chain) moved from the far left side so he could not make it to within 2 inches of a marine in B2B

I am not a graphic artist so it is tough to show exactly what I mean through the picture.

DeathReaper wrote:not as far as vassals range rules is concerned, there is less than a base size between the marines in the second row, so the farther marines cant get through there.

They don't need to get right up in between... you only have a base width between the 2nd rank and the guys in base contact. So you only need another model's base to stick partly into the gap between the 2nd rank models for it to be within 2" of the BTB guys.

Try running vehicle squadrons, they don't even to to be base to base. Hits are distributed. Painful.

Byte wrote:Try running vehicle squadrons, they don't even to to be base to base. Hits are distributed. Painful.

That's exactly how it works for all multiple-model units, though...

Particular painful to vehicle units however. A unit of basilisks/LRs/vendettas etc. vs wolf scouts in the back field with melta bombs = pain.

Wait, so you just allocate hits like wounds in a multi assault on a squadron? As in, you get four pentrating hits on three vehicles in a squadron and each gets one and then another for one more?

Does that essentially mean that if its a squadron, then there is no need to multi assault?

Correct.

Ooops...

I know someone that is not going to be very happy with my interpretation of that rule previously!

Cheers!

Jihadnik wrote:Ooops...

I know someone that is not going to be very happy with my interpretation of that rule previously!

Cheers!

LoL Nothing is stopping them from chargin the other tank in the squadron if they so wish, however other than the possible extra movement there's no point

More correctly, there is no 'need' to multi-assault because you're assaulting a single vehicle unit... The entire squadron is a single unit, and damage from the assault is distributed just as it would be for any other unit.

@DeathReaper ... Thats some what of a stretch and it fails to follow all the rules ... "Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible - no holding back!"

Since I could get that whole squad into combat you have failed to follow that basic rule.

No, the squad in the pic was too far away to get all of them into combat, Even though the distances look odd because its just a (Badly) drawn situation.

The 3 in B2B with the Hive tyrant were able to make it, but the 3 just behind them were not in range to the HT's Base so they just had to get within 2" of someone in B2B, and they did so, but there was not any room to get anyone else into 2" range, so they just had to maintain coherency, which they did.

DeathReaper wrote:No, the squad in the pic was too far away to get all of them into combat, Even though the distances look odd because its just a (Badly) drawn situation.

The 3 in B2B with the Hive tyrant were able to make it, but the 3 just behind them were not in range to the HT's Base so they just had to get within 2" of someone in B2B, and they did so, but there was not any room to get anyone else into 2" range, so they just had to maintain coherency, which they did.

However its clear since they didn't move up as close as possible they were holding back. Also from your picture I could get at least 2 more into combat by moving them into the gaps. (May be even all three by squeezing up to the rhino)

His point is still clear, isn't it? No need to nitpick on the picture now.

Jidmah wrote:His point is still clear, isn't it? No need to nitpick on the picture now.

I wasn't. If you read all of the charge text, you're not meant to hold back your troops ... If they're ending up further away from the combat you've done something wrong and are holding them back.

Tri wrote:I wasn't. If you read all of the charge text, you're not meant to hold back your troops ... If they're ending up further away from the combat you've done something wrong and are holding them back.

They can end up further away without breaking any of the movement rules on Page 34.

The rules on P.34 give us the info on the constraints of the movement when we make our assault move.

They do not have to move as close as possible, nowhere in the rules for moving assaulting units does it say this.

The gaps between the models in the pic were about 5/16ths of an inch wide. The first row was in B2B witht the bug, the second row had the very front edge of the base 1.9" away from the guys in B2B. the rest could not reach B2B, nor could they reach within 2" of someone in B2B so they simply had to maintain coherency.