That's incorrect, if you want to be picky. A unit can enter the ZOC of a unit if it is assaulting that unit's formation. Otherwise it would be impossible to contact anything if the formation is clumped up.

I don't quite see the problem with the Landing Craft?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

What happens with players that use the old Thunderbrick T/hawks when compared to the FW T/hawks?
The solution is for the 2 players to play in the spirit of the game and work it out.

BUT since "the rule for moving into base contact with the enemy takes precedence over the rule for not entering another unit’s ZOC", and with the official GW scout screen FAQ to clarify this, it is obvious that in certain situations, you can enter an enemy ZoC whilst assaulting another formation.

_________________
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.

Ok just to throw some more fuel on this. Here is the second paragraph of 4.2.1 Aircraft Approach Moves.


So from this we gain that AC ignore ZOC's.... cool. So next lets look at landing from 4.2.5



So it's not consider a ground unit, and therefore subject to ZOC's, until its on the ground. And at that point it won't have to leave a units ZOC it finds itself in until it next activates.

The moral of this story? Don't pick at the rules, they are looser than you realise, the air rules doubly so.

That FAQ only covers the ZoC situation when "screening FROM BEHIND".
ie where a unit enters the ZoC of a different formation having already entered the ZoC of a target unit.

It specifically does not cover any other situation!!

If the E:A rules were intended to allow the entry to multiple ZoCs, then

1. Section #1 rules would have been written differently for normal assaults - it isn't.
2. The E:A rules are written such that later sections over-ride the basic rules in section #1. Where not explicitly overwritten, the basic rules still stand.
   The air rules are were tacked on as an afterthought and have been the most contentious as a result - but at no point do they specify the principle of 'landing in multiple ZoCs' - so the basic rules still apply to the positioning of air transports and associated troops.
3. If the E:A rules were written ambiguously (which they are ), an FAQ to explain this would have been presented many, many years ago - and there would have been a much wider debate in the earlier forums.
   No such FAQ exists other than the 'screening from behind' one. And apart from your recent comments from January this year in the air assaults thread, no earlier debates exist on this particular subject.

Basically Onyx, you are forcing this issue against the generally accepted view of how the rules are written and played by the vast majority of people worldwide for many years.

So why is it only you and Rug that are commenting on this?
I think you are exagerating quite a bit there.
There are even players from the UK in this thread that support the NetEA FAQ but who are also willing to play your way because they are being very reasonable and rememebering that this is just a game.

In your own words:



So the you are supporting a slightly unrealistic interpretation and you are resisiting a slightly more realistic solution which you admit is better (even if only marginally).
Unless someone brings something new to this conversation, I don't think I'll post here again.
The FAQ is done and is in print in the 2012 NeatEA Tournament Pack. The language will be cleared up once Neal has time.
Anyone who disagrees with it is free to play the game any way they feel.
Continuing to argue about this will not change that situation.

I'm not forcing any issues against anyones views (ceratinly not a vast majority). The NetEA FAQ/rules commitee has made it's decision and that decision has been included in the 2012 NetEA Tournament Pack. That is why we are here.

These kind of discussions are why I repeatedly turned down other positions within the NetEA team. I don't enjoy these situations at all and they are not productive. In essence - stop thinking it's all my fault and realise that there are obviously many more that feel the same way is I do or we wouldn't have come to the conclusions that we did.

_________________
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.

I don't think he's forcing anything Ginger, it's a contentious issue and given the number of responses to this thread I don't think there's a vast majority one way or another.

From my experience I've never ran into a situation where a player declared that a scout screen could affect an air assault. AC ignore ZoC on approach moves, so once they land anything disembarking has to charge the closest thing that it's in ZoC of. Since you can only assault one formation (unless intermingling comes into play) anything charging a unit from another formation stops just shy of BtB. That's what I got out of Neal's explanation last time anyway.

All that apparently bumps up against your/the UK's experience. Given how hot the topic is it'll probably be relegated to the 5-min warmup rather than a clean-cut FAQ. I don't want to get into splitting the community over rules.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Dave,

The simple ruling that we use in the UK (and I thought vritually everywhere else) was that when assaulting, you could only enter the ZoC of units from the target formation; you had to avoid all other enemy ZoC. The 'screen from behind' FAQ was presented to cover that particular situation where the assaulting units encountered the ZoC of non-intermingled scouts after they had already entered the target Unit ZoC.

