Whether I am at FSA is in the 'lap of the gods' at the moment. And as for a ruling on any issues, Neal is as good as you will get

which was the nub of the original question

Do your best to leave the ZoC via the shortest possible move that also allows you to maintain coherency, and if you don't get there then at least you tried.
Doesn't really need any more guidance than that IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

1.7.3 ZOC

If a unit finds itself in an enemy ZOC for any reason, then it must charge the enemy or leave the ZOC when it next takes an action.

Actions are defined in 1.6.1 and don't involve consolidate moves, as far as I can see a consolidate that is begun in an enemy ZOC can move in any direction it wants or not move at all, however it could not enter any new enemy models ZOC other than the one it began its consolidate move within (because of 1.12.9).

Of course to be fair this is a games workshop game so a belief by me that action has some sort of definition is probably a bit silly and it was probably meant to be extrapolated to you know just anytime you do something

I certainly think you're taking things a bit too RAW in allowing consolidation moves to move towards the enemy if you start in a ZoC... potentially bringing back the good old days of the "broken fearless charge into B2B" in a new form, for example.

Best just to play like a gent and try to get out of ZoC IMO, rather than try and find an awesome new RAW way to be annoying. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes and no. I applied something too broadly.

In a rare instance of rules using the exact same wording, the Consolidation Move and the normal Move/ZoC rules use the same language. There's no reason to think they work differently with respect to ZoC.
1.12.9, final sentence:

1.7.3:


That said, there is an exception because Consolidation moves are voluntary. They may choose not to move at all. There is an FAQ that deals with a close parallel situation of being inside ZoC, unbroken, during a consolidation move.

Fearless FAQ, 2.1.3, the last sentence is what would apply:



That same situation has been dealt with before. A formation in enemy ZoC fails to activate (so it cannot Engage) and does not have enough move to get out of the enemy ZoC. I don't think it was entered into the FAQ, but I recall the consensus was to treat it like the above Fearless situation, and the unit must use its Hold action to move to the best of its ability to try to escape ZoC.

==

Edit: Incidentally, I think that could apply to non-Fearless WEs on a Withdrawal move as well. Withdrawals are written in terms of "may" move. WEs take 1 point of damage per enemy unit in range. If there were few enough enemies in range and the need dire enough a player might choose to stay in place and take the hackdown damage.

Fair enough, so in the question asked, either don't consolidate or if you do you must move out of enemy ZOC if possible and if not make all effort to move as far out as possible.

By the way, I checked the GW 2008 FAQ and it seems the Fearless FAQ I quoted is a TacComms FAQ, if that makes a difference to anyone.

Wow, I never expected this to elicit such a response.

Things have calmed down now so I'll summarize / list what I've learned. I think it is already clear from AgeingHippy's comments that he was my opponent in this game.

1. The Scout rule in the FAQ applies when the formations are not intermingled and the scout position acts to screen from attacks.
Our interpretation was that the rule was applicable when the scout and non-scout are in close vicinity, intermingled included. In response, I allowed the SM to illegally engage the EoV by landing and disembarking in the SH ZoC.


And

And



2. The target should not be declared when Engage action is declared
We tend to play with this convention, but we should be more careful in the future. In this case it worked to enforce the problem.


3. Because of 2. when a formation is engaging and they hit an enemy unit ZoC then they are assaulting that unit's formation.
Therefore, with the landing spot chosen, the SM should have entered the engagement targetting the Aspect formation.
But, it would have been legal to land outside of both ZoCs while staying within 15cm of the EoV to firefight with them.



4. If the intention is to enter ZoC of units from >1 formation (and they are eligible for intermingling) then the attacker must engage them as an intermingled formation.
The SM had to either,
* stay out of the EoV ZoC and assault the Aspects only
* assault both as an intermingled formation. They could then move into base contact with the EoV if required.





5. In a consolidation move where a unit cannot escape a ZoC they should still aim their move towards the edge of the ZoC.

And

And

---

I find it surprising that all of this came out of our misinterpretation of the FAQ rule, we won't be doing that again. The consolidation move ending in ZoC appears to be rare and only arose here because we allowed an illegal engage.


We have another war planned for Thursday evening. I'm sure that AgeingHippy, now aware that his previous victory was unlawful, will happily forfeit that and start preparing for his demise later this week.

Thanks everyone!

Actually you do declare a target formation when you are engaging, but only once you have passed the action test:



In your case, if the EoV were declared as the target formation (and not intermingled with the aspects), the TH should not have been allowed to land in the aspects' ZoC. It would have to land elsewhere, even if that meant nothing could attack. Clearly you should be careful which target you choose. Although, if it was me, I would let my opponent correct their mistake and declare a different target.

