NEW (First Draft FAQs!

Regardless of the actual rules it's physically impossible for a single model to impact more than one unit as you stop moving as soon as you touch the base of the first target. Unless two models are EXACTLY the same distance from the charger it's just not possible

So move the way that you can touch two enemy models simultaneously. Isn't that difficult if you have a big base.

I think you're missing the point. You physically cannot do that. At some point you will impact the base of a model from one unit before you touch another unit. You stop moving at that point, preventing you from ever reaching the second unit.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Regardless of the actual rules it's physically impossible for a single model to impact more than one unit as you stop moving as soon as you touch the base of the first target. Unless two models are EXACTLY the same distance from the charger it's just not possible

Correct. Which is why I've only ever seen it happen once.

To be totally fair though, as long as you don't shoot the units, there's no reason you can't premeasure to ensure success.

Seems like it would have been a lot easier to just answer 'no'.

The Shredder wrote:

Seems like it would have been a lot easier to just answer 'no'.

With the added bonus of being the correct answer!

Welcome to how I feel about grenades.

Jimsolo wrote:

Welcome to how I feel about grenades.

Yeah, the grenade ruling is nonsensical. Especially against vehicles.

"Go on, Larry, use your Krak Grenade."
"Uh, okay. But what about you guys? You all have grenades, too."
"Have you met the new quartermaster, Larry? If he found out we were using more than one grenade per vehicle, he'd have our heads. No, no, you just use your grenade and we'll provide moral support."

Agreed that the grenade ruling is pretty silly.  The irony in all the whining is that space marines CAN actually punch many vehicles to death (assuming rear armor is 10) and this "clarification" actually hurts low strength, grenade dependent units much more like craftworld/corsair eldar, guard, and tau.

Most of the other rulings don't affect me much personally, because I play against rational people who don't try to pull the shenanigans covered by the FAQ.  As a predominantly daemons player for example, I've never tried to claim area cover for a zooming FMC.  While, noone in my group was all that interested in spamming the librarius powers either.  The allied skimmers and transport/jink exploits (if they could be called that) hurts the dark kin utility pretty badly... but all (2) dark eldar players in my meta have basically given up on this army already anyway.

Which leads me to the "if you don't play dark eldar regularly get out" nonsense... I don't know what to say other than it seems like people are taking out their frustrations with the army/company on people who aren't willing to simply keep playing an increasingly outdated army.

It's 40k... people play more than one army, and swap back and forth depending on the meta.  Telling us to get out... well I think we can all agree it's pointless and rude.

Well, staying in this forum and complaining while not even playing the true kin kind of defeats its purpose, doesn't it?

I.don't join a veggie forum to complain about the food and talk about my latest steak either.

But hey. Whatever floats your boat.

I don't think so, no. Brian goes good lengths without paying DE, I believe. I take a 6-12 week break at the beginning of the year for the last four years or so. Heck, a number of the community members haven't played in this edition at all. I think an engagement with the community is the only requirement to be a member here, be it a love of the game, models, fluff, or just the DE community.

I value Shredder's opinion, even when we disagree. I keep in mind that his group, even when it was more active, is a little atypical, but I like hearing almost everyone's opinions and thoughts.

I'll grant you that.

CptMetal wrote:

Well, staying in this forum and complaining while not even playing the true kin kind of defeats its purpose, doesn't it?

I don't think so. I don't personally play DE much these days, although I keep myself very familiar with their rules and tactics. I don't think not playing with them regularly invalidates all of my other contributions to this community, or revokes my right to have the occasional complaint.

DE are still my favorite army fluff-wise. It just sucks that their rules don't even remotely resemble their fluff. I'd actually be HAPPY if they just wholesale copy/pasted the 5th edition codex(with prior FAQ) and re-released it as a revised 7th ed codex. It'd be the best thing to happen to DE in the past 2 years.

I can agree with that.

Oh, I don't know, Count Adhemar....That seemed almost like front-seat moderation to me!

Kidding!! <3 U Bro!

