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.

There's a couple of things that trigger when a unit "wishes to assault" something or "attempts to assault" something. Do these trigger if they're not the declared assault target but get contacted during a multi-assault? The kinds of things I'm talking about are the Necron Seismic Crucible, Hive Tyrant's Indescribable Horror, and DE Torment Grenade Launchers. All of which can potentially make the assaulting unit fail its charge on the initial target.

My thinking is, yes, they do trigger if it looks like the unit is going to be able to actually make the multi-assault. The same as how if a unit declares a charge against a unit in the open but wants to try to multi-assault a unit in difficult terrain, it'll have to roll for it's assault distance and might not make the original charge.

Anyone else have an opinion/insight on this one?

I would say that the rule applies to the squad charging. It would seem horribly abusive to decalre a Charge on Target A. Multicharge Targets A+B, and not expect Target B's fancy gear to be of no use. Perhaps talk about it with your opponent, and agree that the squad charging suffers a partial effect. The half charging the guys with "defensive grenades" suffers the penalty, the half charging does not.

If you are multi-assaulting, and you hit Unit A, but then Unit B has something that affects your assault then yes, your assault will fail, even if you reached A just fine.

Something like Difficult Terrain can do this easily. Just like if Unit B has Pyschotroke grenades, your entire unit is affected, even the ones assaulting Unit A.

Yeah. Assaulting is one of the few things in 40k that can cause actual rollback of events.

So to ask a follw-up question. The Hive tyrant's indescribable horror and DE Torment Launchers basically work the same way (if you want to assault them you have to pass a Ld check otherwise you can't assault that turn). If you were to try to assault 2 or more units with one of these rules would it trigger twice and they'd have to pass a check for each one?

For example say a unit of Demo-Vets in a Vendetta are trying to pull a 1st turn scout assault and auto-hit a bunch of DE vehicles. If they're attempting to multi-charge 3 raiders with torment launchers, would they have to pass 3 separate Ld checks with a failure on any of them preventing them from assaulting at all that turn?

Luide wrote:Yeah. Assaulting is one of the few things in 40k that can cause actual rollback of events.

I'm not sure what you mean by a rollback of events. If you follow the assaulting moves correctly and in order, you can cause a situation that 'would have' caused a difficult terrain test, but doesn't.

And since there are no rules for moving models back to where they were, provided the move was legal, you can't retract your assault and it becomes a bit of a sneaky tactic.

Here's the thread concerning the issue: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/434903.page

DoW

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:So to ask a follw-up question. The Hive tyrant's indescribable horror and DE Torment Launchers basically work the same way (if you want to assault them you have to pass a Ld check otherwise you can't assault that turn). If you were to try to assault 2 or more units with one of these rules would it trigger twice and they'd have to pass a check for each one?

For example say a unit of Demo-Vets in a Vendetta are trying to pull a 1st turn scout assault and auto-hit a bunch of DE vehicles. If they're attempting to multi-charge 3 raiders with torment launchers, would they have to pass 3 separate Ld checks with a failure on any of them preventing them from assaulting at all that turn?

I would say yes. The Vets would have to pass a Ld check to assault the original one. Then, finding that they are in range to assault another, they would have to check again. If they fail the second one, they would not be able to assault either one (depending on the wording).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DogOfWar wrote:

Luide wrote:Yeah. Assaulting is one of the few things in 40k that can cause actual rollback of events.

I'm not sure what you mean by a rollback of events. If you follow the assaulting moves correctly and in order, you can cause a situation that 'would have' caused a difficult terrain test, but doesn't.

Not sure what you're getting at here. If you are assaulting a unit in the open, and find that some of your troops can make it to a secondary unit in cover, you must roll a difficult terrain test to reach the second squad if you decide to multi-charge. If you happen to roll snakeeyes, it is very possible that you can fail the assault on the first unit and must move everything back to where it was. Course, I guess you could anticipate having this multi-assault and go ahead and roll it, though.

DogOfWar wrote:

Luide wrote:Yeah. Assaulting is one of the few things in 40k that can cause actual rollback of events.

I'm not sure what you mean by a rollback of events. If you follow the assaulting moves correctly and in order, you can cause a situation that 'would have' caused a difficult terrain test, but doesn't.

And since there are no rules for moving models back to where they were, provided the move was legal, you can't retract your assault and it becomes a bit of a sneaky tactic.

Here's the thread concerning the issue: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/434903.page

DoW

That thread has zero bearing on the question at hand.
If you make a charge normally, then decide to multi-charge, and the multi-charge causes a difficult terrain test/special ability test that is failed the entire assault is negated.
You can either a) assume the game breaks, shake hands and start over or b) move the models back with a failed assault.

You cannot bypass a difficult terrain test by assaulting a unit out of cover, then assaulting one in cover.
You can bypass a difficult terrain test by assaulting a unit out of cover, moving models that would have to make DT tests, then assaulting a second unit.

rigeld2 wrote:That thread has zero bearing on the question at hand.
If you make a charge normally, then decide to multi-charge, and the multi-charge causes a difficult terrain test/special ability test that is failed the entire assault is negated.
You can either a) assume the game breaks, shake hands and start over or b) move the models back with a failed assault.

You cannot bypass a difficult terrain test by assaulting a unit out of cover, then assaulting one in cover.
You can bypass a difficult terrain test by assaulting a unit out of cover, moving models that would have to make DT tests, then assaulting a second unit.

Hmm, I thought that was exactly what was being discussed here. I'll have to go ahead and read that thread again to make sure.

I do not agree with you that if you take a DT test halfway through an assault you must move the models back and treat the entire assault as failed. That is overly dramatic imho.

However, taking a DT test on the models that are actually going to move through DT seems reasonable and, if failed, would make sense to prevent a multi-assault. That 'feels' right, even if it's not supported by any rules (although I may have missed it, only human, after all).

Again, this is all discussed as nauseum in the thread I linked and probably doesn't need to be re-hashed.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

I do not agree with you that if you take a DT test halfway through an assault you must move the models back and treat the entire assault as failed. That is overly dramatic imho.

You must move at the speed of your slowest model. If the slowest model in the unit can only move 1" (because of a poor DT roll), then how is the other half of your unit moving 6" to get into assault? That is breaking the rules.

Technically, it should be rolled before you move any models, but multi-assaults are tricky that way.

puma713 wrote:[You must move at the speed of your slowest model. If the slowest model in the unit can only move 1" (because of a poor DT roll), then how is the other half of your unit moving 6" to get into assault? That is breaking the rules.

Technically, it should be rolled before you move any models, but multi-assaults are tricky that way.

Well exactly. If you've already moved some models, it's strange to go back and re-move them. Feels like re-rolling a re-roll.

Which is why I understand the logic behind rolling it before any movement. Would be much simpler if you had to declare any and all charges before making any movements.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

puma713 wrote:[You must move at the speed of your slowest model. If the slowest model in the unit can only move 1" (because of a poor DT roll), then how is the other half of your unit moving 6" to get into assault? That is breaking the rules.

Technically, it should be rolled before you move any models, but multi-assaults are tricky that way.

Well exactly. If you've already moved some models, it's strange to go back and re-move them. Feels like re-rolling a re-roll.

Which is why I understand the logic behind rolling it before any movement. Would be much simpler if you had to declare any and all charges before making any movements.

And if, during movement, you figure out a way to avoid the terrain test using clever placement? Do you "un roll" the dice - because making the test is all that's required for dropping your init.
And how would you handle mandatory movement - you have one model that's closer to both target units than any other model in the unit - which one does he assault?

There's more issues with pre-delcaring everything than there is without.