Unfortunately, not.

'1.9.6 Allocate hits and make saving throws' is very clear that it applies to both shooting and assaults, and anyway, the same situation can arise in assaults as well.

I'm of course giving my own opinion, and yes, I don't see any reason to do it differently from assault to shooting.

Regarding "in position to be hit", I don't know if I buy your comparison with support - they are in position to support because they are in range and have LOF, the only thing that stops some units which are in position to support from actually supporting is if they are explicitly prevented from doing so - by the assault ending, or by being broken etc. It seems to me that your comparison actually gives more support to the interpretation that the sentence is about LOF and range, rather than less. However, the truth is we don't know really what it is supposed to mean. I can only think of three examples where it makes a difference:
1. The situation we're discussing, units inside transports that get destroyed
2. Units behind WEs that get destroyed.
3. Applying range and LOF for separate weapon types, i.e. if a unit was in range/LoF generally, but was not in range/LoF of a unit with a MW. If this was true it would be a bit of a can of worms, I generally play an "all-against-all" range & LOF check rather than measuring each weapon individually and recording which hits came from which units...

As for allocating before the hits are totally resolved, well that is only true if you think about it in a certain way. Personally in an assault I wouldn't remove the units until all the hits are allocated anyway, because you need them there to figure out who gets to fire back. Remember that hits in assault are simultaneous, and you're supposed to resolve all hits before moving onto all the saves. So you have to mix things together anyway. I'd find your way confusing because you'd have infantry in place who can be shot at, but who themselves can't shoot.

In toto, yes it has its negatives, but I still see it as the better of two evils. That said, it is only a slight preference on my side. I am acutely aware that when i have brought up this topic in the past (about assaults specifically), everybody who replied said that yes, they thought infantry bailing out of transports could be hit by the MW.

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

That certainly does create an extra headache. If you allowed infantry that bail out of WEs to be targeted, how would you handle MW shots that had been directed specifically against WEs? Allow them to only be applied to the infantry that bailed out of the WE?

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

Umm, I can envisage an Ork Battlefortress assaulting through OW fire. The mixture of AT and MW fire hits the transport, destroying the vehicle. Under the new suggestion, the MW hits would be lost entirely which seems wrong to me.

However, if you consider "in position" to mean within range and LoF, then the MW hits *can* be applied to the Orks that survive the destruction of the Battlefortress because they are placed on the table in the same location previously occupied by the Battlefortress, (which by definition must originally have been in range and LoF).

I do agree that there will be situations where the 'revealed' units are either not in Range or not in LoF, so it seems sensible to go with this understanding.

Just to make it totally clear, this is not a "new suggestion" as is obvious from most of the replies in this thread.

My point of view still hasn't changed and I think Kyrt has described the situation well.

_________________
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.

Well it is 'new' in that I have never seen this played in the UK in nearly a decade of tournament games, and never heard it debated outside this thread. The closest to this was the "flying fist" debate for assigning MW hits in an assault. This was discussed many years ago and ultimately agreed on a separate round of MW allocations precisely to avoid the loss of the MW hit.

We have already mentioned the definition of "in position" for hit allocation which mirrors similar definitions elsewhere eg for BM allocation to nearby 'supporting' formations, and it is this disparity which I find the most troubling.

That said, the factors leading up to this particular situation means that it is likely to be quite rare, and one hit either way is not likely to be game changing. So unless there are others who disagree strongly and the majority wish to accept this particular FAQ, then that is fine by me. I am all for finding ways to streamline the rules and reducing the FAQ where possible to make the game more accessible.

I honestly don't know what the right answer is, it just sort of seemed more appropriate somehow - yes it can create wasted shots, but the other interpretation can also create unfair situations too. I dunno.

But I still don't see how "in position" for supporting an assault is troubling in anyway - it fits fine to me. Units inside transports are not in a position to be attacked because you cannot see them - they aren't valid targets. For the same reason, if the units are in the transports, you can't roll dice to try to hit them. For instance if a formation of infantry is inside a separate WE formation, you can't roll any AP dice because they are not in a position to be hit. Range and LoF, sure, but not in a position to be hit. I really don't see this as in contrast to the "in position to support" mechanic -units within 15cms but with intervening terrain are not in a position to support - they can't roll dice, not because the assault ends or they are broken/marched, but because they are not in the right position. Interestingly - what would you do if an infantry formation inside a separate WE formation was supporting a losing assault? Would you give both formations a blast marker? I don't think I would. And likewise, what if you were shooting at this same "infantry formation inside a separate WE formation"? You'd allow hits to be allocated onto transported units from a different formation?

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

I can certainly understand that position, though I see things slightly differently.
The wording of 1.9.6 makes it clear that hit allocation process is separate from the process that generates the hits (shooting or assaults), so while I agree that the transport contents are not a valid target for shooting purposes, I am less sure about being "in position" for hit allocation purposes. As I said earlier, this seems to be down to a question of timing and whether the MW hit allocation is deemed to be simultaneous with the other hit allocation or not.

The original (hard-copy) version of the rules does not have second round of MW hit allocations, and 1.9.6 does not mention assaults so all hits were originally allocated simultaneously. These modifications were added by 2008 and probably earlier IIRC. It is this second round of MW hit allocation, added specifically to ensure that MW hits were not lost, that is 'troubling'.

Would you prefer to revert to the original rules and allocate all hits simultaneously, including MW hits? If not, the current wording says that the initial hits are resolved *before* the MW hits are allocated. I understand the term "resolved" to include the process of removing the transport and determining the fate of the contents, which puts any survivors "in position" (LoS and range) to have hits allocated to them.

So as far as I am concerned, the current RAW do end up with the MW hits being allocated to the units that are now "in position" even though they were not originally 'valid' targets (as we both agree). This definition would also include the other, even more 'troubling' situation of a unit being revealed through the destruction of the WE blocking the LoS of the firers, though in this case the units may not be in range, so may not actually be "in position".

However, as I said previously, if (as it seems) that the consensus is that MW hits are 'lost' under these conditions then that is fine by me - as you say, there are arguments both ways.

Yeah, tough call. Thankfully I'm not the NetEA Rules meister

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

So after going through this again it seems this is another area for the 5-minute warm up.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Actually, we also played by that rule, that a succesful hit can't be lost. Something like that actual shooting happens at once, and the resolving of AP/AT/MW hits by type is jst a technical question, it helps to give you as much hits, as possible. It's also for saving the more important MW hits, so they can hit surviving/tougher targets! so it goes against the whole concept, to let MW hits lost.. AP hits are out of the question, because they are resolved in the same time as AT hits.

I will be very unhappy, to lose a succesful MW(TK) hit because of a rhino