No its not obvious , the whole debate comes from another FAQ under scouts and it contradicts the rules of not being able to enter ZoC of a none intermingled formation

In summary, this debate has developed as follows:-

A unit close behind a target projects its ZoC in front of the target. This is "screening from behind".
RAW, the charging formation must either declare both formations intermingled to allow charging units to move into B-B with the units of the nearer formation, or must engage the front formation in FF only.

Scouts have a 10cm ZoC that allows them to "screen from behind" without being intermingled. RAW this prevents charging units from moving into B-B with the front formation, since they have to enter the ZoC of the scouts which cannot be declared part of the "target formation". The FAQ was written to cover this particular loophole, allowing chargers to ignore scouts ZoC where they are "screening from behind" - ie where the scout unit is behind the target unit relative to the chargers and the chargers enter the target unit's ZoC first, only encountering the scouts unit's ZoC a small distance later.

Onyx argued that this FAQ also covered an Air assault that lands between screening scouts and the target formation, because the FAQ was poorly worded and could be interpreted in this way. Here "screening from behind" takes on a different interpretation as the scouts are behind the *chargers*, and Onyx argued that on landing, the chargers enter both ZoCs simultaneously thus are legitimately in the target's ZoC as required. There followed extensive debates on the original intention of the FAQ, the positioning and ZoC of units, "reality vs game" etc culminating in the view just expressed by Onyx (as the recently adopted E:A rules chair).

I have always disagreed with redefining the FAQ in this way for many reasons; it goes against the spirit of the rules, opens up further rule interpretation issues, is unnecessary since the screen can easily be dealt with, and exaggerates the power of the air-game (which is close to being unbalanced anyway - a separate debate). However, as E:A rules chair, it seems that Onyx is presenting a new interpretation of the FAQ that will permit air assaults to ignore scouts ZoC, though to be fair we have not yet seen the actual FAQ wording.

I strongly suspect the debate will continue . . . hopefully on a new thread

Edit - having re-read Onyx's edited post, I am even more concerned at the apparent intention to present a new FAQ to allow chargers to enter multiple ZoC. This will significantly change the game as it strikes at the heart of the original rules, and is likely to cause a lot of unforeseen issues.

Ok, thanks for the background. So it's starting to come down to a balance between the power of being able to ignore scouts' ZOC vs the need for air units to activate and avoid CAP/flak on the way in. I'm not sure an auto activating Thunderhawk has too much to fear from most flak in the game, unless it's very heavily threatened. And if you choose to come in under the threat of CAP, maybe you deserve what you get?

I think claiming that you can avoid ZoC by engaging over the top of screening units is slightly dodgy. I mean they'd still have to lose altitude as they come right? And that would involve coming under small arms fire or whatever is represented by ZoC and the interference it causes - basically reason enough to have that ZoC invalidate the ability to get into B-B.

If air assaults reallly want to avoid scout screens they should have to make an approach move from the other side of the screen, that way the scout screen rules with the FAQ amendment still stand and air units still maintain a unique ability, that of being able to fly around formations in order to engage from the most advantageous angle. If this means the target formation needs to be further upfield than if the rule plays the other way so be it, that seems like a fair trade off to me. Conversely the target could be prepped by having the scouts shot up beforehand to leave a line of attack.

It feels like the rule's been tweaked to stop backfield artillery being too easily protected but in the process a whole other method of abuse has been opened up.

Just my 2 cents, and these rules are fairly new to me. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can help put things in a new light but I suspect I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before...

Gotta love how this has suddenly become about me...

Ginger, unfortunately, your memory of the whole debate is slightly flawed but that's fine.
I certainly wasn't the lone voice of dissension forcing the rest of the FAQ committee to agree with me.
Remember that I was on the committee under Neal and Mephiston.
Remember that I had discussions with Neal and the rest of the committee about this issue.
Remember that we were basically united in our opinions on this issue.
I do remember you trying to quote Neal's word on this as proof that your opinion was supported by him (something I know to be in error). Anyway, let's move on from the personal finger pointing.

As it stands, the FAQ committee is made up of 5 members.
Me, 2 representatives from the UK (both involved in the tournament scene there) and 2 from the US (both experienced players).
Interestingly, both the UK players have supported the wording of the new FAQ on aerial assaults. The US players already allow aerial assaults into multiple ZoC (along with Australia, parts of the UK and parts of Europe).
I am not proposing anything new and, to be honest, I'm getting a little tired of that broken record continually playing.

