dptdexys wrote:
Isn't the "directly Involved" actually needing LOF/LOS in an engagement covered by the errata 1.12.6 supporting fire section.
Quote:
Both sides may call upon support unless the defender has been wiped out or the attack stalled as described above. Calling on support allows units from other formations to attack with their firefight value if they are within 15cm and have a line of fire to an enemy unit directly involved in the assault. In this case ‘directly involved’ means belonging to the attacking or defending formation(s) and in a position to attack. This rule represents units from both sides that are not directly involved in the assault lending supporting fire when they see their friends coming under attack. Units from formations that are either Broken or Marched this turn cannot lend support.
Roll to hit using the firefight values of the supporting formations, and then allocate hits and make saving throws as you would do for shooting attacks. Once all casualties have been removed you must work out the result of the attack (see 1.12.7).
I know it is a section that covers supporting fire but to me the highlighted sentence explains what "directly Involved" in an assault/engage action means and that includes needing LOF/LOS etc. as it has to be in a position to attack.
While I agree the intent is there, it's still a thorny issue, regarding Rules As Written. The problem with the example you state above, use of the phrase "In this case" preceeding the definition of Directly Involved can (in proper English, should?) be interpreted as making it different from the standard definition of Directly Involved.
Morgan Vening
- Not
quite as anally-retentive as he might seem.
.
