The relevant rules text referes to the actual assault to hit rolls. There no cover saves are allowed for the attacker.
Obverwatch shots aren't part of an assault as they happen before the actual assault happens. The engage move isn't part of the assault either. It is part of the Engage action (the actual assault too) but it is before the actual assault.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Two fearless formations (Let's say some Khorne Berzerkers, and a fearless Titan) could break each other during an engagement (One from losing, one from taking BM's due to damage to it / its formation) and both elect to remain stationary.

It's pretty damned rare though.


Unlike the "within 5cm ruling" (Which I think makes little sense, as it relies on some tortuous logical interpretation... plus my airbourne troops can now touch enemies 9cm away upon landing, or even greater if I put them on longer bases, which is going to be a very large boost to air CC assaults from units like Orks), I quite like this FAQ answer.

It seems fun to me that your own troops would place their shots more carefully so as to avoid hitting their own compatriots.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Thanks both, and apologies to Chroma for the shorthand, but the question still stands; Does the target of OW fire get a cover save when assaulting or not - which boils down to whether they are deemed to be assaulting during the OW fire or not? The Assault is certainly deemed to end once it is resolved and the defenders / attackers have withdrawn / consolidated. But it is less clear when the Assault is deemed to start.

And to repeat the point raised by dptdexys; does the target of OW fire benefit from the "cover to hit modifier" for being in B-B with enemy AV or not?
This is a common situation and has nothing to do with Fearless at all eg Shining spears engage a Leman Russ formation that is on OW.

As the FAQ ia worded they would benefit, but this seems very strange if they are moving through the enemy fire to get into the cover of the enemy AV - especially if they are visible to other enemy units in the formation that are only metres away from them. (shades of 'hosing down' other friendly tanks)

I would say you do get your cover save right up until the moment you start rolling Firefight and CloseCombat dice... but I think that's likely to be implicit in the rules rather than explicit.

I've always allowed opponents cover saves if they're charging through cover at an overwatching formation.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The cover to hit modifier is not mentioned at all in the assault rules as something the attacker loses; they only lose their cover saves, so it doesn't matter when the assault starts. Vehicles don't grant a cover save to infantry anyway, so there's nothing to be taken away from the infantry touching enemy vehicles.

An infantry formation in some trees that decides to stay in the trees to perform a clipping firefight would *still* benefit from the -1 to hit for being in cover if they triggered overwatch fire, but they would *not* get the 5+ cover save from being in a forest. It's the "charge" portion of the action that negates the covers saves, but there is nothing in the rules that say the lose their cover to hit modifier.

I'm with E&C here. Imagine the attackers hopping from cover to cover (getting full benefit of cover saves and -1 to-hit) to reach their target, but once upon their target they jump/climb over the cover their target is crouching behind (loosing cover saves against successful CC and FF hits).

Edit: Hmm by Chromas statement the attacker would benefit from a -1 to hit modifier if they touch enemy vehicles after the charge move (as Overwatch is only triggered AFTER any move) and if they would move through any cover during the charge move but wouldn't get any cover saves regardless if carrying out the charge move or taking part in the actual assault?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

The "no cover save" is in section 1.12.5, which is specifically about resolving assault attacks. It would only apply to those specific attacks. It would not apply to OW.

Whether they are "in assault" doesn't really matter.


Yes. It's in contact with an AV. The attack is not exempted from cover mods under 1.12.5, so it applies.


Yeah, it's goony. It's based on RAW, which didn't really take the situation into account.

=============


First, I'm not married to the answer. That's why I asked for comments.

In terms of your objections, you can't put infantry on more than 40mm bases.

In play, I've never seen it make much difference. I left it for a warmup question and avoided giving it a hard answer for that reason. Ground forces are often using AVs for cover, or staying close enough that vehicles can pick them up easily. It's a pretty rare that there is a need to stretch. In air assaults, the limit is almost always physical placement of models in my experience. The aircraft can usually just barge into the formation deep enough to have more than enough targets in range. BtB stops when they can't climb over another model to get past, not because they don't have distance.

I really can't believe it will be a "very large boost" to anything.

Conceptually, it's always been linked to the 5cm formation coherency limit in my mind. Basically, troops can dismount to the limit of the normal formation coherency, which is model to model rather than entirely within. I don't think that's really "torturous logical interpretation", but YMMV.

