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.

Redacted

Augustus wrote:In short, can a unit (assumed on 1 inch bases), ever multicharge more than one enemy if they are >4 inches apart at the shortest point?

They can, but because of the requirements that apply to moving assaulting models, it requires a fairly specific sort of set up and movement selection.

Does one have to declare multi assault targets before moving?

No, there is no requirement in the rules to declare a multi-assault. You declare your initial assault, and can move models after the first onto anybody in range, provided that you follow the rules for moving assaulting models (finishing in base contact if possible, in coherency, etc).

What happens if a multi assault is declared and can not be geometrically completed beyond the primary target?

Not an issue, as above.

Is there any way to put models "in between" to maintain coherency?

Not sure what you mean here. Each model that moves has to finish its movement in coherency with a model that has previously moved. You can move a model off in a different direction and then later move another model in to regain coherency.

The Dark Eldar assault phase starts like this, the red lines are 6 inches, can they charge all 3 targets? What would the process be for moving the models and what would the end of the move look like?

From looking at the spacing, you possibly could engage all three if you declared the initial assault against the top rhino. It would take some very careful movement though, as you're restricted in how you move the models by the assault rules. They have to finish their movement in base contact if possible, but also in coherency with a previously moved model. If unable to do that, they have to finish their movement within 2" of a previously moved model in base contact. It's only if they are unable to do that that you can start to 'build bridges' to other units that are more than a couple of inches away.

It's doable, but not as easy as many players think if the proper process is actually followed.

You never "declare" a multicharge. No requirement is given in the rules for multiassaults

AS long as you follow the bullet points given for assault moves, you can assault any target. So, if you move models that cannot make base to base after the initial model, you can "bridge" the gap between units. Just remember you cannot move through the bases of other models to do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:...AS long as you follow the bullet points given for assault moves, you can assault any target..

Aren't 2 of the bullet points for charging that unengaged enemy models be engaged where possible AND that failing that basing engaged models afterward is also necessary?

No, if you cannot make it into base you must attempt to get engaged if you can.

Right, and that's what make it impossible to leave strung out models behind, because if they could move into 'engaged' places, they have to.

Augustus wrote:Right, and that's what make it impossible to leave strung out models behind, because if they could move into 'engaged' places, they have to.

It is sometimes not possible to get models into B2B, and sometimes even impossible to get them engaged (Rare but it happens) so at least you have to simply maintain coherency.

This is now you can leave models strung out.

Augustus wrote:Right, and that's what make it impossible to leave strung out models behind, because if they could move into 'engaged' places, they have to.

Keep in mind that after the first model, there is no specific order in which you have to move your models.

So in your example, if you declare the charge against the top tank, you would first move the closest model into base contact with that tank.
You then move the third guy, into contact with the tank's back corner.
Then, you move the guy 6th or 7th down from the top. He moves towards the tank, but can't reach it, so just has to move to within 2" of one of the two previously moved models. So you put him 2" away from the guy on the rear corner, in the space between the tanks.

Then move a guy a bit further down, who is too far away to make it to within 2" of either of the models in contact with the tank. He can be placed anywhere within 2" of the model in between the two tanks.

By that point, you should have enough of a chain across the gap between the tanks that you can move one of the closer models directly onto the second tank.

Rinse and repeat this procedure to fill the gap between the second tank and the Space Wolves.

I can't really place this without exact measurements but you have to move closest to closest, after that you move only models that can't make it into base to base OR within 2" of an engaged model. These models form your bridge.



The yellow line is the direction that the 4th model should take, if that makes sense.

Augustus wrote:Right, and that's what make it impossible to leave strung out models behind, because if they could move into 'engaged' places, they have to.

Except you didnt read everything i wrote: you move the modes further away that cannot make btb and cannot get engaged to form the bridge, as the only requirement THEY are under is to maintain coherency.

It is entirely possible and 100% legal to multicharge in this way, but it requires *very* careful movement / shooting phase positiioning and a strict adherence to the bullet points.

Worth pointing out is that you brought up the 'unengaged models' thing - I'm assuming from that that you meant that since the infantry are 'unengaged' you'd have to move into them first (which would violate the the requirement to be in coherency with the models assaulting the Rhinos), but as you don't declare multiple assaults so much as just move into them when convenient the SW are irrelevant until the point where you've assaulted them, at which juncture the careful movement to bridge the gaps should already have taken place.

