Not having LoS can still have a negitive moral impact, say your walking down the corridor at work adn your hear your work mate scream in pain and agony as gunshots rattle off, this is going to have a mental impact on you, aswould hearing you fellow comrades being gunned / hacked down in the woods even though you cant see them.
Maybe this is what its trying to imply ?

I think that is what it is meant to imply. You're within earshot of a battle and you hear your side lose

Shrug. Yer wrong, neal's right, IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This is the same argument that recurs regularly. To recap...


Generally speaking, that's not true.

It's the writing style for GW/Jervis to include paraphrases rather than to reproduce the rules with mechanical/legalistic precision. In the absence of an explicit note to the contrary, any difference in language should be considered a simple inconsistency in the paraphrase rather than a rule change.

To put this particular dispute in the context of GW's tendency to write rules colloquially, this is a 2-page argument over whether a parenthetical summary in a different rule section changes the original rule.

For those that want something that more directly addresses this text:

1) 1.12.6 explains what constitutes being in a position to lend support, and undeniably includes range/LoS.
2) The range/LOS standard is used in multiple procedure throughout the game.
3) No exception to the range/LOS standard in the game is designated by anything other than a special rule which states explicitly that it is an exception.

That should be enough to make it obvious that the "within 15cm" in 1.12.8 is an off-hand, contextualizing clause and is simply imprecise rather than a rule change. However, if there is any remaining doubt about whether line of sight is supposed to apply, 1.12.8 itself even refers to seeing the loss in the very next sentence.

I don't think that leaves any doubt that the normal range/LoS condition is supposed to apply.

==

Edit: That sounded rather testy. Hope this toned it down.

No one's saying 1.12.6 means something different now. People are just saying that the reference to "in position" in 1.12.8 may mean something different by the term than 1.12.6 would suggest.

Not least, I'd point out that if 'in position' was interpreted as you say, I'd expect it to exclude Broken and Marching units. I'd think it was a dumb rule, but I'd expect it.

I don't think your interpretation is a bad rule, but I do think that if that's going to be how it works 1.12.8 could use some rewording.

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

I wasn't referring to Neal. :-) You were the one making the incorrect comment about the structure of the sentence. Which is why I quoted you :-)

I'm actually fine making it that a formation has be be in LOS (i.e. it has to meet the requirements to Support in an assault) in order to get the BM. I don't think it really makes that big a difference and it makes it consistent.

And I don't think there is a right or wrong here. :-) The "requires LOS" interpretation is just more logically consistent with the rules.

I don't know that you can argue that he is vague and therefore open to interpretation and then argue that he was precise and would have written it differently if he meant it that way :-)

I don't see you quoting me in the post above mine, only yalking about "earshot" stuff again.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Then you need to quote more so people know exactly what you're referring to.

To-hit system uses range/LoS in both ranged fire and assaults. Allocation uses range/LoS. Suppression uses range/LoS.

The interpretation that "in position" means "under a set of conditions that allows them to attack" would break with the standards used in other attack-related procedures in the game. The interpretation that the parenthetical "15cm" means strictly range, without reference to LoS also breaks with those standards.

IMHO, an assertion that the mechanics break with one of the few very well-established standards in the rules needs much better proof than the kind of imprecise paraphrase which occurs throughout the rules.


I think you are misunderstanding. I do not think that "in position" means "able to attack." Someone else posted that as a potential interpretation. As noted above, I think it is wrong.

The conditions for being in position to lend support are range/LoS. As with suppression, the ability to actually shoot is irrelevant. Broken and marching formations would be affected as normal, as would a formation that was prevented from providing support fire for any other reason (no FF value or whatever).


That and about a hundred other places.

If you're just replying to the last post in line you don't generally need to quote, but I'll make a point of doing so for you in future if you want.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I don't know that it is a good idea to assume that people have the same context for the discussion as you. I clearly didn't :-)