It is really important to understand that a vast majority of players outside the UK and parts of Europe have been allowing aerial assaults into multiple ZoC for YEARS. The game hasn't broken. Marines aren't winning every tournament they turn up to. In short, the sky will not fall on any one's head once the new FAQ is released.

All that said, I fully understand and accept that tournament organisers are free to run their events as they see fit. No one is forced to play the rules in any way they don't want to. I have no intention of causing a divide in the community.
Many players asked for a specific FAQ to be written (including contributors in this thread). I have done that (with the help of others). This needs to be discussed in any 5 minute warm-up before a game to make sure all players are on the same page.

Let's get back to making sure the original post is the focus of this thread.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

This is represented perfectly by the supporting fire rules. Nearby units can lend supporting fire in an engagement (as long as the original target formation is not wiped out).

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

That's fine and understood I just fail to see how the rules were ever read to allow it. Not being allowed in the ZoC of a formation that isn't the target of the assault seems fairly cut and dry to me. Surely it was only since the scouting from behind FAQ that this started happening? Most of the time you're going to be able to fly over both formations and attack from "behind" anyway so it really shouldn't be an issue. Even if you've got artillery on a back edge with scouts in front you should be able to barge the artillery out of the way and treating the scout screen as being from behind.

The more I think about it the less it seems to matter once the concept of screening from behind has been dealt with...

I'll put those worms back in that can now...

it is less of a 'screen from behind' and more of an 'incidental screening' rule

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Thank you all for your thoughts on the questions I had and your answers. I see the point of view in this thread reflect similar differences of opinion shared locally. I appreciate that there is ambiguity and look forward to something "official" that addresses it (whether I agree with it or not .
When might we anticipate this updated FAQ?

Thank you.

Was there a firmer conclusion to this issue?
Aircraft either counting or not counting as BTS when they are the most expensive formation would be acceptable; I don't mind either way but clarity would be welcome.

Do you mean like this from the FAQ?
However, I do think this FAQ ought to be moved to section 6.1 under victory conditions

No, it doesn't cover it because while Spacecraft are clearly defined in the rules, 'off-board units or formations' are not. The only place this is mentioned in the rules is:


For example, the above does not clearly answer questions about units that have changing states.
Important note - I am not 'rules lawyering', I am demonstrating why the FAQ may be insufficient.

If an Aircraft formation is the most expensive does it count towards BTS? (eg Phoenix Bombers 400pts)
No because it is always off-board at the end of the turn.
OR
No because it is always off-board at the end of the turn, unless it was killed when on the board in which case it only counts as BTS if it has been killed.
OR
Yes, if it is the most expensive formation and not a Spacecraft.

If an Aircraft that can land is the most expensive does it count towards BTS? (eg Manta Dropship 675pts)
Yes, it became an on-board unit when it landed
OR
Yes, but only when it has landed. If it doesn't come on during the game or has taken off, it no longer counts as the BTS because it has become an off-board unit
OR
No, aircraft are never BTS

Does a teleporting formation that is the most expensive count as BTS? (eg Teminators)
Yes, always
OR
Yes, but only from the point when they come on to the board
OR
Yes, but if they are picked up by a thunderhawk and taken off board, they no longer count as the BTS because they are now an off-board formation again
OR
The only time the most expensive formation counts as BTS when off-board is if the army is Necrons (Necron special rule)

etc.
If any of these would get differing answers from a different players, the issue probably needs a more definitive FAQ.

Ok, how about this definition (which says the same thing),

"The BTS objective is obtained if the most expensive formation in the army is destroyed, excluding all off-table formations."

Unfortunately I do not think it can be expressed any more clearly, because the position changes as new formations arrive and depart. The point is that *all* off-table formations are excluded from the evaluation of the BTS objective at the end of the third and subsequent turns, irrespective of whether they never enter the battlefield (spacecraft), can enter and leave (Aircraft and Necrons), or have not yet been deployed from reserve (teleporters and other reserves).

Now, I do think this FAQ ought to be placed in a more appropriate place under section 6, rather than under 4.3, because it clearly relates to the definition of objectives rather than merely spacecraft.
(And I think this is what you are trying to say)