This revision for air assaults which permits the assault to invade the ZoCs of multiple formations is "opening a whole can of worms" around the positioning of models in the assault like

• "the Landing Craft is a big model. When I am assaulting a formation, can I land it in the ZoC of a second formation if there are space restrictions"?
• "I am assaulting with a full Landing craft that has landed in the ZoC of the target formation. I have disembarked as many units as possible into contact as required by the FAQ. However because of space restrictions I find the remaining units are disembarking into the ZoC of a separate formation. Is this legal"?
• What point on the air transport model do you measure disembarcation from; the point nearest the target, the middle etc, or do you let the player choose on a unit by unit basis? Based on this, which direction should the disembarking units move in; towards the target of the assault, or towards the nearest enemy unit?
• And these questions ignore the possibility of more exploitative practices that may occur eg where units from the non-engaged formation now find themselves deliberately placed within the ZoC of an air-assaulting unit, etc.

Quite apart from my views on the intent behind the rules and how they were written, I am also a firm advocate of KISS in this situation - basically that you may not enter the ZoC of units from any formation apart from those that are the target of the assault.

Finally, I am curious about the initial FAQ about landing in an enemy ZoC. The rules say that A/c ignore all ZoC while flying, so why this particular compulsion; what is wrong with allowing the A/c to land anywhere including up to 5cm from the target?

@Onyx,

I thought your original views on the subject were partly based on the 'realism' of the situation, though I may have been mistaken, hence my comments. You are correct that this is a game, not a simulation. As such there are a lot of 'clunky' bits in the rules, and IMO using the ZoC of scouts to inhibit air assaults in this way is just another such case. It is definitely not 'game-breaking' nor does it make the scouts particularly 'overpowered', the scout screen can easily be dealt with by numerous means. Rather it does seem to add another welcome layer to the game, much like you might find in Chess or any other strategy game.

We pretty much go by this FAQ:



This is how we've handled these when they come up.



You can land in ZoC of a second formation, you declare what you're assaulting and charge appropriately like I wrote above.



It is, and they charge towards the closest but may not BtB them (and thus bring them into the assault).



We measure from the closest point of the AC model and the attacking player chooses where things disembark from (for bigger models with an obvious door that's what we usually go by, sort of a gentlemen's agreement there). The disembarking units move towards the nearest enemy unit whose ZoC they are in, BtBing only those from the formation they're assaulting.



We usually play that the winners of an assault have to use their consolidation move to move out of enemy ZoC. Not sure what's the official ruling on that one though.



Not sure where you're going with this. Nothing's wrong with it, we allow the AC to land wherever it wants.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I propose a democratic vote.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Here are some quotes from Neal in one of the threads linked to by Ginger about this subject:
An air transport can almost always be landed in such a way to satisfy these requirements.







It's fine for EpicUK to play any way they choose. All entrants in an EpicUK event would know the rules to be used and would obviously accept them or they wouldn't participate. I'd happily obey EpicUK rules at one of their events.
It's fine for any person playing Epic Armageddon to play any way they choose. Players can decide for themselves what they think is the best option of the 2 points of view. An FAQ is an attempt to help clarify a situation - not a demand. There will always be players that ignore FAQ's and that's not a crime.

It's clear from Neals quotes that the NetEA FAQ is playable and supported by people with in-depth knowledge of the Epic Armageddon rules (namely - him ).

Several of the posters in this thread had all their worries/questions answered in THIS THREAD (previously linked to by Ginger). I suggest anyone who has questions should read that whole thread first and them see if they still have any queries.

I see no need for votes or anything like that.
Hopefully some clearer language can be used to clarify the FAQ's and we can get on with playing our game the way we want.

And one comment on the popularity of Epic... in our small corner of the world (Perth, Western Australia), the Epic community has grown from 6+ members to 20+ members in 3 years. Epic may be hemorrhaging players in other communities but it's quite healthy here (and growing).

_________________
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.