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.

A buddy and I had a rules query around disordered charge this weekend.

When making charge moves we are clear that we need to keep in unit coherency. When charging in opposing directions

A) Is it possible to formalise a conga line of coherecy across the two units if it is possible for all models of the charging unit to get into combat with the primary unit. (Albeit with 2/3 attackers on each defender)

B) if that's fine and you can have a line between the two combats, the pile in moves would then break cohenecy. Is this OK? Or is pile in restricted in some way?

Coherency is no longer 100% required while Charging. Check the current Errata on GW's site for more information.

Now, is your question about Multiple Charges or Disordered Charges? There is an important difference.

For Multiple Charges, you try and get as many models in base to base contact as possible between all the targets of your Charge. If a model cannot use its Charge Distance to get in to Base Contact with a Primary Target, but can use it to get in to Base Contact with a Secondary Target, it can do that.

Doing it to two different units separated by the Charging Unit, though... That seems like gaming the system to me. The Secondary Target are those "you think the Charging unit can Engage at the same time as the Primary Assault." So, they have to be close enough together that you could be within 2" of a Secondary Target while in Base Contact with a Primary Target.

Disordered Charges have nothing to do with Unit Coherency, and only affect the Charge Bonus. Other rules besides Multiple Charges do call it in to play, I believe.

Thanks for a quick response.

To clarify yes it's multiple charges with disordered charge being a subset rule of that.

I get where you are coming from with it being a bit cheeky rules wise but is it technically ok?

It seems like it would be an advantage to do this - link the units in coherency on charge then after being hit pile in ( it's orks so they pile in after I strike) without fear of being removed as a casualty before that..

ninkey wrote:
Thanks for a quick response.

To clarify yes it's multiple charges with disordered charge being a subset rule of that.

I get where you are coming from with it being a bit cheeky rules wise but is it technically ok?

It seems like it would be an advantage to do this - link the units in coherency on charge then after being hit pile in ( it's orks so they pile in after I strike) without fear of being removed as a casualty before that..

The rule states you must be able to "engage" the Secondary Target while Charging the Primary Target.

Models are Engaged when they are within 2" of a model in Base Contact of a Combat. It's pretty hard to have two units so far apart Engaged at the same time.

His argument on that one is that the rules for engagement apply to model not a unit. As long as it's in coherency in the charge even if via a conga line thenumber come pile in everyone just piles in one way or another.

Yes, it applies to a model, but you still have to be within 2" of an engaged model when the model charges. It means there's a practical limit on how far away the two units you fight can be. Models engaged with the first unit can be up to 2" away from a model in base contact, so being within 2" of that means your theoretical maximum distance between the two units you want to fight is 4" + twice the base size of your models. That means that for most units you won't see them charging two units 8" apart, and for your regular bases about 6" apart is going to be the maximum separation you can have between the two units you are charging.

ninkey wrote:
His argument on that one is that the rules for engagement apply to model not a unit. As long as it's in coherency in the charge even if via a conga line thenumber come pile in everyone just piles in one way or another.

In order to do a Multiple Charge, any models of the Secondary Targets have to be in engagement range of the Primary Target. In other words, within 2" of a Primary Target model that will be in Base Contact with your Charging unit's models.

In order to Charge two different ways, the Primary Target must be spread out in a crescent shape so that both Horns could be in Base Contact, but the center could either not be reached, or not reached by all the models involved.

For example, if the unit you were going to charge has models mixed in with another unit, that would be fine (probably even necessary), but if the two targeted units are separated by the distance between them and your unit as well as the room your unit is taking, there is no way you could Charge one, and have the models of the other be Engaged in that fight.

On further reading, I take back what I said.

Charistoph, when they talk about the secondary unit being one you think you can engage, it doesn't mean that you have to be within 2" of a model that's in base contact with the first unit. If the model is engaging, it accomplishes this by getting into base contact with the second unit. It's not allowed to so this if it's able to move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target unit. Once the model moved into base contact with the second unit, it's engaged with the second unit. This is how the first unit gets engaged in the first place, with a model moving into base contact. The same language would apply for moving a model into base contact with the second unit.

"Engagement range" for the secondary unit would merely be the movement distance between a model in the charging unit and the secondary unit. It's not limited by the distance between the first and second unit (except for needing to be close enough that the charge range rolled is sufficient for a model in the unit to be able to reach each target, and you con't have to move the entire unit onto unengaged models in the primary unit). It used to be more complex pre-draft FAQ with having to maintain coherency, but the Draft FAQ threw that out of the window.

 doctortom wrote:
On further reading, I take back what I said.

