Umm, could we try to get back to the question here and understand just what it is that people dislike about 'clipping', because I think we may be missing a number of points.

In summary, a 'clipping' assault often relies on winning by using

1) Assault Resolution factors other than casualties to win the resolution.
2) Other forces to 'pin' the defenders preventing them from engaging the attackers.
3) Supports that can fight without being shot at.

IMHO 'Other factors' represent the different states of fomation morale or preparing the assault, and generally most seem to accept the principles here. 'Pinning' part of the target may be a little more controversial, but effectively represents combat between these forces which do not contribute in any other way. Again this would not seem to be too controversial.

As Chroma and others point out, the main 'oddity' seems to be where the supports actually participate in the assault but cannot be hurt in return. Is it this particular element of assaults that is at the heart of the problem being presented?

Support fire has already been toned down in a number of ways by restricting the target of the support fire, and now by requiring the attackers to survive the defender's fire before the supports may participate. Historically these changes were designed to get around this particular aspect of assaults - where a small sacrificial formation is used to bring in the superior firepower of the actual assault.

Perhaps as others suggest, firing from the assaulters, defenders and supports may be allocated to all the participating formations under particualr circumstances. So perhaps firing on the supports must not exceed firing on the attacker/defender etc. Note, even doing this you will still hit oddities through the 'pooling' of hits.

So what else can be done, and more importantly is it worth it?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I figured the original topic had been beaten to death, then fiddled with the corpse.

The aspect I dislike is that it seems excessively gamey to be measuring out exact distance in order to specificly leave enemy units out in the cold. Fair enough not running into close combat against superior enemies, but theres the idea I have that all out assaults should have a little more all out in them.

In any rate you're right that theres little that can be done to 'fix' the problem, at any rate. Simply shifting the goalposts around with artifical extra requirements.

If you're going to continue to post on the internet i would suggest you grow a thicker skin because these mis-understandings are common when communicating purely by text by people who do not know one another.

_________________
"A good orbital insertion is one you walk away from, a great one is where they can use the Thunderhawk again." Roboute Guilliman.

The aspect I dislike is that it seems excessively gamey to be measuring out exact distance in order to specificly leave enemy units out in the cold.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I agree with Matt A. and don't see a problem with clipping assaults.

I'm finding that most of the problems raised are from the micro management side of the assault especially the shuffling of units to get all of theirs in range whilst minimising opponents.

If that is the case then quote this :-

1.7 MOVEMENT
Most actions allow all the units in a formation to make
one or more moves. Units move a distance in centimetres
up to the Speed value shown on their datasheet – there is
no compulsion on players to use the total move available
to them. Depending on the action they are taking, a unit
may move one, two or three times (see 1.7.1). They may
turn freely as they move. A unit is never forced to move,
but sometimes failing to do so can result in its destruction
(see 1.13.3). Once a player has moved a unit and removed
his hand from the model, the move may not be changed.

Ah, thats very intresting and potentially quite useful. Perhaps I'll see if any of the guys I play against fancy trying some non pre-measuring games.

_________________
"A good orbital insertion is one you walk away from, a great one is where they can use the Thunderhawk again." Roboute Guilliman.

in my opinion clipping assaulat is the Death of this super game.
i' haven't read all the 6 pages but in my opinion there  are 2 way to eliminate it.
1) Eliminate premesuring.
2) change the countercharge movements,  for example instead of 5 cm let a 10 cm moves and 14 moves for faster stuff

1) Makes it a game of who can judge distances the best - and opens up all kinds of firing at one thing to judge range to another gaminess

2) Basically all but eliminates FF

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

why you said it eliminates FF? With 10 cm you aren't in base to base for sure.Howherver i said change the countercharge move rules, the 10 cm is just an example , can be other way to change the rules.
For the 1 point i don't think is as you said. I start play this game without premesuring and i can i say that it is more realistic , because you have to be more cautious on your movements ,the slow and numerous armies have an help with the assault (clipping is really difficult without premeasuring) and faster armies have an advantage because can outmanouvre you and try more difficult movement because have minor probability to get short. In this way the maximazing activation(another thing i hate)  is less important.

Well pre-measuring is something you can bring up in the warm up with your opponents.

However 'clipping' as such is a recognised and well practiced military tactic where you attack the flank of a formation (or even an army) bringing superior force to bear on a locally inferior force.

It may not seem 'fair', but then this is a representation of warfare, which is seldom 'fair'.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I think a clipping assault in a one-on-one situation is fine, but as others have said - supporting fire just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps any unit that has range and LoS to a supporting formation may FF it if it's out of range of the original attacker?

_________________
My Epic Ork Gallery

Remember that if the attaker only "clips" two enemy units in a target formation, the attacker's support fire can only target those two units, and that's if they even survive the initial clip.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

sorry but you take a flank of the enemy and  try to do some damage if you have inferior number than the enemy in real warfare. 10 men can hope to kill 100 if they attack on the flank with the surprise effect?No ,they can kill 20 or 30  enemy before become dead or retreat. Presume that they kill some enemy and have a good probability to make fall back the rest of them is this that have no sense. In the game 2 stand of marines (not 1 unit ) if make a clipping attack vs a huge mob of ork have a really good chance to break them. 2 attack from the marines is 1 hit and 1 kill , the orc can answer with 2 or 3 ff at 6 so i think no hit. the ork won by 1 only because they are more than double (considering no support)so with the dice the marines have good chance of won the game;  if the ork have only 1 Bm then the 2 stand of marines won by 1 .......... and can really break an entire formation. Is this situation that have nonsense.