"unengaged models" - from the unit(s) you are assaulting. As you say, until you make btb with an engage-able model you are not required to move into the infantry in preference to anything else.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The yellow line is the direction that the 4th model should take, if that makes sense.

Thanks for drawing in some more!

The yellow line and the green one above it are the problems.

Remember the bullet points still apply for moving subsequent models after the first, you have to try and get engaged where possible and that yellow line example who needs to be moved to keep the chain (in whatever order) can't legally make that move because he would have to be engaged with something, by bullet point 3 (I think, I really need to go quote that little bit about reaching engaged). That model could engage the squad at the bottom and breaks the rule of moving into 'engaged' status by running into no combat in the middle of nowhere.

I don't think multi charge is impossible, but when the targets are farther apart than 4 inches (with normal size bases) then it can be, like this example.

insaniak wrote:

Augustus wrote:...So in your example, if you declare the charge against the top tank, you would first move the closest model into base contact with that tank.
You then move the third guy, into contact with the tank's back corner.
Then, you move the guy 6th or 7th down from the top. He moves towards the tank, but can't reach it, so just has to move to within 2" of one of the two previously moved models. So you put him 2" away from the guy on the rear corner, in the space between the tanks.

Then move a guy a bit further down, who is too far away to make it to within 2" of either of the models in contact with the tank. He can be placed anywhere within 2" of the model in between the two tanks....

That's where I think the error is insaniak, if that happened the tennant of moving into engaged where possible would break because the 6th model could have moved to be 'engaged' with the rhino but instead runs into an unengaged spot to maintain the chain and breaks (what I think is) point 3 in moving models.

I agree about the sequence first closest, then in any order as long as the coherency is maintained, but the the bullet points to still base enemy models where possible AND get engaged (in 2 inches) where possible still apply, and leaving the chain guy out breaks that last one.

The bullet point does not say to base as many models as possible, that is where you are getting confused. It says a model that you move must try to get into base contact if possible with first an unengaged model and second an engaged model.

Since the bullets are only applied one model at a time, you have a lot of freedom to work within those rules if you are creative.

calypso2ts wrote:...Since the bullets are only applied one model at a time, you have a lot of freedom to work within those rules if you are creative.

What? No they apply when moving all assault models. The only creativity involved is if you ignore them, the bad kind.

Augustus wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:...Since the bullets are only applied one model at a time, you have a lot of freedom to work within those rules if you are creative.

What? No they apply when moving all assault models. The only creativity involved is if you ignore them, the bad kind.

If he had not, just prior, written:

calypso2ts wrote:The bullet point does not say to base as many models as possible, that is where you are getting confused.

This would make sense.

He did, and it is correct.

But the bullet actually does say that, 'contact enemy models where possible', and 'get engaged where possible'.

It's not just free open ended moves.

It doesn't say, contact enemy models if you want to and end up in melee if you so chose or go wherever else you want.

That's the point, you can't move a model just to maintain coherency when it could be moved into base somewhere, or into 2 inch engaged status somewhere.

I wish I had my book here to quote the bullet points, anyone got it handy?

When moving a model it must get into contact if possible.
If a previous move makes that impossible, it is within the rules.

kirsanth wrote:When moving a model it must get into contact if possible.
If a previous move makes that impossible, it is within the rules.

As my understanding goes this is true. When assaulting, you must satisfy as many conditions as are physically possible with each move, but by strategically moving individual models you can dictate which conditions are fulfillable.

If I remember correctly, the bullet points for assault moves are addressed specifically to models being moved, not units, so it does leave room open for creative assaults.

That being said, it's pretty darn difficult to pull off while still following the rules.

Saldiven wrote:If I remember correctly, the bullet points for assault moves are addressed specifically to models being moved, not units, so it does leave room open for creative assaults.

That being said, it's pretty darn difficult to pull off while still following the rules.

difficult but not impossible, usually the way people pull it off is coherency shenanigans.

Isn't there a specific clause that states you must end each model's movement in unit coherency with one of the models that has already moved?

Pretty much prevents most of the shenanigans being proposed...

The Green Git wrote:Isn't there a specific clause that states you must end each model's movement in unit coherency with one of the models that has already moved?

Pretty much prevents most of the shenanigans being proposed...

actually no it doesn't, that clause is the very thing allowing you to multichargewith strung out models. Because you use the models that can't engage to string coherency between two units. They get their 6" move and in the process allow you to reach multiple units while still unable to engage on their own.