Charistoph, when they talk about the secondary unit being one you think you can engage, it doesn't mean that you have to be within 2" of a model that's in base contact with the first unit. If the model is engaging, it accomplishes this by getting into base contact with the second unit. It's not allowed to so this if it's able to move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target unit. Once the model moved into base contact with the second unit, it's engaged with the second unit. This is how the first unit gets engaged in the first place, with a model moving into base contact. The same language would apply for moving a model into base contact with the second unit.

"Engagement range" for the secondary unit would merely be the movement distance between a model in the charging unit and the secondary unit. It's not limited by the distance between the first and second unit (except for needing to be close enough that the charge range rolled is sufficient for a model in the unit to be able to reach each target, and you con't have to move the entire unit onto unengaged models in the primary unit). It used to be more complex pre-draft FAQ with having to maintain coherency, but the Draft FAQ threw that out of the window.

Then you are changing the definition of "engaged" than what is in the book:

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

The condition of performing a Multiple Charge is:

Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.

In other words, it is as I said. In order to Charge a Secondary Target, that unit must have models that would be Engaged if you Charged another. The key phrase is "at the same time" Obviously, the first definition would not work, as you cannot move in to Base Contact with a model of a unit you did not Charge (or Pile in a Combat with), so only the second definition would apply.

In order to perform a Multiple Combat both units have to be in Charge Range in the same direction and close enough so that if you managed to get any of the models of the Primary Target in Base Contact, the other unit would have models within 2" of that base contact. If both are completely separated by the Charging Unit (or equivalent distance), there is no way that is going to happen.

 Charistoph wrote:

Then you are changing the definition of "engaged" than what is in the book:

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

The condition of performing a Multiple Charge is:

Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.

.

Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.

 Charistoph wrote:
In other words, it is as I said. In order to Charge a Secondary Target, that unit must have models that would be Engaged if you Charged another. The key phrase is "at the same time" Obviously, the first definition would not work, as you cannot move in to Base Contact with a model of a unit you did not Charge (or Pile in a Combat with), so only the second definition would apply..

They have to be able to reach the secondary unit but not be able to reach an unengaged model in the primary target unit. If they do so, they have successfully engaged the second unit. Your first model has engaged the primary unit already. After that you can model the models in any order you want. You can move the hindmost model in the unit toward a different unit that's behind it, provided you meet the requirements I mention in the first sentence in the paragraph.

 Charistoph wrote:
In order to perform a Multiple Combat both units have to be in Charge Range in the same direction and close enough so that if you managed to get any of the models of the Primary Target in Base Contact, the other unit would have models within 2" of that base contact. If both are completely separated by the Charging Unit (or equivalent distance), there is no way that is going to happen.

Untrue. It doesn't have to be in the same direction with the Draft FAQ eliminating coherency requirements. You merely have to be able to get a model that couldn't engage an unengaged model in the primary unit into base contact with a model in the secondary target unit; that has satisfied the requirements for engagement right there. If you make base contact, you are engaged with the secondary unit and are within 0" of yourself.

 doctortom wrote:
Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.

If you have models going two opposite directions, then it is not at the same time. One will always be happening afterwards.

 doctortom wrote:
They have to be able to reach the secondary unit but not be able to reach an unengaged model in the primary target unit. If they do so, they have successfully engaged the second unit. Your first model has engaged the primary unit already. After that you can model the models in any order you want. You can move the hindmost model in the unit toward a different unit that's behind it, provided you meet the requirements I mention in the first sentence in the paragraph.

If your first model is engaging the Primary Target, but not the Secondary Target, how is it happening at the same time? It is not noted that all models Charge at the same time.

 doctortom wrote:
Untrue. It doesn't have to be in the same direction with the Draft FAQ eliminating coherency requirements. You merely have to be able to get a model that couldn't engage an unengaged model in the primary unit into base contact with a model in the secondary target unit; that has satisfied the requirements for engagement right there. If you make base contact, you are engaged with the secondary unit and are within 0" of yourself.

It does have to be close to the same direction in order to engage a Secondary Target while Charging a Primary Target at the same time, as they have to have a model within 2" of a model that is in Base Contact because of this Charge.

The key phrase is "at the same time", Charging models are noted as moving one at a time, unlike like Shooting the same Weapon is.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.

If you have models going two opposite directions, then it is not at the same time. One will always be happening afterwards.

How do you figure that? They treat the unit as charging, the unit charges both at the same time. Using your logic, you would never get to charge a second unit because you are always moving a model to a second unit after the first unit. Models might be charging, but units charge.


From page 54: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."

If we go by what you're saying, that the unit is arriving on the secondary target after engaging the primary target, then you could never charge a secondary unit because by definition you have to engage the primary target with the first model; it wouldn't matter how close the secondary unit is to the primary unit. Ergo, they are treating the unit's charge as all happening at the same time.

 doctortom wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.

