It's other. The conditions for violating ZoC are quite specific and none of the answers provided line up with them. You can violate a screening ZoC if and only if:

1) The screening unit is farther away than the target, and,
2) The screening unit cannot be intermingled with the target.

That's it. I'd also go on to say that #1 is impossible to write hard rules for and is necessarily going to be a judgement call.

For example, if a scout formation is off to one side rather than being more or less behind the target, then that's not good enough to allow the attacker to pass through their ZoC. Even if they are technically farther away than the target, it's not "behind" in a meaningful way and skirmishers guarding a flank approach is textbook. Forcing the attackers to skirt the scout/flank ZoC is in line with the intent of the rules and the FAQ.

All paths to the scouts lead through the screened units or their ZoC.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Ok, so revising my FAQ with Neal's answer, it now reads


Do we need to add #2 regarding intermingling as this is optional at the discretion of the attacker?
Also, it might be clearer to reword it from the perspective of the assaulter, and to remind people of the other constraint in 1.7.3
So the answer might now read:-



=======================
So now to the original air-assault question:-

Q. When an Air-transport is making a ground-assault against a target formation whose units are completely covered by the ZoC of other enemy formations, can the air-transport land in the ZoC of the screening formations?

Yes, the intermingling condition is absolutely vital.

The only reason for the FAQ was a situation that made it completely impossible to reach CC with a closer unit. That situation requires that intermingling is not an option. If intermingling is possible, then the rules work fine as-is and any attacker can reach CC.

If the enemy is clumped up in a tight group, you have to engage them all if you want to CC. That's always how the rules were intended to work and it dorks things up if you remove it. You can pick individual units and formations right out of the middle of a huge group in a way that was never intended. It's like allowing everyone in the game Infiltrate, as long as they can reach base contact.

"Oh, I know you mixed your formations together because you wanted your Ork Warband to be able to protect the Big Gunz Mob, but because some of the Big Gunz are 0.5cm closer, I can CC your Big Gunz right through the middle of the warband and the Boyz can't do anything but watch us stroll up to them."

Neal, while I think I understand your point on intermingling, I am not sure that RAW supports this perspective; indeed the answer that has been formulated above still handles the situation.

The "screening from behind" effect would still apply to nomal formations where units from the "screening" formation are staggered 1/2 base depth behind those from the target formation; and we now have the answer for this: where the target units are nearer to the assaulters, the "screening" ZoC can be ignored if the assaulting units move into B-B.

Does this imply another FAQ to convey the alternative intent you have outlined?

By the way, it is possible to be closer to a unit that is behind a "screening line" of scouts than the scouts themselves, without them being intermingled. So it -is- possible if not careful to be based through a line of scouts even if the attacker has to enter the scout ZoC first. Best to keep the screened units a good distance behind the screening line.

Just in case anyone thought that "nearer to the target" is a more expansive proxy for "enter the target's ZoC first".

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

That's exactly what it says. If the rules didn't say exactly that the Scout/behind problem wouldn't exist in the first place.


Aside from the Scout/behind issue, the RAW handles the situation without any confusion. That means this would not be a clarification but a change. There's no need to change it.


And that's exactly the effect that I think is a bad idea.

First, it's unnecessary, as the rules are clear and functional. The attacker can declare intermingled targets to be intermingled if the attacker wants to reach base contact. They don't have to, but then they are actively choosing to stay at a distance.

That makes perfect sense, as a charging host isn't going to distinguish between Company A and Company B when they rush the treeline. They're going full out. If the squads are next to each other, both squads are getting hit regardless of which company they are from. And on the flip side, both squads are defending to the best of their ability against troops that are an imminent threat, i.e. countercharging if appropriate.

Second, that change would wipe out a mutual support ability. CC troops should be able to guard shooty troops by staying close to them. Because the rules separate formations into discreet actions, you have to leap-frog formations instead of moving them together, with the result that it's hard to coordinate that kind of "bodyguard" role. There's no reason to make it more difficult by introducing a "gotcha" effect into the mix because a protected unit is 0.5cm closer than the bodyguard unit.

