Yet another ambiguousness in the rules...? Unheard of!
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23003 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | AgeingHippy [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
Hi All In a situation where an assault is resolved does a second formation belonging to the looser that has a unit 15 within 15cm of a directly involved unit of the attackers formation but no LOS get a blast marker or not? The formation was not able to support fire because there was no LOS. Thanks |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
Not able to support = no BM |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
I am not sure about this; the wording in the last para of 1.12.8 is "in a position to have lent support". The fact that the formation is *unable* to support for some reason does not prevent it getting a BM, and I seem to recall Neal explaining that no LoS is similar to other factors that prevent a formation actually lending support (no longer in range of active enemy, no FF capability, broken etc). So here I believe that a BM should be awarded to the supports of the losing side. The point is that the 'supports' are close enough to some friendly formation that has suddenly run away. The fact that they were unable to influence the combat is immaterial; they are disconcerted by the events. |
|
| Author: | Matt-Shadowlord [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
"in a position to have lent support". 'Position' can mean place or location, but can also mean situation, circumstances or state of affairs. That could mean that E&C's view 'Not able to support = no BM' would be the correct one because the formation's circumstances and state of affairs were not ones that would allow them to lend support. For example: Hungry Student: 'Please can you lent me some money, I need potnoodles' Bank Manager: 'You have no collateral. I am not in a position to lend you support' Hungry Student: 'But please... I am only 15cm away from you!!' Bank Manager: 'Security!' |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
Yet another ambiguousness in the rules...? Unheard of!
|
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
My read is that "in a position" means the physical location. If you could theoretically have provided support from your formation/unit position, you gain a BM from the lost assault. No Line of Sight means you could not have provided support even under otherwise perfect conditions. No BM. With no FF, broken/marched status, or the primary target wiped out prior to support, even though you are not actually providing support attacks you could still have potentially provided support and you gain a BM. |
|
| Author: | Simulated Knave [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
In that use of the word, I'd say it refers to more than physical location. If physical location was intended, I'd expect something like: "in a position where they could lend support" or "positioned where they could lend support". |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
I concur with Nealhunt. Epic's rules are written in a discursive, rather than legalistic, style. |
|
| Author: | Simulated Knave [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
Except that even writing discursively, that's a poor way to express the concept. The example seems to make it clear that "within 15cm" is intended, but I don't see why LOS would be an exception. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
Simulated Knave wrote: Except that even writing discursively, that's a poor way to express the concept. The example seems to make it clear that "within 15cm" is intended, but I don't see why LOS would be an exception. The wording of the rule isn't "within 15cm" in this section. It's "was in a position to support fire". Which is a different thing. |
|
| Author: | Simulated Knave [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
We are talking about 1.12.8, right? "Finally, any formations belonging to the losing side that were in a position to have lent support (ie, they were within 15cms of an enemy unit in the assault) receive one Blast marker each, even if they did not actually lend support. These Blast markers represent the detrimental effect on morale of seeing friends defeated in an assault." |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
Yes we're talking about the same thing. You're reading the example given in the brackets (being within 15cm) as having priority over the main statement clause of the rule (being in a position that allows you to support an engagement) - it doesn't. It's just an example of the most common relevant situation. If you don't have LOS to the opponent - Then you can't lend support (the rules don't allow you to) - Ergo you're not in a position to have lent support - Because the rules don't allow you to lend support. QED. |
|
| Author: | pixelgeek [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
Evil and Chaos wrote: Yes we're talking about the same thing. You're reading the example given in the brackets (being within 15cm) as having priority over the main statement clause of the rule (being in a position that allows you to support an engagement) - it doesn't. It's just an example of the most common relevant situation. That would be e.g and not i.e. "i.e" is used to provide a alternative description of the clause. e.g. = exempli gratia = for the sake of example i.e. = illud est = that is to say In the text provided the i.e. statement is there to provide another phrasing of what the preceding clause meant. So "in position to support" is the same as "they were within 15cms of an enemy unit in the assault". The wording isn't vague at all. I just don't think most people realise the very different meaning of i.e and i.g. |
|
| Author: | Simulated Knave [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
If it's an example, then it should be e.g. i.e. means "that is", and is used as such. If they meant "within 15cm and with LOS" they should have said that (and there's more than enough room to do that). I'm not necessarily uncomfortable with it as an actual rule, but the rules don't say that and don't particularly imply it, either. Or, if you prefer, what pixelgeek said. 
|
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supporting formations 15cm from attacker but no LOS |
Guys, I think you're reading meanings in that just aren't intended, Jervis' imprecise usage of ie notwithstanding. If the only clause was meant to be "within 15cm" then that's all that he would have written. But he didn't, so it isn't. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|