If you have models going two opposite directions, then it is not at the same time. One will always be happening afterwards.

How do you figure that? They treat the unit as charging, the unit charges both at the same time. Using your logic, you would never get to charge a second unit because you are always moving a model to a second unit after the first unit. Models might be charging, but units charge.

I explained that. Not all models are Charging at the same time. If you are Charging one unit, you cannot be engaging a unit in the opposite direction "at the same time".

 doctortom wrote:
From page 54: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."

If we go by what you're saying, that the unit is arriving on the secondary target after engaging the primary target, then you could never charge a secondary unit because by definition you have to engage the primary target with the first model; it wouldn't matter how close the secondary unit is to the primary unit. Ergo, they are treating the unit's charge as all happening at the same time.

It seems to me that you are confusing a few things on engagement. Base Contact with an enemy unit is not all that is needed to engage another model (and hence that unit). You only need to be within 2" of a model that IS in Base Contact. The other side of the board does not qualify as 'within 2"', last I checked. I may be wrong, I am not a carpenter and cannot gauge distances very well by eye.

When you move that first Charging Model, it MUST be in Base Contact with a model from the Primary Target or the Charge fails. Any subsequent Charging model must attempt to reach Base Contact with an unengaged Primary Target model before it can even consider going in to Base Contact Secondary Target model. That Secondary Target model may already be engaged (and that should at least be possible) because of the Initial Charger, not just because it was within Charge Range.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.

If you have models going two opposite directions, then it is not at the same time. One will always be happening afterwards.

How do you figure that? They treat the unit as charging, the unit charges both at the same time. Using your logic, you would never get to charge a second unit because you are always moving a model to a second unit after the first unit. Models might be charging, but units charge.

I explained that. Not all models are Charging at the same time. If you are Charging one unit, you cannot be engaging a unit in the opposite direction "at the same time".

The unit is charging at the same time. And, you haven't explained it. Explain how direction matters on charging at the same time if you're treating the models as not charging at the same time. if you're going off of the models not charging at the same time, then you would never get to charge a second unit because that model is moving after the first model you move. it wouldn't matter what direction the second unit is in or what its distance is. Therefore, there must be something wrong with your argument that you haven't addressed.

 Charistoph wrote:

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

The condition of performing a Multiple Charge is:

Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.

In other words, it is as I said. In order to Charge a Secondary Target, that unit must have models that would be Engaged if you Charged another. The key phrase is "at the same time" Obviously, the first definition would not work, as you cannot move in to Base Contact with a model of a unit you did not Charge (or Pile in a Combat with), so only the second definition would apply.

The "at the same time" requirement means during the same Charge sub-phase. And saying that only the second definition of engaged applies is exactly backwards. The secondary charge target can't be "in the same combat" until after you have already moved a model into base contact with it.

doctortom wrote:The unit is charging at the same time. And, you haven't explained it. Explain how direction matters on charging at the same time if you're treating the models as not charging at the same time. if you're going off of the models not charging at the same time, then you would never get to charge a second unit because that model is moving after the first model you move. it wouldn't matter what direction the second unit is in or what its distance is. Therefore, there must be something wrong with your argument that you haven't addressed.

Well, you did cut off many of the parts that explained it in what you quoted. If you Charged your Primary Target and kept trying to place Charging models in Base Contact with your Primary Target, could a Secondary Target in the opposite direction be possibly "engaged at the same time" before any other model moved?

Cal Hoskins wrote:The "at the same time" requirement means during the same Charge sub-phase. And saying that only the second definition of engaged applies is exactly backwards. The secondary charge target can't be "in the same combat" until after you have already moved a model into base contact with it.

Demonstrate where it implies "in the same sub-phase" as opposed to the normal constraints of "at the same time"? The Shooting Sequence places such a definition, but not Charging.

No it is not backwards to use the second definition first. For the Initial Charger cannot get in to Base Contact with any model of the Secondary Target. So, at that point, the second definition is the only one that can be applicable. The first can come later, as subsequent Chargers move in, but the second definition has to be possible in order for a Multiple Charge to occur.

Engaging a model is far easier than locking a unit in Combat. A model can be engaged without every being in Base Contact, just near a friendly unit which IS in Base Contact (it doesn't even have to be in the same unit!). A unit is locked in Combat when at least one of its models are in Base Contact with an enemy model.

 Charistoph wrote:

doctortom wrote:The unit is charging at the same time. And, you haven't explained it. Explain how direction matters on charging at the same time if you're treating the models as not charging at the same time. if you're going off of the models not charging at the same time, then you would never get to charge a second unit because that model is moving after the first model you move. it wouldn't matter what direction the second unit is in or what its distance is. Therefore, there must be something wrong with your argument that you haven't addressed.

