I don't understand how 1.12.5 isn't already clear about this. You have to have LOF in an assault. Am I missing something subtle in the situation?

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

There's no mention of LoF until 1.12.5. At that point thr assault is already going. The issue is ypu can get to a roll-off in a situation where you could never inflict harm on onr another.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Notwithstanding the 'directly engaged' definition in 1.12.5 stating 15cm, I have a feeling that this was discussed by Neal Hunt many years ago, and he came to the conclusion that LoS is required in most parts of 1.12 assault, so is implied as being required throughout.

Consequently, if the surviving chargers are out of range OR LoS after assault then the Assault stalls and the defenders automatically win and there is no 'support fire'.

Here the Warhounds never got into position to be 'directly engaged' so automatically lost. The same could apply where the target has other enemy units elsewhere that are closer, causing the target to countercharge away from the chargers and possibly into a position where nothing is 'directly engaged'.

^this^

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

This would also apply if overwatch fire took out all stands with LOS in the absence of anyone being engaged in close combat right?

Yes. However it happens, by mistake or enemy action, if there are no charging units left 'directly engaged' (in range and LoS) then the assault stalls and the Defender wins.

Part of the reasoning behind this was to correct a very gamey practice where a massive formation was moved in position in front of an extended enemy formation which was then attacked (possibly on a flank) by a much weaker force. Originally the entire enemy formation was deemed to be engaged allowing it to be destroyed by the 'support fire' without reply. The intention behind the newer wording was to encourage players to use the main formation to initiate the assault.

So having gone through this a little more, the above is wrong. Neal's original FAQ had this:



That being the case it's actually: get within 15cm, if nothing has LoS go to resolution and work out the result.

That seems wrong, as others have mentioned. I searched for a ruling but didn't find one, so reached out to Neal, Onyx and dptdexys to see what's out there and what their thoughts are.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

On my phone so can't check at the moment, but isnt there a requirement to get something into range for the assault to even take place? Otherwise you could just declare an assault on a formation on the other side of the table and win with inspiring and BMs etc.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Yes, one unit within 15cm.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

So the issue really is about whether the rules technically require LoS too? It does seem wrong that you can get a roll off without risking any units. Requiring line of sight throughout (or just using the 'directly involved' terminology) would make it clear would it?

1. Attacker moves. If no units within range and LoS then assault does not take place.
2. Defender counter charges. If no units within range and LoS then go to roll off.
3. Fight assault. If directly engaged units are killed defender wins.
4. Assuming another round, both sides counter charge. If no units directly engaged, go to roll off.
5. Fight assault again, repeat etc.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I think we discussed much of this at:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31578&p=598082#p598082

I also had an odd situation against Richard in a tournament where part of this came up.
The defending unit counter charging outside 15cm of the attacker. In line with the above, we played that the assault didn't happen.
I'd assume the same situation where the attacker doesn't have (or loses due to counter charge) line of sight (we recently had a game where the defender charged the nearest unit drawing them further into a forest so no LOS. A role of in such a situation just doesn't seem right, it offers to much potential for gamesmanship by the attacker, whilst 'The attack stalls' does the opposite.

Dave, I do agree that the definition for "Directly Engaged" should require at least one assaulting unit to be both within 15cm and LoS of at least one defending unit. However it does raise questions like that from Dan above.

I also agree that if there are no units "Directly Engaged" either after the initial charge moves, or after the countercharges, that the Assault does not occur.

This can only occur if the chargers do not get into position initially (after their charge move), or the defenders countercharge away from the attackers because:-
- The assaulting units are within 5cm of the extreme range for assaults (15cm in the open, 10cm in terrain)
- There are other enemy units closer than the assaulting unit(s), but outside countercharge range from the defenders.
- These other enemy units are behind the defenders relative to the attackers.

Note, This scenario is different from the similar situation in the 2nd and subsequent rounds where, even if there are no longer units "Directly Engaged" (and hence there is no support fire by definition), the assault resolution still takes place.

From where do you infer that the assault doesn't take place if counter charges result in no units being in 15? The rulebook has this check after the initial charge move, before the section about counter charges. The defender is not forced to countercharge so it seems reasonable to go to roll off to me.

Remember this 'stalled' rule was introduced to stop the dodgy tactic carried over from 3rd ed known as 'the sacrifice of the lonely bike' where you assault a scary formation but only put one unit in range to be killed, limiting your losses so you can win on modifiers.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

From 1.12.3

As I said earlier, IIRC this whole aspect was discussed many years ago by NealHunt, and formed the basis for his complete review of section 1.12. The point being that certain aspects were implied from earlier / later sentences in the section.

Elsewhere in 1.12.5 units must be within 15cm AND have LoS to be able to fight. There are situations where opposing units could end up within 15cm but be outside LoS. This causes no casualties by direct combat, and the rules move on to allow each side to call on support. This effectively triggers the exact case you refer to, which I agree that we should avoid.

No my question was specifically about the order of the check for 15/LoS, not about the omission of LoS in that check. The bit you quoted is exactly what I am referring to, notably it occurs explicitly after the charge move and not after counter charges. So RAW if I charge and nothing is in range the assault doesn't take place, which makes sense as it is my fault. But if I do put stuff in range you may countercharge, and if you choose to countercharge and end up unable to attack, that's your fault and so you don't get to stop the assault happening by moving out of range, instead we go to roll off. I'm pretty sure that's how it's been played at tournaments too.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list