I think this sums it up pretty well - thanks Ginger.
I'll run it past the FAQ committee and see about adding it (or something similar) to the next FAQ update.

*edit - thanks Kyrt. I'll see about the FAQ wording soon.

Thanks for all the accurate and constructive comments made in this thread to all concerned.

_________________
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.

As a slight aside, I'm looking at the 2012 NetEA Tournament pack right now and I cannot see this anywhere.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

And amalgamating the wording, how about this

I think the fact this debate has gone on for so long and at times got heated proves that the original question was highly valid AND that the rules are open to interpretation!

This is going to create issues with the group I game with, not only as we are just about to introduce AC but also with regards to suppression as a whole. We normally assign suppression to units back to front as the formation takes BM's. We note which units are suppressed and then these units cannot fire until the BM's are removed. So the same units in a formation are suppressed for the duration until the end phase/marshal. We find it easier when it comes to resolving shooting. What I am trying to say is that the same unit is suppressed though the turn. Simple solution but clearly wrong!

_________________
Walk softly. And carry a big gun.

Noting which unit has a BM is a new concept to me, but incorrect (as you now know LoL). As Suppression only applies to shooting and each formation only gets to fire once per turn, you only need to worry about suppression at the point that the formation shoots, thus you only need to count the number of BMs and work out which units are supressed then - there is no need to record the details.

The E:A rules are not well written, and so have always suffered from 'interpretations'
When in doubt, check out the FAQ which are also associated with the text in the NetEA tournament pack or post here. Most of the questions have already been answered, but not all - as you have seen

Ginger - I understand we have it wrong. If a formation comes under fire, its the back units that are suppressed. This is fine and logical.

However if the same formation then chooses to fire in a different direction, why would the units that were suppressed all of a sudden change? The gung-ho guys at the front all of a sudden hit the dirt?? We just found it easier for supression sake

And also a formation does not get to shoot once a turn, just look at the discussion above. Flak is a "free" shot.....

_________________
Walk softly. And carry a big gun.

Because in EA suppression is a property of formations, not a property of units - an abstract measure of how degraded the overall morale and C&C has become rather than which specific models are shell-shocked.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

Think of it not literally as "this unit is suppressed and this one isn't", but more as "this whole formation is 50% of the way towards breaking, and so the formation as a whole can only shoot at 50% effectiveness".

For ease-of-play this is done back-to-front with blast markers, which does mean sometimes a unit will be suppressed when shooting "left", but won't be suppressed when shooting "right", but that's a result of a game mechanic that's trying to represent something a little more abstract (that suppression is in consideration of the entire formation's morale).

You could write a game rule that required a bit of mathematical calculation each time a formation shoots (work out how far away from breaking the formation is, then reduce the total number of shots for the whole formation by that percentage proportion on a weapon-by-weapon basis), but it would take a lot more time, and achieve (broadly) the same thing - or at least not such a hugely more realistic end that the time lost in calculation each time a formation shoots is worth the way the game gets a lot slower.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

what the two dudes above said

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

As the others say, BMs should be considered more like levels of disorganisation, and the term "Broken" is more like a total loss of command and communication rather than 'routing'. So the troops are still able to fight and defend themselves and indeed may continue to obey the last orders and carry on moving towards their objectives etc.

DISCLAIMER : NOT DISAGREEING WITH ANSWERS ALREADY POSTED !

The suppression rules as answered already work fairly well in the abstract way that EA rules work. Only becomes an issue when you have "specialist" units hidden in among "normal" troops (eg: flak. ) when suddenly the positioning of the enemy effects who can't shoot. But it does nicely mean you have to think who do i put up front (and get shot) and who lags behind and gets suppressed) meaning specialists/HQs usually hang out protected on all sides avoiding an ambush.

However this was basically this what what lay behind my suggestion that flak units should perhaps be suppressed based on the nearest enemy GROUND unit or maybe the direction to the enemy's table edge. Reason : as i see it the other "normal" units should be there protecting the flak from suppression fire from GROUND units (ie. also where the BM most likely came from) not from the AC. Therefore the positioning of the AC relative to the flak is not relevant for suppression but the nearby heavy bolters on the ground pouring in suppression fire is...

On the same reasoning, the range of the ground units to the AC is not relevant, as they are there as protection on the GROUND.

I realise this won't be adopted, but just my 2p. Seems easier to me and avoids arguments about cm precise positioning of 6mm figures.


***

In other news, Ginger's FAQ - seems a fine answer to the question anyway. Though i must say i think Kyrt's wording is clearer imho :



Must say our gang of noobs is a bit surprised that such a fundamental rule is still being debated after nearly 10 years of playtesting. I have to agree with JTG on the point that rules committee's perhaps could and should wade in to re-write rules where they obviously are not fit for purpose.

Given that there has never been any realistic prospect of getting any more errata published by GW, I think it was always just not worth having to diverge from the "official" rules. As soon as you do that, you do lose quite a lot that keeps the community together and new players coming in. Fan rules don't have much credibility to people coming in fresh, and all of a sudden you have tens of different rule sets because people just change the bits they don't like and publish them as alternative rulesets. It's bad enough with army lists.

Next, how hard is it going to be to actually come up with consensus in every single rule change, or even just rewording of rules? I see it as an impossible task for the whole community to work on, it would take a small dedicated group with a very clear vision (e.g. a mandate to reword, not change). I can easily see it going astray when some people just want to codify the FAQs and others want to change the way aircraft work. Obviously any change to how the rules work would mean starting again at square one with list balancing.

Having said all this, now that GW model support is gone, it might only be a matter of time before the rules disappear from the website. After that, the value of sticking to them is a bit weaker, so maybe it would be a trigger to see it happen.

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

[Seems to have] worked for NetEpic...

Though in principal i agree with you.

really

wtf?

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

I've been following the discussion. I do like the simplicity of Blips suggestion. With the back of the formation being determined based on the opponents table edge or perhaps blitz.

I agree on the no rewrite do. It would have to be handled as a FAQ, which I guess would in effect be an addition to the rules.

Anyways, whatever solution you guys come up with in the netEA group Onyx, it seems a FAQ is needed.