Well, you did cut off many of the parts that explained it in what you quoted. If you Charged your Primary Target and kept trying to place Charging models in Base Contact with your Primary Target, could a Secondary Target in the opposite direction be possibly "engaged at the same time" before any other model moved?

Obviously, since the rules allow you to charge a secondary target. And, one more time, your argument here does not care if it's in the opposite direction or not; it would apply to a secondary target in any direction. So, given that we are allowed to charge a secondary target, and they state the unit must charge at the same time (note that it doesn't say models), then why does the direction make any difference? From what you say the model would arrive after the first model engages the primary unit, which would ipso facto mean the model didn't charge at the same time - IF GW is treating moving the models as NOT being the unit charging at the same time.

One other note - you don't move the model over to the first unit to find out it can't make it, then move it somewhere out. You measure the distance first to see if it's possible, and if it isn't it's free to move elsewhere. You don't treat the model as having run up to the first unit before finding out it can go somewhere else.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:The "at the same time" requirement means during the same Charge sub-phase. And saying that only the second definition of engaged applies is exactly backwards. The secondary charge target can't be "in the same combat" until after you have already moved a model into base contact with it.

Demonstrate where it implies "in the same sub-phase" as opposed to the normal constraints of "at the same time"? The Shooting Sequence places such a definition, but not Charging.

No it is not backwards to use the second definition first. For the Initial Charger cannot get in to Base Contact with any model of the Secondary Target. So, at that point, the second definition is the only one that can be applicable. The first can come later, as subsequent Chargers move in, but the second definition has to be possible in order for a Multiple Charge to occur.

Engaging a model is far easier than locking a unit in Combat. A model can be engaged without every being in Base Contact, just near a friendly unit which IS in Base Contact (it doesn't even have to be in the same unit!). A unit is locked in Combat when at least one of its models are in Base Contact with an enemy model.

"Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."

This "rule" contains so many problems that it makes me pretty sure that it is actually nothing more than descriptive flavor text. If you took "at the same time" to mean "at the same moment" then it would be almost impossible to pull off a multiple charge no matter how close the two target units were together without extremely precise movement. Also, no standard could possibly be applied to what someone thinks might be possible. Finally, the use of the word "engage" doesn't line up with how it is used in the rest of the rules set. Units don't engage other units, models engage other models.

You didn't address my assertion that you can't engage a model by simply being within 2" of it without it already being "in the same combat".

Just to make sure I understand how you think this all works, here's a little scenario:
Imagine two single model units from the same army standing 1" apart. An enemy single model unit wishes to charge them both and declares them as the primary and secondary targets. The charge roll is made and is plenty high to complete the charge. The charging unit is moved in a straight line directly at the primary target until contact is made. The charger does not contact the secondary target, but is within 2" of it. Are all three units in the combat now? I believe your answer is yes, and doctortom's is no. I would definitely say no.

doctortom wrote:Obviously, since the rules allow you to charge a secondary target. And, one more time, your argument here does not care if it's in the opposite direction or not; it would apply to a secondary target in any direction. So, given that we are allowed to charge a secondary target, and they state the unit must charge at the same time (note that it doesn't say models), then why does the direction make any difference? From what you say the model would arrive after the first model engages the primary unit, which would ipso facto mean the model didn't charge at the same time - IF GW is treating moving the models as NOT being the unit charging at the same time.

Then you have been ignoring what I have been stating. How can a unit in the complete opposite direction be engaged by the Charging unit that is primarily heading the other way? You have to be engaging "at the same time as the primary assault".

Again, "engaging" does not require or mean being "locked in combat". Remember the difference between the two. It is entirely possible for a model not in Combat to be Engaged.

doctortom wrote:One other note - you don't move the model over to the first unit to find out it can't make it, then move it somewhere out. You measure the distance first to see if it's possible, and if it isn't it's free to move elsewhere. You don't treat the model as having run up to the first unit before finding out it can go somewhere else.

Nor did I suggest doing as such. The rule is set up that if the other units' models would be engaged with Charging a single unit, then you can multiple Charge, not just scatter to the four winds on a Charge.

Cal Hoskins wrote:"Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."

This "rule" contains so many problems that it makes me pretty sure that it is actually nothing more than descriptive flavor text. If you took "at the same time" to mean "at the same moment" then it would be almost impossible to pull off a multiple charge no matter how close the two target units were together without extremely precise movement. Also, no standard could possibly be applied to what someone thinks might be possible. Finally, the use of the word "engage" doesn't line up with how it is used in the rest of the rules set. Units don't engage other units, models engage other models.

