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.

I've been having some thoughts lately about a multi assault tactic my mate uses with his Genestealers. After reading the rules I don't think he can do this trick. Lets say there is 11 Genestealers in a unit and they are assaulting two tanks, the tanks are 3" apart from each other. He places 5 Genestealers in base contact with each tank and then the remaining Genestealer in between the two tanks (not in base contact) to 'bridge the gap' and keep the unit in coherncy.

Checking on the assault rules it says all models must move into base contact if they can and any other models must move up 6" to support them. This Genestealer not in base contact surely isn't right, as that model should be in base contact (as it can reach a enemy unit) or should move up with the other Genestealer models.

Can he do the multi assaults how he has been doing them?

Yes, if he has placed his stealers correctly

The trick is to move the models further away from the tank near the start of the assault move, to base the tank nearest them. You then ensure that one of the closer models cannot get into base, and moves to one side of the existing stealers, forming the bridge - still within 2" so he gets to attack, as required if he can - and the stealers who were closer in should have enough movement to get across to the new tank, getting in base to base.

Can be done, requires you to actually think about assault moves carefully

He doesn't do it like that, but I get what you mean.

As Nos said, you can only do this with some careful setup. You need one model to be >6" away from the tanks (or more) so that it can build the coherency bridge and it not compelled to get into base contact with them.

Yeah, it's possible... but if he's doing it as described in the first post (moving models onto both tanks and then moving the final 'stealer into the gap to restore coherency) then he's doing it wrong. After the first assaulting model has moved, you have to finish each subsequent model's movement in coherency with a previously moved model from the same unit. You can't break coherency to multi-assault a different unit, and you can't move models to form a bridge if they could be moved into base contact instead.

As has been said.

You had to have moved them into a position so they could multi-assault while maintaining coherency while in the movement phase. You can make the silly move in the assault phase and then adjust them into coherency.

You have to be careful, because a lot of players will simply move the multi-assault into position without actually showing you how they did it. Instead, they simpy shrug it off and say, "We know it's possible." I hate that - it is lazy and it can affect the outcome of an assault. I make my opponents move each model and show me that they are in coherency with a model already in assault by the end of their move. It may seem annoying to my opponent, but otherwise they will not learn that you can't simply push all your models into an assault and hope it was legal.

It is sort of like disembarking 8" away from your transport. Don't be lazy. Play the game correctly. Place the models around transport, then move them 6". You may find that you can't fit through somewhere you originally thought you could.

Although, if you tanks are 3' apart and hes got a Gene on the front Left and front right of the tanks, each base is what, 1inch. so would be your 2' coherency.
3'in
TANK_____TANK
XXXXX___XXXXX
1'in between bases

This is good to know, will have to keep an eye on this in future