Consolidation

[Dwango]

I played a game last night where my opponent had a large unit of warriors strung out across 3 objectives. I charged the unit on an objective I was contesting. I then contested a second objective with a different squad and took it off him due to a higher OC. This squad didn't charge, just moved onto it.

 

We were unsure but could he have consolidated his big unit towards the second objective in order to get a higher OC? He was able to maintain unit coherency. 

 

Thanks.

 

[Kallas]

6 hours ago, Dwango said:

could he have consolidated his big unit towards the second objective in order to get a higher OC?

Consolidation direction (ie, towards the nearest model or towards the nearest objective, both requiring coherency) is determined on a model-by-model basis. The unit must be able to end within engagement range of an enemy unit, or within range of an objective marker; but the first check is a requirement - to be able to move on to an objective marker, you must not be able to move into engagement range of one or more enemy units.

 

This is important, because if you can move into engagement range, then models have the following restriction:

Quote

If a unit can end its Consolidation within Engagement Range of one or more enemy units, then each time one of its models makes a Consolidation move, it must end that move closer to the closest enemy model.

 

So in the example you gave, the Necron Warriors are apparently still in engagement range after having charged in ("I charged the unit on an objective I was contesting. I then contested a second objective with a different squad [...] This squad didn't charge, just moved onto it."), and so when they go to consolidate they will meet the requirements for the first part of consolidation - that is to say, that they are able to end their movement in engagement range; and because of that, when they make their consolidation moves their models are required to move closer to the closest enemy models (on a model-by-model basis).

 

What this means is that they cannot choose to go towards the objective marker, they must move towards engagement range (and move into base contact if possible, while maintaining coherency).

 

Spoiler

 

Minor soapbox:

Spoiler

This is one of the instances where 10th is very much not simpler. The fight phase and pretty much all movement involved with charging and fighting is much more awkward and limited than previously. It's annoying and requires these overly specific restrictions instead of just...working like previous versions, even if they were 'gamey', they were generally quicker to resolve and required less effort to decipher.

 

[Dwango]

Thanks for the detailed response Kallas. You're right, it does seem to be really awkward and it is annoying that it's not more simple. 

 

So essentially they could move onto the middle objective to either get closer to the nearest model or to the objective. Both of which were in the same direction in this scenario. 

[BluejayJunior]

In your scenario, since they are the same direction it doesn't make a difference. But moving into engagement range of a unit takes precedence over moving onto an objective. So if the nearest unit was the opposite direction of the objective, you would only be able to consolidate into engagement range or not move at all. You can only consolidate onto an objective if you cannot consolidate into an enemy unit. 

 

I agree it's a little complicated. I see how they were trying to simplify it by getting rid of the movement shenanigans in the charge/fight phase. But I don't think they quite hit what they were going for. That said, I actually do like this change once I got my head around it.