Being intermingled is bad enough that most people avoid it universally. This situation is one of the very few where it makes sense. Retaining that option is a good thing for tactical depth.

Neal, I totally agree with the 'real life' examples there, but it is not what the rules actually say


Declaring formations intermingled has always been optional. I understand the concerns about micro-measuring (which can and should be discussed in the 5 min warm up), and the apparent contradiction with reality. However, forcing the attacker to declare formations intermingled has its own in-game problems.
1. It would apply to all assaults, both CC and FF
2. It does not allow an attacker to build up supporting formations through succeeding engage activations.
3. The penalties this imposes in the assault and resolution would make a tightly packed group of three or more formations virtually unassailable.

I don't think anybody is suggesting the attacker be forced to treat formations as intermingled. Just that you have to obey the normal rules of ZoC if you don't treat them as intermingled.

The point is, if you want to have a way of assaulting through a screen, you have to declare the formations intermingled and so assault them both. If you don't want to treat the formations as intermingled, do whatever you like (shoot, engage the screen, move around them, whatever) but you can't move through the screening formations' ZoC. And if the two formations cannot be intermingled, then you cannot get through the screen to the juicy target beyond [unless the screening unit is behind the target, by some definition of "behind"].

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

Copied from the Consolidation move 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.

The point of the "screening from behind" FAQ was that you can ignore such ZoC when moving towards the 'nearest' unit. The type of ZoC being ignored is irrelevant, as it can (and IMO should) apply to all cases. Then it becomes a matter of choice whether the attacker wants to declare the 'other' formation intermingled or not.

However, as described, an attacker who wants to go into CC under these circumstances is being forced to declare the 'screening' formation intermingled - so some Assault Marines attacking some Ork commandos positioned just in front of a Gargant are being forced to choose between using their much weaker FF factors or closing into B-B with the Gargant *automatically* intermingled. The Marines should be allowed to choose how they want to conduct this particular assault (even if that may not actually be the best alternative); they may well have another formation poised to take on the Gargant in the retained activation.

1. While I totally agree that it may not feel realistic, it goes against the RAW
2. It relies on both players remembering this exception to the written rules
3. This actually reinforces the current divide between what can / cannot be done in ZoCs

@Onyx - E:A is a game after all; any similarity with reality is coincidental at best. I suspect that this won't be the last time that different parts of the community play things differently; consider Meph's recent revelation about how he thought TK shooting worked against mixed targets.

However, we do need to try to be consistent within the game and the interpretations of the rules, otherwise the game is spoilt for one or other player. And at worst, we get absurd situations like that of Botvinik, the Russian Chess grand-master; when asked to open a tournament he played Kings knight to KB3 and a gasp ran around the assembled audience - it was a bridge tournament

My issues with shooting at mixed formations wasn't limited to TK Ginger...if you think so you've misread that thread quite badly!

This is not correct. The FAQ is not intended to address "any situation where another unit is behind the target and ZoCs overlap" and the answer is not "any ZoC originating behind the unit can be ignored."

The point of the FAQ was to resolve a very specific situation where it was completely impossible to base contact a target unit under any circumstances. The answer was that if, and only if, that complete impossibility exists, it creates an exception to the ZoC restriction.

The situation you describe with assault marines and a gargant do not include a situation where it is impossible to charge into base contact. The FAQ does not apply. There is no exception to the ZoC restriction. The consequences of charging to base contact may suck, but it's possible.


If by "it" you mean the situation you describe with the Gargant, the exact opposite is true. It keeps the RAW intact and avoids an exception.

The rules clearly state you cannot enter the ZoC unless you assault the target.
The rules clearly state that to assault 2 formations you must declare them intermingled.
Therefore, to enter the ZoC of 2 formations, you must declare them intermingled.

This is going to be a 2 page FAQ when we're done with it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.