This is how you do it.

Move in this order.

1 Is closest to closest.
2 Tryes to get into base contact but is too far out to reach base contact. (creating the bridge for later use).
3-6 Get into base contact with tank 1.
7 Engages tank 2 because it cant reach tank 1.
8-10 Engage tank 2 and build the chain because they can't get into contact with either.
11-15 Engage the wolves.

Without exact measurments it is hard to be exact.
I could always use 8 (being 3rd to move) to help 2 build the bridge if needed too.

Pied_Piper11 wrote:This is how you do it.

Move in this order.

1 Is closest to closest.
2 Tryes to get into base contact but is too far out to reach base contact. (creating the bridge for later use).
3-6 Get into base contact with tank 1.
7 Engages tank 2 because it cant reach tank 1.
8-10 Engage tank 2 and build the chain because they can't get into contact with either.
11-15 Engage the wolves.

Without exact measurments it is hard to be exact.
I could always use 8 (being 3rd to move) to help 2 build the bridge if needed too.

I'm not sure this is quite right...If I see the diagram correctly you don't have coherency to 1 after you move 2. Remember that you have to be in coherency with another model that has already moved this turn. It's not coherency with the other models that haven't moved.

Augustus wrote:That's where I think the error is insaniak, if that happened the tennant of moving into engaged where possible would break because the 6th model could have moved to be 'engaged' with the rhino but instead runs into an unengaged spot to maintain the chain and breaks (what I think is) point 3 in moving models.

My list wasn't exact, because I was guessing at distances based on eyeballing the picture. So my list was based on the assumption that #6 isn't close enough to base the tank. The principle remains the same if that's not the case... it's just a case of figuring out which models are best to move when. If 6 is too close, you move the next model down at that step instead.

If a model has sufficient movement to move into base contact, he has to.
If not, he has to move to within 2" of a based model that has already moved... but he doesn't have to move as close as possible, just to within 2".
And if that's not possible, he just has to move to within 2" of a previously moved model... and again, doesn't have to move as close as possible, just to within 2".

It's those last two point, combined with careful choice of which model to move next, that allows for the bridge-building.

I've just thrown a little something together that demonstrates how it can be done - I don't have any rhinos on me, though, so a drop pod will have to do.
Here.

This is Better I think.

1-4 assault tank 1.
5-6 build bridge.
7-8 assault tank 2.
(forgot 9)
10-12 build bridge.
13-16 assailt wolves.

(on a side note where did you get the icons for the diagram?)

[img]

Augustus wrote:In short, can a unit (assumed on 1 inch bases), ever multicharge more than one enemy if they are >4 inches apart at the shortest point?

Does one have to declare multi assault targets before moving?

What happens if a multi assault is declared and can not be geometrically completed beyond the primary target?

Is there any way to put models "in between" to maintain coherency?

As a specific example:



The Dark Eldar assault phase starts like this, the red lines are 6 inches, can they charge all 3 targets? What would the process be for moving the models and what would the end of the move look like?

Assuming you fired your poison weapons at the wolves, as that is all they could effect, the only forced movement is the closest one to the target( the unit that you fired at) which would either be the 3rd or 4th DE on the bottom left. Then you could move the rest to maintain coherency and get the others in range to assault. I am assuming we are talking wyches because otherwise you're going to flail away ineffectively at the rhinos. You should be able - through proper placement to burn two figs on maintaining coherency between each target but still get them into the combat.

So I end up with 5 on the wolves, 6 on the middle rhino and 4 on the far (top) rhino. If we are talking anything kalabites, just charge the wolves, if we are talking beasts you could still go after all 3. Anything else and your unit size is too big.

Augustus wrote:But the bullet actually does say that, 'contact enemy models where possible', and 'get engaged where possible'.

As Kirsanth pointed out, I did not say it was open ended moves. There are precise rules governing them, on a per model basis. You cannot just extract those phrases from the bullets. For example, 'The model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach...'

This refers to a singular model, and does not require you to either base as many models as possible or to engage as many models as possible. It does say 'If you follow this sequence you will end up with all the models in the assaulting unit in unit coherency, having engaged as many models as possible with as many assaulting models as possible'

This, however, is not a rule it is a description of the results which is true for the section it is written for (a unit assaulting a single unit). Multi-assaults, however, are outlined in the next paragraph and this statement cannot be taken to apply to them.