OTOH, I do understand the argument that it can be seen as a disembark "move" which would be measured from the front edge of the moving model, to the front edge at the end of the move. If you consider the transport unit to be the front edge of the disembarking movement, that would keep it entirely within 5cm.

True, had a brain fart there.
Though, it does mean people using smaller bases get a concrete disadvantage.


Plenty of times my Orks in a Landa haven't been able to engage everything they wanted to. With an extra 4cm of disembarkation, I doubt I'll ever fail to get them all into CC much anymore... that feels like a good boost in power.


I guess to me it just feel like it's one of these "common sense" moments in the rules, ala the barrages/normal shooting rules, where two rules use similar language, but should be read independently.

So when the rules say disembarking units may be placed within 5cm of the transport, it doesn't say "within coherency", it says "within 5cm". The language is similar, but distinct.

The contention that because the word "within" is used in the weapon range rules to describe units that are "partially within range as being valid targets" (paraphrased, of course), is where I feel that logic is being a bit tortured, in saying that the word "within" should always be interpreted the same way. Recent experience with Barrages show that the word "type" shouldn't always be interpreted the same way, after all, but that context is important... YYM also V.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

That wasn't the intent. In fact, the opposite. The "entirely within" argument is often semantic, i.e. "within" implies "entirely within."

The point of bringing up the examples was to illustrate that the word's meaning varies based on context, not that it should always be the same.

Righto.

Also, something that comes up occasionally: You can roll a 7+ to hit, but can you roll a 7+ for other eventualities, such as to activate, or to rally?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think it's explicitly mentioned in the original rules that 7+ rolls are allowed only for to-hits. In my mind, the rule for 7+ is even somewhere in a special layout box named "needing 7+ to hit" explicitly stating that 7+ rolls are only allowed for to-hit rolls. Maybe I imagined it though.

edit : Actually, found it in the PDF rules in 1.9.5 as "SPECIAL RULE - Needing 7+ To Hit" box.

It doesn't explicitly state that other 7+ automatically fails, and while I think the name of the box is quite clear (although it is implicit), as it is a fact that many players just don't get anything implicit, it could be a nice addition to the FAQ.

No. To-hit rolls of 7+ or worse is an exception, sort of like Initiative rolls an exception to the 1-always-fails rule. For anything else, adjusting above 6+ is auto-failure.

There's an FAQ in 1.9.6 that covers the 7+ rolls. It deals with armor saves (6+ save orks being crossfired). Should it be edited to note it applies to all non-to-hit rolls as well (aircraft with a 7+ Initiative due to BMs, etc.)?

1.7.3

Q: We had an Eldar player start inside an enemy Zone of Control. In trying to work out what would happen, we came to the following conclusion:
1) The Eldar player must take an action that takes them out of the scout's ZOC or charge.
2) The Eldar player chooses to double which fulfils the above criteria.
3) The Eldar player chooses to shoot before moving which is allowed following the hit and run rules and is no-where forbidden by the rules for ZOC.
4) The Eldar player then moves out of the scout's ZOC.
Is that correct?

A: Yes. As long as the Eldar player leaves the enemy Zone of Control before the end of the action, it is legal. The Eldar player may fire before moving according to the Hit and Run rule.

Q: If a unit begins an action inside an enemy Zone of Control and chooses not to attack, is it obligated to move away from the enemy unit? In other words, if my scouts put 1cm of ZOC on them you can move through 19cm of ZOC to leave the over side, terrain, models and their ZOC permitting?

A: As long as the unit moves out of the enemy ZoC before the end of its action, the move is legal. Yes, it could theoretically rush through to the far side of a Zone of Control if it had sufficient movement and an available path.

Note, however, that as a practical matter that will seldom be an option. Units cannot enter a new enemy ZoC. Other units in the enemy formation would block movement as normal, and the remainder of the friendly formation, outside enemy ZoC, would still have to move around the enemy as normal.

=========

Is that last answer clear? I was trying to keep it short and sweet, but I'm not sure if that explains it sufficiently.

I think it is well worded. And, on a separate note, I think adding the aircraft exception is a good idea too.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

"As long as the unit moves out of the enemy ZoC before the end of the turn"

Surely that should be:

"As long as the unit moves out of the enemy ZoC before the end of the move"