Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Rules Clarification - Assault stalling, LOF and stuff

 Post subject: Re: Rules Clarification - Assault stalling, LOF and stuff
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 10:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules Clarification - Assault stalling, LOF and stuff
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
I know it is a section that covers supporting fire...

Good enough for me; The intent is clear, I think.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules Clarification - Assault stalling, LOF and stuff
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:50 am
Posts: 835
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules Clarification - Assault stalling, LOF and stuff
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 12:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
The quote is referring to an assault so in this case,"in this case" refers to an assault/engage action needing directLOF/LOS to be "directly Involved" even if it makes it different from a standard definition of "directly involved".

That gave me a headache ;D .


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules Clarification - Assault stalling, LOF and stuff
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 4:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
- - - and then you get into the question of units "in position to support" (to allocate BM after nearby friends lost an assault), and the effects of terrain on this definition. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net