True on some areas. But it doesn't take that much precise movement to have two units close enough together for a front model to be engaged when a friendly model from another unit is also nearby. It may not happen very often with most armies, but it is more likely with the more horde-oriented units.

Cal Hoskins wrote:You didn't address my assertion that you can't engage a model by simply being within 2" of it without it already being "in the same combat".

Sure you can. To be "engaged" a model only has to be within 2" of a friendly model locked in combat with Base Contact. Nothing states it actually has to be IN that same combat to be engaged. Two units that have their front guys both being able to be hit by a Small Blast would qualify in this scenario.

It is possible, and more likely with some armies than others. We are more likely to see it happen with Tyranids than with Grey Knights, for example. The Venomthrope makes this even more likely. Terrain also has a say in this, too, as it may force two units down a narrow path as they cannot go over or through the terrain surrounding it.

Cal Hoskins wrote:Just to make sure I understand how you think this all works, here's a little scenario:
Imagine two single model units from the same army standing 1" apart. An enemy single model unit wishes to charge them both and declares them as the primary and secondary targets. The charge roll is made and is plenty high to complete the charge. The charging unit is moved in a straight line directly at the primary target until contact is made. The charger does not contact the secondary target, but is within 2" of it. Are all three units in the combat now? I believe your answer is yes, and doctortom's is no. I would definitely say no.

No, my answer is no, they are not all locked in combat. And this shows how you are missing what I am saying due to a misunderstanding of terms.

"Locked in Combat" requires a unit to be in Base Contact with an enemy model. "Engaged" requires either a model be "locked in Combat" OR be within 2" of a model that is in Base Contact and "locked in Combat". Distance to the enemy model does not have to be in consideration when determining being "engaged". A model can be next to the opposite end of the long oval of a Imperial Knight base from an enemy model, and still be "engaged".

So, while, the Secondary Target would not be "locked in Combat", it would be "engaged". Do you see the difference?

This would technically not be a good decision on the Charger's part, as that one-model Charging unit would not be able to lock the second model in combat, and would lose out on the Charge bonus.

 Charistoph wrote:

doctortom wrote:Obviously, since the rules allow you to charge a secondary target. And, one more time, your argument here does not care if it's in the opposite direction or not; it would apply to a secondary target in any direction. So, given that we are allowed to charge a secondary target, and they state the unit must charge at the same time (note that it doesn't say models), then why does the direction make any difference? From what you say the model would arrive after the first model engages the primary unit, which would ipso facto mean the model didn't charge at the same time - IF GW is treating moving the models as NOT being the unit charging at the same time.

Then you have been ignoring what I have been stating. How can a unit in the complete opposite direction be engaged by the Charging unit that is primarily heading the other way? You have to be engaging "at the same time as the primary assault".

Again, "engaging" does not require or mean being "locked in combat". Remember the difference between the two. It is entirely possible for a model not in Combat to be Engaged.

You are confusing "models engaged in combat" with "unit can engage" and your argument is based on a faulty conflation of those two distinct uses of engage in the BRB.

We have rules defining what it means for models to be engaged.



However, we do not have rules for what it means to say that a unit is engaged; therefore, it must be just dictionary usage of "engage" and "unit can engage" is just descriptive fluff.

OED - Engage = "enter into conflict or combat with (an enemy)"

Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.

The above statement is merely stating that in order to declare a secondary target you must think that you are able to roll a charge distance that could bring your unit into combat with that enemy unit.

 Charistoph wrote:


"Locked in Combat" requires a unit to be in Base Contact with an enemy model. "Engaged" requires either a model be "locked in Combat" OR be within 2" of a model that is in Base Contact and "locked in Combat". Distance to the enemy model does not have to be in consideration when determining being "engaged". A model can be next to the opposite end of the long oval of a Imperial Knight base from an enemy model, and still be "engaged".

So, while, the Secondary Target would not be "locked in Combat", it would be "engaged". Do you see the difference?

This would technically not be a good decision on the Charger's part, as that one-model Charging unit would not be able to lock the second model in combat, and would lose out on the Charge bonus.

