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 the FAQ that came out today remove the restriction on maintaining coherence when making assault moves.
http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Warhammer_40000_Rules_EN.pdf

So, is it now legal to do a multi assault that completely takes you out of coherence. See the picture for clarity.



ETA: Very happy that my initial interpretation was wrong. DJ3 explained in detail the correct usage of this FAQ item here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/635277.page#7584357

The FAQ only gives you permsission to break coherency if it is not possible to end your movement in coherency.

So no, your example is not legal.

Pretty much.

 insaniak wrote:
The FAQ only gives you permsission to break coherency if it is not possible to end your movement in coherency.

So no, your example is not legal.

If I perform that multi-assault, it is not possible to end my charge movement in coherency.

Are you saying that there is some reason that I can't perform that multi-assault? Because before, the reasoning was that there was no way to maintain coherency.

It is not saying you don't need coherence, it's simply clarifying as you move each charger if you cannot make it to a new model the fall in behind one that has already moved. At no time are you allowed to break coherency.

Just go reread it.

tag8833 wrote:
Are you saying that there is some reason that I can't perform that multi-assault? .

Two of them. For one, you can move the model in such a way as to maintain coherency... you're not required to perform a multi-assault, that's a choice you make. So ending your movement out of coherency is a choice you are making, not a result of ending your movement in coherency being impossible.

For two, (given the specific example you have provided) if your initial assault is against the gaunts and you have rolled at leas 7" of charge movement, your second model has enough movement to get into base contact with a gaunt. You can only move a charger onto a second unit if it can not reach base contact with the primary target.

 insaniak wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
Are you saying that there is some reason that I can't perform that multi-assault? .

Two of them. For one, you can move the model in such a way as to maintain coherency... you're not required to perform a multi-assault, that's a choice you make. So ending your movement out of coherency is a choice you are making, not a result of ending your movement in coherency being impossible.

For two, (given the specific example you have provided) if your initial assault is against the gaunts and you have rolled at leas 7" of charge movement, your second model has enough movement to get into base contact with a gaunt. You can only move a charger onto a second unit if it can not reach base contact with the primary target.

Reason 2 isn't quite right. When making a multi-assault charge move, you move the closest model into base with the primary target. Then if the charge range is sufficient, you move the model closest to the secondary tartget into base with it. No matter who is the primary target, a charge of 7" or more would succeed provided you don't have to maintain coherency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lungpickle wrote:
It is not saying you don't need coherence, it's simply clarifying as you move each charger if you cannot make it to a new model the fall in behind one that has already moved. At no time are you allowed to break coherency.

Just go reread it.

"If possible, a charging model must end its charge move in unit coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved. If it is not possible for a charging model to move and maintain unit coherency, move it as close as possible to another model in its own unit that has already moved instead"

It looks to me like it allows a lack of unit coherency when making a charge move. What situations would result in a failure to maintain unit coherency when making a charge move that don't involve weird multi assaults?

tag8833 wrote:
Reason 2 isn't quite right. When making a multi-assault charge move, you move the closest model into base with the primary target. Then if the charge range is sufficient, you move the model closest to the secondary tartget into base with it.

Yeah, that's my bad. Apparently declaring multiple charges changed from 6th to 7th ed, and I never noticed

What situations would result in a failure to maintain unit coherency when making a charge move that don't involve weird multi assaults?

Moving around obstacles, primarily.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Pile Ins follow the same rules as moving chargers, and weirdness can ensue as coherency is lost due to casualties from round to round.

 insaniak wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
What situations would result in a failure to maintain unit coherency when making a charge move that don't involve weird multi assaults?

Moving around obstacles, primarily.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Pile Ins follow the same rules as moving chargers, and weirdness can ensue as coherency is lost due to casualties from round to round.

If you start in Coherence than moving around obstacles won't take you out of coherence unless the obstacle is an upward move of more than 6", and I can barely fathom that GW would acknowledge that such a thing exists.

However you second idea is very compelling, and I think you have constructed a reasonable scenario where this rules FAQ still precludes the charge in my initial posting. If the rules FAQ was created to address taking causalities from overwatch and Close Combat, then it makes perfect sense.

In all my time playing, and Judging 40k, I have never heard an argument that this part of the FAQ would solve, but I prefer a world where it doesn't open up 40k to a whole new breed of mulit-assault abuses.

move it as close as possible to another model in its own unit that has already moved instead

This statement. The first model gets into close combat with unit A. The second model wants to assault unit B. The second model needs to move as close as possible to the first model though, meaning that you'd go against this if you have the second model attack unit B.

