You are wrong, matt. From the rulebook:

Calling on support allows units from other formations to attack with their firefight value if they are within 15cm and have a line of fire to an enemy unit directly involved in the assault. In this case
‘directly involved’ means belonging to the attacking (sic) or position (sic) to attack. This rule represents units from both sides that are not directly involved in the assault lending supporting fire when they see their friends coming under attack.

_________________

This was the major change in the rules during the 2008 review. It stops the one unit token assault with overwhelming support which many found annoying.

ah, didn't know that, my bad. Though in the previous example, I'd just move fm A over to the right a bit to "engage" units 5-9.

As a heads up, part of that errata was left out of the rulebook PDF when it was updated:

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=20941

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Ahh. I was in the same mental realm as Muppet (It's scary in there). I thought the change was that the support never happened if the attacker had been wiped out (stopping the whole one unit token assault) that way, having only known a change had happened, and not seeing the original text.

Definitely makes a significant difference with the whole "crossfire assault" thing people tend to get worked up about. Where Formation A assaults, Formation B is closest, and so the defender has to move towards Formation B if it Countercharges. Tends to get panties bunched, but isn't as effective anymore (or ever, if you correctly interpreted the rules), because unless Formation A and B are within 30cm, who gives a damn, Formation B adds nothing.

Morgan Vening

For the record, you've never been able to lend support if you weren't in range of the original assault.

Previously, the restriction was kind of buried (in the hit allocation section, iirc) and people tended to miss it. It had to be rewritten with the revised support rules and it uses the "directly involved" terminology now, but it was not a new restriction.

hey, I'm not terribly fussed about it, just didn't realise that change existed. Part of that is due to the whole "local game environment" issue, part due to the fact that we don't tend to get wound up enough about something to dive into the FAQs.

Ah, well, good. I was one of those people with their boxers in a bunch. It made no sense (in our now incorrect reading of the rules) that a unit could not countercharge to lend help in the assault because of closest enemy unit restrictions, yet was unable to get into BtB with the closest enemy unit, but those said closest enemy units were able to lend fire support. This clarification helps mitigate/remove that silliness.