That doesn't make sense, to be honest. A secondary target can't be considered to be engaged if there is no model from your unit that is locked in combat with it, by definition. That secondary target is not engaged until the first model from the unit comes into base conact with a model in that secondary target unit.. You are imposing a requirement that it not there in your comments, that you must be able to be engaged with the primary unit as well as being locked in combat with the secondary unit. That requirement does not exist in the rules. It merely says that your unit engages both units at the same time. You do this with the second unit by moving into base contact and thereby being locked in combat. The only restrictions on the charging model are that it must be able to reach the secondary unit and it must not be able to reach an unengaged model in the primary unit. There is no requirement that it must be engaged with the primary unit if not in base contact with the secondary; this is an invention on your part. You have to give us a quotation from the rules (taking in mind the Draft FAQ has done away with the coherency requirement) that states that the model locking into combat with the secondary unit must also be in engagement range of the primary target.

 doctortom wrote:
That doesn't make sense, to be honest. A secondary target can't be considered to be engaged if there is no model from your unit that is locked in combat with it, by definition. That secondary target is not engaged until the first model from the unit comes into base conact with a model in that secondary target unit.. You are imposing a requirement that it not there in your comments, that you must be able to be engaged with the primary unit as well as being locked in combat with the secondary unit. That requirement does not exist in the rules. It merely says that your unit engages both units at the same time. You do this with the second unit by moving into base contact and thereby being locked in combat. The only restrictions on the charging model are that it must be able to reach the secondary unit and it must not be able to reach an unengaged model in the primary unit. There is no requirement that it must be engaged with the primary unit if not in base contact with the secondary; this is an invention on your part. You have to give us a quotation from the rules (taking in mind the Draft FAQ has done away with the coherency requirement) that states that the model locking into combat with the secondary unit must also be in engagement range of the primary target.

Then you keep forgetting this section in "Determine Who Can Fight" which I quoted in my first response to you:

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

According to you, only the first condition applies. Yet, it lists a second condition you are ignoring. Unless you are stating that both conditions must be met (which would be ridiculous, especially for 1 on 1 model content). The Unit Coherency change addresses NOTHING in the quote above.

Then we have the conditions for a Multiple Charge:

Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.

Both of these set a condition that all targets of a Multiple Charge have to be rather close to each other AND the Charging Unit. A Crusader Squad hugging the rear of a Charged Land Raider Crusader for cover would qualify (if you could get around it), as they would be within 2" of a unit locked in that combat, but a Crusader Squad 24" away would not qualify as you could not engage it while Charging the Land Raider Crusader.

 Charistoph wrote:

Then you keep forgetting this section in "Determine Who Can Fight" which I quoted in my first response to you:

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

According to you, only the first condition applies. Yet, it lists a second condition you are ignoring. Unless you are stating that both conditions must be met (which would be ridiculous, especially for 1 on 1 model content). The Unit Coherency change addresses NOTHING in the quote above.

I ignore the second option because you satisfy the requirement if you meet either condition, and a model moving into base contact with an enemy model satisfies the condition for being engaged in combat. You seem to be the one insisting that both conditions must be met for charging another unit, with your insistence that the secondary target must be engaged with a model in base combat with the primary target.

So, going by the rules here, all I have to do is move into base contact with an enemy model OR be within 2" of a model in base contact of an enemy model's unit in order to meet the requirement of being engaged with the enemy unit. Therefore, moving into base contact with a secondary target unit fulfills the requirement of engaging with that secondary target unit. No other requirements (other than being able to reach the unit, and the model moving into base contact not being able to get into base contact with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target) are given. That means it doesn't matter what direction or distance it is to the secondary unit as long as the model can reach them.

 Charistoph wrote:

Then we have the conditions for a Multiple Charge:

Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.

Both of these set a condition that all targets of a Multiple Charge have to be rather close to each other AND the Charging Unit. A Crusader Squad hugging the rear of a Charged Land Raider Crusader for cover would qualify (if you could get around it), as they would be within 2" of a unit locked in that combat, but a Crusader Squad 24" away would not qualify as you could not engage it while Charging the Land Raider Crusader.

No, that's not true at all. The Unit has to engage at the same time, but the unit is taken as charging at the same time. You are basing your assumption (which is what it is) that they must be close to each other on the faulty assumption that the secondary unit counts as being engaged when there are no models in base contact with it. Before you move your first model to the secondary target, there is no model in base contact with that enemy unit. That means there can not be a model within 2" of a model locked in combat with that unit either. So,by the definition you provided, the unit is not engaged. This means that either the rules are treating the unit as charging at the same time even though models are moved one at a time, or you can never charge a secondary target unit because by the definition you seem to be using, you can't reach it at the same timel. Once again, the direction or distance between the units has absolutely no effect on that timing, unlike what you are trying to say. If you are allowed to charge a secondary target, which by the rules you can, any model therefore that can't reach an unengaged model in the primary unit but can reach the secondary unit is allowed to charge the secondary target. Again, direction and distance do not matter as long as the model can reach the unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:Just to make sure I understand how you think this all works, here's a little scenario:
Imagine two single model units from the same army standing 1" apart. An enemy single model unit wishes to charge them both and declares them as the primary and secondary targets. The charge roll is made and is plenty high to complete the charge. The charging unit is moved in a straight line directly at the primary target until contact is made. The charger does not contact the secondary target, but is within 2" of it. Are all three units in the combat now? I believe your answer is yes, and doctortom's is no. I would definitely say no.

