Assaulting those in close combat

[Wolfshade]

Greetings all, apologies if this has been already answered.

A large 30 "man" gargoyle unit assaulted a 5 man scout squad, after the end of the combat and pile-in moves the scouts both units were locked in combat but the majority of the gargoyle unit was not in combat range (2" of a model in base to base, it was quite stretched out beforehand). The furtherest edge of these gargoyles are then assaulted by another squad. The question is do these defenders react and move to engage (where they were not already so) or do they remain stationary as they are already locked in combat?

[Hive Mind]

They react as normal, p41 of the Rulebook.

[Wolfshade]

Awesome, thanks

[Lerra]

Any model not in base-to-base can move to pile in, but keep in mind that the squad has to maintain coherency. You might end up with a lot of models who are unable to attack either unit because they're strung out in the middle (this is a great way to kill big spread-out squads btw).

[Denzark]

Any model not in base-to-base can move to pile in, but keep in mind that the squad has to maintain coherency. You might end up with a lot of models who are unable to attack either unit because they're strung out in the middle (this is a great way to kill big spread-out squads btw).

Lerra can you explain this fella?

[DarkLink]

Maintaining coherency is priority one. You must maintain coherency at all times.

Once you've ensured that you maintain coherency, then priority two is to get as many models into base contact as possible. You must do this, but only after maintaining coherency.

As a result, if you're too spread out you can waste models maintaining coherency and lose attacks as a result.

[Lerra]

DarkLink explained it well.

One of my friends plays IG with a 50-man infantry squad, and he'll often stretch them out to hold 2-3 objectives. One of my favorite ways to kill the blob is to send two fast units (bikes or assault marines) to assault at opposite sides, so that all of the power weapon sergeants and most of the guys are strung out in the middle and can't attack. I've seen this blob squad kill Lysander and 10 stormshield termies in CC, but lose combat to two squads of 3 bikes.

Oh btw Denzark, for what it's worth, I'm female.

[Nabterayl]

Maintaining coherency is priority one. You must maintain coherency at all times.
Wait, according to what? Page 12 only says that models must be in coherency "once a unit has finished moving." Do you read that to apply to reaction moves and pile-in moves?

[TheRise]

Wait, according to what? Page 12 only says that models must be in coherency "once a unit has finished moving." Do you read that to apply to reaction moves and pile-in moves?

To answer you both it says if you lose coherency in the next movement phase or chance of moving you must move in a way to restore coherency.
So once you lose coherency you ahve to move back into coherency when you get the chance.

[Nabterayl]

Well ... it says you have to move back into coherency the next Movement phase you can, yes. But that doesn't demonstrate that you can't assault yourself out of coherency, or react yourself out of coherency.

[DarkLink]

Actually, it's buried in the Assault rules, pg 34 under the bullet points "moving assaulting units".


The most important one [movement constraints for assault moves] is that each model must end its assault move in coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved.

This actually trumps everything else when moving models in assault. And not only does the whole unit have to be in coherency at the end of the move, but you actually have to move each subsequent model such that it is in coherency with a model that has already moved.


So, for example you are assaulting 6". You move closest to closest with Model A. Then, you must move Model B to within 2" of Model A. Then, you must move Model C to within 2" of either Model A or Model B. Then you must move Model D within 2" of either Models A, B or C. So on and so forth, until you have moved everyone.

On top of that, there's the other rules like "you must move into base contact if you can" and "if any model must go through terrain you take a terrain test".






So an example of an illegal move that most people probably think is legal is: there are 2 enemy units 12" apart. You are in assault range of both. You move Model A into the first unit, then Model B into the second unit.

This is illegal because Model B is not within 2" of Model A.

Now, you may be able to move Models B,C,D and E to form a bridge between the two units and thus reach the second enemy unit, but remember you must reach base contact if possible, which could prevent you from pulling off the multi-charge in this case.







I don't think most people realize that the rules work like this.

As a quick summary:

1. Declare "my unit is assaulting your unit" and specify your primary target.

2. Move your model that is closest to their closest model (model A) in the shortest route possible into base contact. Check terrain if necessary (see 5).

3. Move your next model (model B) to within 2" of model A, then model C to within 2" of models A or B, and so on until you have moved all your models.

4. If a model can reach base contact with an enemy unit while maintaining coherency as defined in 3, then you must move into base contact. If you can't reach base contact, you must attempt to move to within 2" of one of your models that is in base contact.

5. If any model, at any point, must move through difficult or dangerous terrain, you must test for it. If the model dies, move onto the next model. If you roll poorly on the terrain test, then it can make your entire assault fail, even if you only took the test on the very last model you moved.

6. If you can place a model in base contact with another enemy unit while following all the above rules, then you may do so and engage both enemy units. Commonly known as the multi-charge.

[SeattleDV8]

BRB pg. 34 Defenders React
"This follows the same rules as moving assaulting models...."
BRB pg.40 Pile In
"This follows the same rules as moving assaulting models...."

BRB pg.34 Moving Assaulting Models
"If you follow this sequence you will end up with all the models in the assaulting unit in unit coherency, having engaged as many enemy models as possible...."

Seems pretty cut and dry.

[Wildeybeast]

Yes, this seems pretty clear cut, assulting units have to maintain unit coherency as they are 'moving'. The rule about having to move back into unit coherency next turn is there because you can remove casulties in such a way as to leave your squad no longer in coherency - you are only forced to maintain it when making a 'move' of some description. I therefore assume that coherency would also apply to consolidation and fall back moves.

[Tynskel]

there's a pretty long thread on this one about 2 months ago.

[Nabterayl]

Thanks for the reference.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, there are some funny little subtleties about the assault rules that most people don't know about. I only know about the model to model 2" coherency because it came up in a game. I had previously thought it didn't matter as long as you ended the turn in coherency.

[wkz]

there's a pretty long thread on this one about 2 months ago.

That pretty long thread is about Multiple assaults, not maintaining coherency while assaulting. Wrong topic, dude.


(scratch that, I be a noob: the below stuff is wrong)
Oh, and one minor thing:

[Lerra;143032]...
One of my friends plays IG with a 50-man infantry squad, and he'll often stretch them out to hold 2-3 objectives...[]

You can CONTEST 2 or 3 objectives if you can stretch your unit that far... but you CANNOT CAPTURE more than 1 objective with a single unit.

[Tynskel]

That pretty long thread is about Multiple assaults, not maintaining coherency while assaulting. Wrong topic, dude.


yeah, but it is very much related.

Hey, wkz, I want to let ya know, I joined the lounge for the exact same reason you joined the lounge: somebody peeved me off on the DISQUS and so I went to the lounge to vent!

[wkz]

yeah, but it is very much related. It is related, but the main point in the argument in that thread is NOT coherency. In fact, it is almost everything else other than coherency (remember? "Follow the steps while maintaining coherency, and step 1 is done only once" vs "Multi-assault must follow ALL the rules of coherency, closest-to-closest, etc, regardless of step, sequence or otherwise" and all that stuff?)


Hey, wkz, I want to let ya know, I joined the lounge for the exact same reason you joined the lounge: somebody peeved me off on the DISQUS and so I went to the lounge to vent!
Not surprising actually, given your (unique? not to yourself of course...) stance. There can only be so much argument on DISQUS, and there's the lounge nearby...