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

Hello all,
I'm new to the board but not the game. (playing since epic V1, but only just)

My respect to all those who have spent years battling out the wether toos and whyfores of E:A seems pretty good to me.

I stumbled across the air assault and multi ZoC problem on the Ork tactics thread from 2010 and have since read many of the threads on it.
I just wanted to bang up a little pic of a situation I think Neal has been talking about, one which absolutely must be clear.


Here a WE squad is lined up with scouts behind and as I read the discussion some people are saying the tanks(light grey) can't be attacked by the assault-squad/warhorde (in red) due to the location of the scouts(dark grey), with white circles at 5cm, as they are not intermingled.

I've read the oft quoted rules over and over and it seems to me the Faq deals with exactly this scenario, further that if the reds can charge into b-b then a TH should also be able to land and disembark.

Sorry to rehash an old but recurring problem but I thought maybe a solid example, real game scenario, may help concrete the arguments.

Bim

Please also cross refer to the same question in the How would one defend against an air assault thread here

Bim, thanks for the diagram,
Note,

• If they are normal AV, the tanks are actually out of coherency as they need to be within 5cm of each other (not 10 cm as you have drawn them ).
• Also the model takes up some space within the remaining 5cm of the scouts ZoC.
  Using simple geometry and assuming that the model base is 1cm deep, you can calculate that the ZoC of the tanks projects at least 3mm beyond that of the scouts directly towards the assaulting horde (more if the tank model is deeper).

This brings us back to the FAQ which exactly describes this situation; the assaulting formation cannot declare the two target formations intermingled as they are >5cm apart, and if they wanted to move into B-B with the tanks, each assaulting unit from the horde would enter the ZoC of a Scouts before contacting their intended target.

In this case, the FAQ permits the assaulting units to enter the scouts ZoC on the premis that each has already entered the ZoC of a tank (making that tank the nearest unit and thus their 'target' under 1.7.3) and it qualifies the apparently conflicting statements in 1.12.3 regarding enemy ZoC, permiting the attacker to pass through other ZoCs whether they belong to the target formation or not.

BUT,
If the tanks are 3DC WE (eg Shadowsword company), then they can be positioned up to 15cm apart while still being in coherency. This in turn permits the scouts and WE to be placed alternately in a straight line ~6cms apart, where the WE and their ZoC are entirely enclosed by the scouts ZoC (so the tank's ZoC does not project beyond that of the scouts). Here the scouts are *not* 'screening from behind' as in the FAQ, because their ZoC projects in front of the WE ZoC.

Here RAW, the assaulting horde would not be permitted to move into CC with the WE because:-

• The two formations cannot be declared intermingled.
• The ZoC first entered would be that of a Scout unit which must be avoided (like the ZoC of any other enemy formation).

Ginger, this is the whole point of the FAQ. If the target is closer, the attacker can move to base contact. The FAQ says "Yes, they can." It goes on to say "If you must have a justification..." but that justification is not a required condition for the "yes" answer.

Hi Ginger, thanks for the reply

Yep I was thinking DC3s, the positioning of the scouts behind was also deliberate. It makes the charge move for normal infantry almost too far for b-b meaning most of the ensuing assault would have to be FF, an area where a lot of good CC troops don't excel. When set up in a line as you say charging the scouts is an option, but would leave the attacking force open not on to FF from the WEs but also their shooting phase. As I've drawn it only the front line would have a chance of B-B but only after moving completely through the WEs ZoC (which is allowed by the FaQ). The RAW as you state it forces the attacker to charge the more distant opponent formation.

Your post answers my Question, but makes me think Raw is a bit underdeveloped in this regard. I could see how the scouts would manage to intercept upto their own number of opponents, but stopping 3 times their number or even a titan from engaging. It just doesn't sit well with me.

What about giving scouts the choice to "intercept" at the edge of ZoC and thereby blocking only their number of non WE (WE can still barge them) troops, their other alternative is to sit by and allow the charge through and give aid during the supporting fire section of the Assault. That is after all why it exists.

This would also help against the air assault problem. If you station 8 scouts around an artillery formation and a TH drops a squad on them the scouts could intercept a sizeable portion of the disembarking troops. They could in this manner choose to intermingle themselves OR stand by and watch the slaughter. Its up to the defending player.

I think this is how I will resolve this myself in future games. provided I can get my opponent to agree...

Cheers

Bim