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.

Sorry if this has been asked before.
Just had a game where I had 4 units engaged with a bunch of wraiths. My opponent charged in some units but went base to base with two different units using his lychguard. He said it wasn't disordered as he was charging one combat but in the BRB it says charging multiple units causes disordered. In addition I note that ongoing combat is covered under the multiple combat rules.

If anyone can clear up if he should lose the additional attacks that would be good

Were all the units locked in the same combat?

You have to declare you are doing a multi-charge so in order for it to be a disorganized charge he would have said so. I'd have to look up if you can pile in to other parts of a ongoing combat

If all the units were locked in the same combat, he can charge in and engage all units in the combat without having to do a disordered charge.

Can you give me a page number where it says that? I'm looking at the assault phase section and it specifically mentions "units" not "combats" in addition on pg 46 it says "and cannot move into base to base contact with a unit they are not charging (a unit can charge more than one enemy unit buy declaring a multiple charge - this is described in multiple combats on page 54)"

It isn't a multiple combat, it's a single combat involving multiple units.

I dont have my rulebook with me, but it should be called charging into an ongoing combat. Pretty sure you dont even suffer the effects of difficult terrain if you're charging a unit locked in combat. However im not 100% on that one.

Yep, no initiative penalty for charging into ongoing combats. I think that rule is page 55.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
If all the units were locked in the same combat, he can charge in and engage all units in the combat without having to do a disordered charge.

Not quite correct.
From Moving Charging Models:

Charging models still cannot move through friendly or enemy models, and cannot move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not charging (a unit can charge more than one enemy unit by declaring a multiple charge – this is described in the Multiple Combats section).

In order to get base to base with more than one enemy unit, you either must declare a Multiple Charge or be charged by multiple units.

You are correct in that engagement does not require being base to base, though. Engaged models only require being with 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in the combat to be engaged.

But the multiple combat rules would still be in effect, either way, and Pile-Ins can make up the difference. The Lychguard would either be limited on what models they charged, not take the Disordered Charge and hope Pile-In would allow them to Engage the other units as he wants (Initiative 2 does not help very often), or better guarantee the engagement placement and take the Disordered Charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
It isn't a multiple combat, it's a single combat involving multiple units.

From Multiple Combats:

Combats that involve more than two units are called multiple combats (see the diagram opposite for an example). These occur when one unit charges two or more enemy units, or when a unit charges into an ongoing combat. Because of the extra complexity, they need some additional rules.

To have 4 units engaged in Combat with Wraiths, something like this would have had to happen.

Oh, i see. I understand. It was more complicated than i had it in my head.

Thank you, Charistoph, for the correction.