Assaulting multiple units around other units

[ShadowcatX]

I was wondering if you have an extremely large squad, could you assault different units with opposite ends of the squad, as long as there was enough troops to maintain coherency?

Eg. (O's are enemy, X's are assaulting troops)

0____0_____0
XX_________XX
_XXXXXXXXXX

The idea is to block line of sight for the middle unit, while tying the other two units up in close combat while still keeping enough troops out of the kill range that the squad won't be destroyed in 1 assault phase.

[Adeptjosh]

I believe you may assault more than one unit with a squad , so long as ...

1. you begin your charge move against the unit you may have shot
2. you are in range to charge
3. you end you squads move in unit choherancey

[tarzen]

Originally Posted by ShadowcatX

I was wondering if you have an extremely large squad, could you assault different units with opposite ends of the squad, as long as there was enough troops to maintain coherency?

Eg. (O's are enemy, X's are assaulting troops)

0____0_____0
XX_________XX
_XXXXXXXXXX

The idea is to block line of sight for the middle unit, while tying the other two units up in close combat while still keeping enough troops out of the kill range that the squad won't be destroyed in 1 assault phase.

p 37 has all your answers.

you may declare multiple assaults but you must follow each and every rule listed.

That said, you may certainly do something similar to what you are asking.

[Cheredanine]

Indeed, although what you are asking has its problems, because your unit charged all models must attempt to get into base to base within the constraints of unit coheranecy, so you may wend up assault the middle squad too

[LordCreampuff]

I play nids and do this all the time. I find it especially useful against shooty armies that bunch together, like Necrons. Since he will telport a squad or two away each turn it's better to engage as many as possible at once.

The 4th edition rules makes this much easier than third edition IMO. Now you simply declare a multiple charge and move the models normally following the assault rules. As long as you can keep coherency, an easy task with 32 Gaunts in one squad, you're golden. It can get complicated when you have to make morale tests though. If you lose both combats you must make two morale checks and if either fails the whole unit breaks and falls back. This gives the enemy two chances to wipe out your unit. This is why using nids within synapse makes this work so well, fearless.

One of my favorite tactics is to charge one unit and send a single model into a second unit. This engages both units while still allowing me to concentrate on a single foe. I find this sacrifice completely worth it to prevent the second unit from moving or firing next turn. Just make sure you can consolidate into both units after the combat to keep both engaged.

[Bugs_n_Orks]

Originally Posted by LordCreampuff

It can get complicated when you have to make morale tests though. If you lose both combats you must make two morale checks and if either fails the whole unit breaks and falls back. This gives the enemy two chances to wipe out your unit.

I'm fairly sure that you only make one morale check per turn for loosing close combat. If one of your units was in combat with two enemies you would compare the total number of wounds they both caused to the total number of wounds you caused on both of them. Then for outnumbering it would be you compared to the total number of models in both enemy squads.

[tarzen]

Originally Posted by Bugs_n_Orks

I'm fairly sure that you only make one morale check per turn for loosing close combat. If one of your units was in combat with two enemies you would compare the total number of wounds they both caused to the total number of wounds you caused on both of them. Then for outnumbering it would be you compared to the total number of models in both enemy squads.

But if your unit flees (not fearless or in synapse) then each unit in btb gets a chance to sweeping advance your squad. So 2 initiative checks, not leadership checks.