With due respect Rpr, I belive you would need to go a lot further than this. This still allows the attacker to predict where the defenders can / will move.

To fix the 'bug' requires a radical rewrite of the assault rules, effectively spreading the fire of both sides across all formations that are involved, Attackers, Defenders and 'Supports'. I suspect that this was tried in early versions of the rulesets and rejected in favour of simplicity

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Obviously attacking unit was put close enough that all speeders will be in range.

Since premeasuring is allowed(which btw encourages precicely this sort of rule abusing and slows game down to boot) of course attacker is going to premeasure everything to perfection with 1mm precision.

Why would attacker allow target to counter charge so that stalling might happen when he can simply choose not to do so...

_________________
www.tneva.net

He can predict yes but this would still be infinently better solution than current(and is actually how I have played last 4 years) one. Lot less prone for abusing than current broken system.

_________________
www.tneva.net

Because, according to this thread, that's what happened to really ignite this debate.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Slip of mind. He didn't do that against me to counter that.

So because he made slight mistake once possibly due to being tired(3rd day of ropecon afterall if he was there all the days) the rule is okay despite the fact it's bloody easy for attacker to prevent that from happening...

Besides that thread results in not stalling. Just no casualties either way. Since target unit likely has BM's result is likely going to be victory for space marines anyway. So hardly good situation anyway. Attack doesn't stall if defenders move out of range from speeders since attackers weren't killed.

_________________
www.tneva.net

There are a number of ways of limiting the impact of the rule;
- Keeping supporting formations nearby to channel assaults
- Keeping formations reasonably 'clumped' to diminish the effects of clipping
- Paying attention to the position of units in the formation (leaders, support units etc)

But ultimately this is a part of Epic, a bit like castling in Chess, which is there to be used if it is possible.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

So the "Guard" target would still have "vastly out-number" and "inspiring" to counter "Blast markers"... so, I'd say there's some risk to the attacker.

I suppose the "tactic" is supposed to represent the effects of a "pincer" movement, or a "hammer and anvil"-style attack; which are viable "real-world" tactics.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Dunno. Attack wasn't stalled so support fire is coming their way. And besides if it's problem for attacker then ATTACKER DOESN'T ALLOW IT! The situation in thread you quoted is going to be very rare because unless attacker suffers slip of mind it's only going to happen when it BENEFITS the attacker. It's sooooo easy to prevent from happening it's not worth wondering about. Attacker will have jolly good time of making token assaults, preventing stalling(and heavy casualties for them to begin with) and tons of supporting fire. Nothing defender can do about it against such abuse of rules except clump their army to one corner in overwatch orders but that's automatic 2-0 objective victory for other army so hardly good idea.

The rule doesn't result in any realistic strategy or tactic. It's just gamey abuse of rules.

Ah well. As I said though I don't care whether it's fixed or not. Epic can die for all I care since my epic games are all done for.

_________________
www.tneva.net

I must have missed something here, why are your epic games done for?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Simple. I won't play any more tournaments where rules are so unfair that unneccessary armies for which are no models sold now or in past are allowed(putting players to different categories based on can they convert or do they play against somebody who can. Those who CAN get practice games with or against that army and those who have no chance whatsoever to face them before tournament) while core armies like tyranids aren't allowed.

So until tyranids are allowed(doesn't seem to be that likely to happen if I can't even field them even if I would agree to only field 50% of allowed points. Certainly wouldn't be broken army as I doubt tyranids are so broken 1500 pts of them would beat 3000 pts armies easily) I won't play single tournament and since tournaments are only places I can play epic I won't play epic games anymore.

_________________
www.tneva.net

You can only target support fire on models that were "directly engages" by the inital moves of the assault.

If only a single defending unit is in range to the attackers, and that unit is destroyed by the initial attacks, no other formations friendly to the attacker can lend supporting fire as there are no valid targets.

If all the defenders "counter-charged" out of range of the inital attacking units, there can be no supporting fire either, as no defender units are "directly engaged".

If only a single defender is left in range, support fire attacks can only target that one unit.  You can't "roll up" a whole formation with support fire if those defender units didn't get to make any initial firefight/CC attacks.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Okay so attacker doesn't allow defenders to move outside of range unless it benefits the attacker.

"Problem" solved and rules abused again.

_________________
www.tneva.net

It will prevent the worst abuse. Of course there would still be gamey things associated, but much less. At least not something which FEELS bad abuse.

The main problem here is that it is not something players except. It is a bit tricky game rule (loophole) used here, and thus is not used or known by a) new players (or those who simply have not encountered use of it) and b) those who play more for general feel and not trying to win by any means the game system allows. As such, it is a very unpleasant experience for the receiving side - thus they either adopt (and either start to use it or just play with 'weaker rule force') or turn away in disgust. This kind of feature in rule set is just not good. Especially as it is not something very intuitive or easily explained to fresh players.

Of course this is just my observation and opinion. Unfortunately I have no power over the ruling of this thing, just suggestions.

But wasn't the issue "token assualt with lots of support fire"?  There can't be "lots of support fire" in this situation.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

How's so? Attacker can ensure there's sufficient amount of defenders involved without risking themselves to stalling attack. Supporting formation just ensures there isn't too many defenders to shoot.

10 land speeders aren't likely killing 10 IG troopers so all they need to do is ensure 3-5 IG troopers are within range for fire. Rest are kept off the firefight by supporting formation by abusing the rules. Attack won't stall and they get maximum amount of casualties they can get and annihilate target formation while ensuring IG can't bring superior numbers into play.

There's as much support fire as attacker chooses to. With abuse of rules and premeasuring(which itself leads to abuse of rules) attacker can dictate precicely how much support fire he wishes to use.

_________________
www.tneva.net