What I'm getting from this is that weird terrain scenarios can pop up, such as buildings that have more than 2" between each floor. Using the regular rules, you wouldn't be allowed to have half of a unit climb to the second floor and have the other half sit on the ground floor because they can't fit, as that would break coherency.

tag8833 wrote:
In all my time playing, and Judging 40k, I have never heard an argument that this part of the FAQ would solve, but I prefer a world where it doesn't open up 40k to a whole new breed of mulit-assault abuses.

And this mindset is where a vast proportion of the rules misinterpretations we hear come from in the first place. "I can't think of anything this rule does, so it must do this other thing, right?"

The new rule changes virtually nothing about the multi-assault rules; you are still required, if at all possible, to move models in the exact same manner we've always been moving them. It does not suddenly allow impossible multi-assaults; it's not as if the coherency rules suddenly disappeared--hell, the coherency rules are literally in the same updated FAQ sentence.

The only situation the new rules will be called into use are when casualties occur during a charge move that cause a unit to lose coherency. Previously, you could have made the argument that a unit losing coherency during a charge move due to casualties suffered as part of that move would no longer be able to make the charge at all, as they no longer meet the criteria for Moving Assaulting Models maintaining coherency at the end of each move.

The most likely causes of this are:

1). A multi-Overwatch from multiple angles (due to either a multi-charge or Tau shenanigans)
2). A single Overwatch causing out-of-order casualties (such as due to Look Out Sir)
3). Deaths caused by Dangerous Terrain

In any of the above situations, imagine a unit spread out in a line at maximum coherency. Imagine that one of the above situations causes the second model in line to die, and the charge distance rolled is exactly enough for the first model to make contact with the assault target.

This would result in the first model making base contact, the second model dying (because of Overwatch from another angle/Dangerous Terrain/the first guy LOS'd it to him), and the third model being 5"+ behind the first model after the charge move. Previously, this would have been an illegal charge. Now, it is perfectly acceptable.

I see no other situations that would call this FAQ into use, and while there certainly may be some, it's definitely not a license to go assaulting out of coherency whenever you feel like it.

 kingbobbito wrote:

move it as close as possible to another model in its own unit that has already moved instead

This statement. The first model gets into close combat with unit A. The second model wants to assault unit B. The second model needs to move as close as possible to the first model though, meaning that you'd go against this if you have the second model attack unit B.

What I'm getting from this is that weird terrain scenarios can pop up, such as buildings that have more than 2" between each floor. Using the regular rules, you wouldn't be allowed to have half of a unit climb to the second floor and have the other half sit on the ground floor because they can't fit, as that would break coherency.

Coherence is 2" and 6" vertically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DJ3 wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
In all my time playing, and Judging 40k, I have never heard an argument that this part of the FAQ would solve, but I prefer a world where it doesn't open up 40k to a whole new breed of mulit-assault abuses.

And this mindset is where a vast proportion of the rules misinterpretations we hear come from in the first place. "I can't think of anything this rule does, so it must do this other thing, right?"

The new rule changes virtually nothing about the multi-assault rules; you are still required, if at all possible, to move models in the exact same manner we've always been moving them. It does not suddenly allow impossible multi-assaults; it's not as if the coherency rules suddenly disappeared--hell, the coherency rules are literally in the same updated FAQ sentence.

The only situation the new rules will be called into use are when casualties occur during a charge move that cause a unit to lose coherency. Previously, you could have made the argument that a unit losing coherency during a charge move due to casualties suffered as part of that move would no longer be able to make the charge at all, as they no longer meet the criteria for Moving Assaulting Models maintaining coherency at the end of each move.

The most likely causes of this are:

1). A multi-Overwatch from multiple angles (due to either a multi-charge or Tau shenanigans)
2). A single Overwatch causing out-of-order casualties (such as due to Look Out Sir)
3). Deaths caused by Dangerous Terrain

In any of the above situations, imagine a unit spread out in a line at maximum coherency. Imagine that one of the above situations causes the second model in line to die, and the charge distance rolled is exactly enough for the first model to make contact with the assault target.

This would result in the first model making base contact, the second model dying (because of Overwatch from another angle/Dangerous Terrain/the first guy LOS'd it to him), and the third model being 5"+ behind the first model after the charge move. Previously, this would have been an illegal charge. Now, it is perfectly acceptable.

I see no other situations that would call this FAQ into use, and while there certainly may be some, it's definitely not a license to go assaulting out of coherency whenever you feel like it.

Well said. I think you eloquently summarized the reason and usage of this part of the FAQ. Thanks for the help.