Count Adhemar wrote:

I think you're missing the point. You physically cannot do that. At some point you will impact the base of a model from one unit before you touch another unit. You stop moving at that point, preventing you from ever reaching the second unit.

Count - I don't think that is 100% correct, although it is right in the vast majority of cases...

You have to take the shortest route to the primary target with the initial charger. If in doing so you have to go around the secondary target, and they are close together, you could end up contacting both.

Using the multiple combats picture on p55, imagine the Marine at F is the only one in the unit. He declares a multiple charge against the Fire Dragons and secondary against the Guardians. The shortest route the primary target takes him to C, engaging both units.

Any reason that wouldn't allow multiple targets to be engaged?

Kantalla wrote:

Using the multiple combats picture on p55, imagine the Marine at F is the only one in the unit. He declares a multiple charge against the Fire Dragons and secondary against the Guardians. The shortest route the primary target takes him to C, engaging both units.

Because he doesn't have permission to contact the secondary target. As the initial, and only, attacker, he must move into base contact with the primary target. Only subsequent attackers can move into contact with the secondary target and, even if we assume that GW's FAQ answer removes that rule, we're still left with the bolded text that 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. It clearly can, and has, moved into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target as it's required to do so in order for the charge to succeed at all.

But the point I was making is that a single model must always reach one enemy model before it reaches another. One unit will always be further away than the other, even if only by a fraction of an inch. Now of course, at some point you get to the stage that the difference in distance is not even visible to the naked eye but it's still there and therefore, as you stop moving as soon as you reach base contact with the first model then it's impossible to reach the second under any circumstances.

Unless you premeasured to guarantee the multi charge.

This multi charge discussion reminds me of the mathematician and the engineer at the high school dance class.

The girls are lined up on one side, the boys opposite, and the dance instructor tells the to step to half the distance.

"You know," says the mathematician, "if they always step to half the distance they'll never be touching one another."

"Sure," replies the engineer, "but in another couple of steps they'll be close enough for all intents and purposes."

It seems to me that GW have ruled that if your (presumably large) single unit is roughly equidistant to two enemy units close enough together to both be in base contact, you can go for it and assault both, regardless of the exact interpretation of the rules surrounding 'closest'.

Whether this increases or decreases the quality of your 40k experience I pass no judgement.

My reading of the initial charger is that multiple combats give an exception to not engaging models from other units, which the FAQ essentially clarifies.

And if you check the picture on p55, I'm not saying they are equidistant. I'm saying to get to the primary target you have to go around the secondary target, so the shortest route to the primary target engages both units.

Of all the things in the FAQ, why is this multi-charge thing something people are concerned with?
If you follow rules, it'll never happen. If the planets align and you somehow manage to pull it off, kudos to you.

But I just lost the ability to jink and shoot with troops, have Eldar allies drop in aboard Raiders, use multiple grenades in CC and on a positive note my Razorwings are no longer destroyed if they're forced to move set distance and end on top of enemy models.

I think there are other things to discuss. IMO of course.

I think grenades and passengerjink are far more concerning issues to me.

flakmonkey wrote:

But I just lost the ability to jink and shoot with troops, have Eldar allies drop in aboard Raiders, use multiple grenades in CC and on a positive note my Razorwings are no longer destroyed if they're forced to move set distance and end on top of enemy models.

I think there are other things to discuss. IMO of course.

We have had those discussions, not only in here but in other threads and some in the chat box. Jink and Eldar taxi service in particular. We aren't ignoring those have just moved the discussion to other rulings in this thread but if you have input please put it down, just because we aren't currently discussing it doesn't mean we shouldn't swing back onto those topics of greater importance to us.

flakmonkey wrote:

Of all the things in the FAQ, why is this multi-charge thing something people are concerned with?

Sorry, you can blame me for that one.

I just brought it up because of how utterly barmy it seemed. Not only does it obviously contradict the rules in multiple places, but it's such an unlikely scenario to begin with.

But yeah, DE have much bigger concerns than that.