No, my answer is no, they are not all locked in combat. And this shows how you are missing what I am saying due to a misunderstanding of terms.

"Locked in Combat" requires a unit to be in Base Contact with an enemy model. "Engaged" requires either a model be "locked in Combat" OR be within 2" of a model that is in Base Contact and "locked in Combat". Distance to the enemy model does not have to be in consideration when determining being "engaged". A model can be next to the opposite end of the long oval of a Imperial Knight base from an enemy model, and still be "engaged".

So, while, the Secondary Target would not be "locked in Combat", it would be "engaged". Do you see the difference?

The model in the secondary target is not in base contact with an enemy model. It is within 2" of a friendly model (the one in the primary target), but it is not in the same combat. It is not in a combat at all. Therefore it is not engaged.

 doctortom wrote:
I ignore the second option because you satisfy the requirement if you meet either condition, and a model moving into base contact with an enemy model satisfies the condition for being engaged in combat. You seem to be the one insisting that both conditions must be met for charging another unit, with your insistence that the secondary target must be engaged with a model in base combat with the primary target.

So, going by the rules here, all I have to do is move into base contact with an enemy model OR be within 2" of a model in base contact of an enemy model's unit in order to meet the requirement of being engaged with the enemy unit. Therefore, moving into base contact with a secondary target unit fulfills the requirement of engaging with that secondary target unit. No other requirements (other than being able to reach the unit, and the model moving into base contact not being able to get into base contact with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target) are given. That means it doesn't matter what direction or distance it is to the secondary unit as long as the model can reach them.

How can you move in to Base Contact with something at the same time as your Primary Assault?

Answer, you cannot:

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 charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.

So, we have to be able to use that second definition because the first is impossible if one does not fulfill the second during the Primary Assault.

A unit in the opposite direction of a unit you Charge cannot be Engaged by Charging that Primary Target. It is impossible. It would only be engaged if you avoided the Primary Target, which is not allowed.

 doctortom wrote:
No, that's not true at all. The Unit has to engage at the same time, but the unit is taken as charging at the same time. You are basing your assumption (which is what it is) that they must be close to each other on the faulty assumption that the secondary unit counts as being engaged when there are no models in base contact with it. Before you move your first model to the secondary target, there is no model in base contact with that enemy unit. That means there can not be a model within 2" of a model locked in combat with that unit either. So,by the definition you provided, the unit is not engaged. This means that either the rules are treating the unit as charging at the same time even though models are moved one at a time, or you can never charge a secondary target unit because by the definition you seem to be using, you can't reach it at the same timel. Once again, the direction or distance between the units has absolutely no effect on that timing, unlike what you are trying to say. If you are allowed to charge a secondary target, which by the rules you can, any model therefore that can't reach an unengaged model in the primary unit but can reach the secondary unit is allowed to charge the secondary target. Again, direction and distance do not matter as long as the model can reach the unit.

No, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I am saying. Remember the condition is "can engage at the same time as the primary assault". Range is a factor in this as much as direction and terrain would be.

A model can only be engaged when it is close to another Model in base contact (if not in base contact itself). You are not allowed to Charge a unit you have not declared a Charge on. You cannot move a model in to Base Contact of anything but the units you Charge. Multiple Charge states you have to be able to engage those Secondary models AT THE SAME TIME you Charge the Primary Target. Charging the other way will engage a unit that could not be engaged by Charging the Primary Target. You will be engaging a unit AFTER you have engaged the Primary Target.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I ignore the second option because you satisfy the requirement if you meet either condition, and a model moving into base contact with an enemy model satisfies the condition for being engaged in combat. You seem to be the one insisting that both conditions must be met for charging another unit, with your insistence that the secondary target must be engaged with a model in base combat with the primary target.

So, going by the rules here, all I have to do is move into base contact with an enemy model OR be within 2" of a model in base contact of an enemy model's unit in order to meet the requirement of being engaged with the enemy unit. Therefore, moving into base contact with a secondary target unit fulfills the requirement of engaging with that secondary target unit. No other requirements (other than being able to reach the unit, and the model moving into base contact not being able to get into base contact with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target) are given. That means it doesn't matter what direction or distance it is to the secondary unit as long as the model can reach them.

How can you move in to Base Contact with something at the same time as your Primary Assault?

Answer, you cannot:

Okay, we can just call it right there and say that units may never charge a secondary target. Or, you're wrong and you can. Since the rules say you can engage a second unit as a secondary target, I would believe that you're wrong.

