Yes. And since nobody was killed it's normal resolution.

Or are you seriously trying to claim defenders moving outside of range results in attacking units DYING? Wouldn't that be "bit" unfair? "Oh my units moved out of range so your terminators were killed. So take them off the board".

If they weren't killed then attack didn't stall. Simple as that. Stalling requires attacking units being killed. Nothing in rules say attack stalls if there aren't attacking units in range.

_________________
www.tneva.net

If no defenders or attackers are left in range to roll attack dice for the firefight, then as far as I'm concerned the assault shouldn't take place at all.

Any other 'solution' that involves rolling dice against static combat resolution just feels silly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

That's not what rules say however. And since epic is game of rule lawyers then silly feelings don't matter.

This could be fixed easily by fixing counter charge rules but since people want to abuse loop holes instead of having logical rules that's the way it has to be played.

_________________
www.tneva.net

That's not what rules say however.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No. In this case, there are no attackers or defenders directly involved in the assault. No-one has died, neither side has been wiped out, so it is a different condition - and one that most closely resembles what was described earlier in 1.12.3 which says that the assault does not take place.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

^^What Ginger said^^

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Epic is not a game of rules lawyers. Certainly not anywhere I've ever played, and most certainly not according to the rulebook, which specifically states that epic is not meant to be rules-lawyered.

I don't know where you got that idea from. This whole forum is dedicated to adjusting the rules of epic to be more to our liking.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

The rules don't actually cover this eventuality at all IMHO, and players must come to a gentleman's agreement as to what happens at that point.

This could be fixed easily by fixing counter charge rules

_________________
www.tneva.net

No. The attack didn't stall(stalling is specifically attackers being killed) so assault continues normally. So you roll for attacks(there are none since out of range) and then roll for results.

Simple as that.

_________________
www.tneva.net

I got the idea from a) games of epic played b) this forum where people are ADVOCATING for abusing rules like forcing units to counter charge so they can't fight in assault.

What rulebook says doesn't matter when in practice it's played by rule lawyers who aim to abuse rules to win at all costs.

Practice trumps over theories. Anybody who thinks epic isn't for rule lawyers is just plain kidding themselves. So far haven't seen single game where premeasuring is allowed which doesn't degenerate into rule lawyers game. Premeasuring without any sort of limit is just begging for rule lawyering.

_________________
www.tneva.net

It does cover.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Show me where this particular situation is specifically covered. It clearly is not.

Assuming it falls under the most unrealistic possible solution in order to manipulate the game system, instead of the most sensible solution (the one Gavin proposes), is indeed rules lawyering.

_________________
www.tneva.net

I can honestly say that no game of Epic I've ever played has descended into rules-lawyering. Ever.

Sure, sometimes points come up where the rules are unclear, but they've always been cleared-up amicably. It's common practice in my gaming group to allow people to take back moves, to provide advice and suggestions to your opponent, and to ignore rules which don't make sense. That is the opposite of rules lawyering, and I feel a little sorry for you if your local group doesn't play the same way.

Aside: Surely an rules lawyer would follow all of the rules to the letter, including the one about not rules lawyering? Or would that make their heads explode?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

With all due respect this is getting silly. Almost every commentator on this has pointed out that they don't find the accusations of epic to be a game for rules lawyers fair and nor have they encountered these problems themselves; reasonbale suggestions (whereby one realises that the situation described is silly) concerning no attacking formations being in range to make FF attacks that means the assault doesn't actually take place have been widely ignored and IN THEMSELVES (poorly) rules lawyered around themselves!

It seems to me you (Tneva) have been stung by a situation that was unable to have been resolved on a single occasion (whereby it seems that, perhaps immaturely, your opponent pointed out a SMALL section of the rules that don't work letter by letter - and that others have little problem countering or coming to the gentlemans agreement that the rules suggest) and are now throwing your toys out of the pram: there's no need to get all upset and declare that you're never playing epic again surely?

Such stiff resitance to what i'd say are reasonable arguments isn't on and I'll personally declare that your desrcription of Epic isn't one that rings true to myself either.

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

We've had this come up and always played it as no assault takes place.  However, that was an "on the fly" decision between the players.  We didn't want to stop the game to parse out all the rules and we never bothered to go back to check.

The rules are written from the perspective that counter-charges will be towards the assaulting formation in the overwhelming portion of cases.  The idea of counter-charging away just isn't considered.  While I think the best interpretation of the RAW is Chroma's (assault, no stall, no attacks, resolution), I think there is a very good case that the assault rules (and 1.12.5 in particular) assumes that there are "directly engaged" attackers as a condition of the assault.  That would imply that there is no assault taking place, as E&C asserts.

So, to my mind the question is... do we go with applying RAW to a situation which it does not contemplate as we normally do, or do we decide that this particular example is one of the rare cases of being sufficiently far outside the considerations and intent of the rule that RAW is not applicable?

_________________
Neal