Truth be told if the scouts were that intermingled with the main formation that I'd want to engage, I'd probably just doing a clipping engagment and break them that way.

Then you miss read cos here is what I said then



Though many disagree with my view. And many pointed out that those sentinel's stop both drop pods and teleporting terminators so maybe they should stop a T'hawk too? Assuming there isn't space to fit the t'hawk after barging that isn't in the scouts ZOC of course.

Now, you see for some of us, what you are proposing is actually a change to the rules .
I'm simply playing as per the FAQ. Neal has explained the situation clearly. I agree with his interpretation. We've played this way for years.
I see no reason to change it at all.

Nothing but impassable terrain should really prevent a plane from landing on a target formation and engaging it in close combat.
If a player wants to put the plane off from attacking, make it a one way trip with all the excellent suggestions mentioned earlier in this thread.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

My sincere apologies, I mis-remembered it.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I have to be honest, it's as clear as mud to me. For instance, even if you allow the aircraft to enter two ZoCs simultaneously, can troops dismount once you base the target unit? A based unit "loses its zone of control for the rest of the assault" (1.12.3), so after that happens in my example the aircraft is sitting only in non-intermingled scout ZoC.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Sheesh, I wish scouts were considered intermingled if they're within 10cm, not 5cm. It seems like the difference between the two causes a lot of problems.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

And that is a whole other argument (from about 5 years ago)

They used to count as intermingled, but then the rules got officially changed, which of course created the current problem we're discussing now!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I used to think that, and that was the language I favored for the FAQ. However, I was wrong.

If you lay it out on the table it is actually possible to arrange a formation of scouts behind the target formation, not intermingled and still have the scout ZoCs project past the target ZoC, so that to hit the target you must enter the scout ZoC first. Kyrt's example on Page 4 is the most extreme example and shows a target ZoC entirely encapsulated by "screen from behind" scout ZoC. After I thought about it last night, I realized that while I originally thought it was pure theoryhammer, Kyrt's diagram actually fits a tactical situation I have witnessed in play:

Sentinel - 6cm - Shadowsword - 6cm - Sentinel

The Shadowsword ZoC is completely surrounded by the Sentinel ZoCs. That situation can also be replicated with less unusual arrangements. For example, let's say you had some vehicles next to a cliff face, and retreated a broken scout unit behind them:

enemy----[impassable terrain]
----------target
-------Scout

The target is closer, but the only place its ZoC extends past the Scout's ZoC is impassable. There is no way for the attacker to enter the target ZoC prior to entering the Scout's ZoC.

If the "screen from behind" FAQ is limited to the timing of entering ZoCs, then the same situation occurs where it is impossible to charge a closer enemy.

Definitely not. The extra intermingling range is a big liability. It's very difficult to screen with them because accidentally getting them too close allows them to be intermingled. It forces Scouts to be overextended and vulnerable. For units like IG Stormtroopers who function very well in close support because of their range and FF, they basically lose that entire battlefield role.

Agreed Neal. Ok, in this case (and where AC/WE wants to land between two enemy formations) are we saying that the attacker has two options (to remove or amend the ZoC of the 'other' formation by shooting etc, or to engage the target with FF only); or are we looking for a different interpretation of the rules?

Can you restate that, Ginger? I don't understand your question.

OK, Here is the above discussion in the form of an FAQ question

Q. A player wants to assault a target formation which is completely covered by the ZoC of other enemy formations. What is the assaulting formation allowed to do from the perspective of a ground assault and an air assault:-
a) Where the ZoC of the 'other' formations do not entirely cover the ZoC of the target formation.
b) Where the ZoC of the 'other' formations entirely covers the ZoC of the target formation. (or at least covers it from the direction of attack).

Broadly speaking we are discussing several alternative answers:-

1. RAW - The assaulting units must avoid other enemy ZoC at all times, so the player must either use other formations to remove the obstructing ZoC, or declare the target intermingled, or firefight the target rather than using close combat.
   (So, "screening from behind" is permitted - remove the FAQ).
   
   
2. The other extreme - The assaulting units may ignore other enemy ZoCs provided that they can get into B-B with units of the target formation (or some such condition).
   ("Screening from behind" can be removed as it is now redundant).
   
   
3. Clarify the current FAQ - the assaulting units may ignore the ZoCs of enemy scouts, provided they can first enter the ZoC of the target unit.
   
   
4. Expand the options #2 and #3 to define the effect on air-assaults - AC/WE differ in that they may land in the ZoCs of units from more than one enemy formation, but the troops inside must disembark towards units from the target formation
   (or some such condition).
   
   
5. Other alternatives?

Must be this option, surely.

I can't really picture any commander ever not carrying out an assault on the grounds that "don't attack them there boys, they've got some wet blanket scouts behind them so we'd better not get too close! Yes I know we could beat the scouts up with both arms tied behind our backs, but remember what your mum said about getting too close to those sorts Jenkins?"


Or something along those lines, anyway.......

Please cross refer to the same question in the Consolidation moves and ZOC thread here.