 Charistoph wrote:
A model can only be engaged when it is close to another Model in base contact (if not in base contact itself).

OR move into base contact itself, then being close to another model in base contact does not matter. That is what you keep missing. How does the first model you move become engaged with the enemy? By moving into base contact with a model in the primary target. How does a model engage a secondary unit? By moving into base contact with the secondary unit. Nothing more is required, it does not have to be within 2" of an engaged model.

 doctortom wrote:

Okay, we can just call it right there and say that units may never charge a secondary target. Or, you're wrong and you can. Since the rules say you can engage a second unit as a secondary target, I would believe that you're wrong.

I gave the rules that you cut off in the quote. Are the quotes wrong? Have I misquoted?

The first quote comes from a normal charge. The second quote came from multiple chargers. The second quote only comes in to play after the determination made earlier ("engaged at the same times as the primary assault") is deemed possible.

So, again, a unit in the opposite direction of a Primary Target cannot be Engaged at the same time, it would be engaged AFTER you Charged the Primary Target which would violate the requirement made in the first couple paragraphs of Multiple Combat.

 doctortom wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
A model can only be engaged when it is close to another Model in base contact (if not in base contact itself).

OR move into base contact itself, then being close to another model in base contact does not matter.

Are you ignoring what is in the parentheses now?

 doctortom wrote:
That is what you keep missing. How does the first model you move become engaged with the enemy? By moving into base contact with a model in the primary target. How does a model engage a secondary unit? By moving into base contact with the secondary unit. Nothing more is required, it does not have to be within 2" of an engaged model./quote]
You are using the end results to justify overriding earlier restrictions. How can you move in to base contact with something you do not have permission to move in to base contact with?

In order to move in to Base Contact with an Enemy model, you must Charge it. In order to Charge it, it must be legal to Charge. In order for a Secondary Target to be Charged, it must be able to be "engaged at the same time as the primary assault". You would not be able to Charge something you would not be able to engage at the same time, so you cannot declare the Charge. If you do not declare the Charge, you cannot Charge it. If you cannot Charge it, you cannot get in to Base Contact. If you cannot get in to Base Contact, this level of engagement is impossible. Therefore, the possibility of the second condition of engagement needs to be determined to justify the possibility of doing the first.

Charistoph,

You keep coming back to this rule: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Can you explain what you think it means for a unit to engage. This isn't defined in the rules as far as I know. We can't really argue about the timing of this act unless we know what this act is. I still hold that this entire sentence is descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus holds no weight at all.

The second possible requirement for a model to be engaged is thus: "It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with
one or more enemy models in the same combat." Would you agree that the phrase "in the same combat" means "locked in the same combat"? If not, what does it mean?

Cal Hoskins wrote:
You keep coming back to this rule: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Can you explain what you think it means for a unit to engage. This isn't defined in the rules as far as I know. We can't really argue about the timing of this act unless we know what this act is. I still hold that this entire sentence is descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus holds no weight at all.

I have explained what it means for a model to be engaged twice now. Can you provide any other situation or definition that could be used to describe a unit being engaged in any other manner?

Cal Hoskins wrote:
The second possible requirement for a model to be engaged is thus: "It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with
one or more enemy models in the same combat." Would you agree that the phrase "in the same combat" means "locked in the same combat"? If not, what does it mean?

That would be an acceptable determination. The Secondary Unit must be close enough to be brought in to the melee the Primary Unit will be involved in. Being 24" away would not qualify. The other unit could try and move and Charge in later, but it would not be directly involved in the Combat before then.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
You keep coming back to this rule: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Can you explain what you think it means for a unit to engage. This isn't defined in the rules as far as I know. We can't really argue about the timing of this act unless we know what this act is. I still hold that this entire sentence is descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus holds no weight at all.

I have explained what it means for a model to be engaged twice now. Can you provide any other situation or definition that could be used to describe a unit being engaged in any other manner?

Yes, you have explained how a MODEL is engaged. (Though I don't think we quite agree.) But how is a UNIT engaged? Is it engaged when the first MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or each time a MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or something else? The rules are silent on this as UNITS being engaged is not a game mechanic.

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:
The second possible requirement for a model to be engaged is thus: "It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat." Would you agree that the phrase "in the same combat" means "locked in the same combat"? If not, what does it mean?

That would be an acceptable determination. The Secondary Unit must be close enough to be brought in to the melee the Primary Unit will be involved in. Being 24" away would not qualify. The other unit could try and move and Charge in later, but it would not be directly involved in the Combat before then.

OK, then how in my earlier hypothetical situation can the secondary target be engaged if it is not locked in combat?