arnaroe wrote:Well actually the coherency rule is the most important rule. Every model must end in coherency of one of the previously moved models. So moving one into A and the next into B is illegal.

MagickalMemories wrote:Don't forget that you also have to maximize the # of models you engage.
If you CAN move a model into B2B, then you have to. You can't do the "coherency thing" because you want to conga line over to a distant unit.
First, you maximize without losing coherency. THEN, you can engage unit #2.

So, if the 2 units were closer, that would be fine. That second model moving in, however, MUST engage an enemy model from ONE OF the units if possible.

Eric

Moz wrote:Easier to discuss the rule with just 3 models:

A---------B
-------------
-------------
----1-2----
-----3------

Charge declared on target A, closest model (#1) moves to closest target.

A---------B
--1---------
------------
-------2----
-----3------

The player that wants to multicharge knows if he moves #2 right now, it could base or get within 2" of Target A. But he wants to involve Target B in the charge as well, so he moves #3 first who is too far away to base Target A.

A---------B
--1--3------
-------------
-------2----
-------------

Now when #2 moves, it can reach a model (A or B) while maintaining coherency through #3.


A---------B
--1--3--2--
------------
------------
------------

Thoughts?

Centurian99 wrote:The original poster is absolutely correct, and is a prime example of why its really tough to disperse your forces to avoid multi-charges, especially if the units in question have enough movement to position themselves properly during the movement and/or shooting phases.

The most important thing to understand about moving into assault is that its done on a model by model basis. Assuming that you're assaulting, you move the closest model into assault, and then the order in which you move models is entirely up to you.

So in this situation, the assaulting unit has moved into the position as indicated below. Enemy models are represented by E, and assaulting models are positiioned as shown.

EEEE..............EEEE
EEEE..............EEEE


........1
............2...3...4...5
..........6...7...8

Closest model moves first, so #1 moves as such:


EEEE..............EEEE
EEEE..............EEEE
........1


............2...3...4...5
..........6...7...8

Now the choice as to which model moves next is up to you, so you can choose to move model 6, which is too far away to make base, so it just needs to move into coherency:


EEEE..............EEEE
EEEE..............EEEE
........1
............6

............2...3...4...5
...............7...8

Next, you move model #8, which is too far away to get within 2" of model 1, so it just has to maintain coherency with a model that's already moved:

EEEE..............EEEE
EEEE..............EEEE
........1
............6...8

............2...3...4...5
...............7

Now next, you choose to move model 5, which can reach the other squad while maintaining coherency with 8.


EEEE..............EEEE
EEEE..............EEEE
........1...........5
............6...8

............2...3...4...5
...............7

The rest of the movement doesn't matter, as you're just trying to get as many models as possible into those assaults.

arnaroe wrote:
This is also correct because you end up with all models engaged in close combat. Lets look at my original diagram:

(I replaced on X with a Z to emphasize)

AAAA..................BBBB
AAAA..................BBBB
........X..X..Z..X..X

.............XXX..
...........XX......

In this case Z is unengaged so the end result would be 9 out of 10 models engaged in close combat. As is clear we could get more models into the close combat by doing this:

AAAAXX..............BBBB
AAAAXX..............BBBB
...XXXXX
.........X

Now we have 10/10 models in close combat so wouldn't the first option be illegal since it would be breaking the "no holding back" rule with fewer models in close combat tha possible?

arnaroe wrote:But the thing is that this section of the rules starts by saying that you must engage as many models as possible - no holding back. Then it goes on giving instructions on how you can move your models into close combat leading to the goal of as many models as possible engaged.

If you read the rules in the proper order it seems as the message is this:

1. Engage as many models as possible.
2. Do that by following the 5 steps.
3. Doing this will result in as many models engaged as possible.

In nr. 2 you are give certain freedom of movement but I don't see any reason why you should be able to get less models engaged by planing the assault move sequence cleverly. After all the rules say that you may not hold back and that is precisely what one is doing with that kind of sequence.

I however do agree that you can easily set up dual assault with the right placement in the movement or shooting phase.

Centurian99 wrote:Well, if the full 6" assault move would allow a model to get into base contact, it must do so. Otherwise, the model only has to move within 2" of a model that's already in base contact with the enemy. Again, the moving into assault rules are very specific...moves happen not on a unit v unit basis, but on a model by model basis, and clearly happen sequentially.

And as I said, the rules themselves define what "no holding back" means...to wit, following the sequence as provided.