I've no real opinion on the question - perhaps a slight tendency towards your opinion Rug.
But I thought it'd be an interesting vote, with both sides saying "my side has more supporters!"

Side note, my truescale Landing Craft scratchbuild is sodding huge and is a bitch to land at the best of times!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

IMO basing this FAQ on that debate earlier this year is flawed; all that was needed was to revise / tidy up the "screening from behind" FAQ.

While Neal did express those views in the thread, he also said that his perspective had changed. As a consequence I certainly did not consider the debate complete. Unfortunately, Neal has been absent from the forums for most of this year, so we have not been able to discuss these views more fully. While I applaude Dave for the efforts in compiling the compendium and tournament ruleset, IMO this particular FAQ entry is a mistake.

Rug and I have tried to explain that this 'new' interpretation will cause many more problems than it solves, and will actually result in much more unnecessary confusion. This has already led to some changes and is in danger of completely changing a fundemental part of the rules, as recent replies show:-

"Can I land in the ZoC of another formation - yes".
So, this answer means that where there are two normal formations that are 15cms apart (with a gap of 5cm between their respective ZoCs), I can now land my Landing craft in both ZoCs while assaulting only one of the formations.

Next question (some time later) "If A/c can land in multiple ZoCs, why can't I (ground) assault through the ZoC of a unit from a different formation".
A. Because the rules say you can't.
Q. So why can A/c do it?
A. 'cos I say so (or words to that effect.)
Q. But I wanna, I wanna
A. Oh alright then, lets add another FAQ

It has also significantly increased the power of air assaults, especially SM. Now Air assaults have much greater latitude in deployment (as they effectively ignore all enemy ZoC). They can tie up troublesome artillery without actually assaulting them. Rug has just posted another question and I suspect there are other abuses.

Finally, the E-UK community (and I presume all other communities) use the 'official' FAQ to arbitrate decisions in tournaments (indeed players are encouraged to print off a copy). If this compendium sheet is intended to act as the 'official' replacement for the 2008 FAQ (which I thought was the intention), then E-UK would be 'forced' into using it - or into reviewing the entire thing for any other such major inconsistencies and then maintaining an E-UK version - something which I personally would be totally against.

Indeed, there were a number of other questions that I thought were to be reviewed, debated on the forums and then added, but I have no idea whether this has happened or not.

Gavin - i know that EUK tournaments already ignore several of the rulings in the NetEA FAQ and use different conventions, hence why I asked for an EUK FAQ earlier in the week so that I can be aware of the differences when I come to EUK tournaments.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Use your overwatch fire, remember the move away/engage choice is made when rolling to activate, not when triggering Overwatch. Scouts running up to Overwatching formations can also be shot at even if they likewise put the enemy in their ZoC.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I can't see anywhere in the previous Screening from behind thread where Neal's perspective had changed.
We had further discussion at a later time via PM or email and I haven't seen any sign that Neal's perspective had changed (althougjh that was a little while ago).


These 2 quotes explain the situation. A proper understanding of the contentious screen from behind FAQ helps to explain the NetEA FAQ position on this subject.

Nowhere in this thread is that point made.
The original post asked:
"Can an Air Assault target a formation that is entirely within the ZoC of another formation, but not close enough to be intermingled with it?"
My replay was directed precisely to that question (and only that question).
In your above example there is no screening scout formation so the FAQ does not apply.

Basically, that's insulting and pointless.

It's interesting to read the difference in your language whilst trying to change Neal's mind in the previous thread compared to this thread. I don't believe you would dare use this kind of style with him and I'd appreciate it you didn't use it here (or anywhere on Tactical Command for that matter).

We have seen in this thread that players in the UK, USA and Australia play the game according to the NetEA FAQ which allows Air Assaults in to scout screened formations.
We have seen that the EpicUK tournament scene (the largest tournament scene for Epic in the world) does not follow this FAQ.

Those are the facts.
There is nothing wrong with that.

As a mod, I'd lock this thread now (until Neal has time to clear up the FAQ) but I don't want to be seen to be using my powers to stifle debate or demand that others must play my way...

If another Mod were to do this, I think it would be a good thing.

_________________
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.

To characterise this as EUK vs the rest is incorrect IMO

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

+1

I have no affiliation with Epic-UK and mostly use Net-EA lists, but I think scouts should be able to use their zone of control to block aircraft landing. I have always played and understand the rules to mean it this way and had no idea it was contentious till I saw this thread.

I hope this contraversal and unbalancing FAQ area is reconsidered as I think it's a terrible idea.

^^^

Agreed.

Onyx

With great respect to both you and Neal, re-quoting the earlier debate is somewhat fruitless because, and I repeat, it was never concluded! However the quotes provided in the earlier thread do satisfy the examples I gave - albeit with units rather than 'scout units'.

In the example presented, the 11cm x 7cm Landing craft cannot land any any other way because of space restrictions, and puts its nose into contact with the target formation leaving the tail of the LC in the ZoC of a different formation. This satisfies what Neal wrote, as the 'screening unit' is both further away than the target and cannot be intermingled with the target. The fact that there could easily be two scout units on either side providing a 'scout screen' to cover the intervening gap would mean this example also passes the precise wording of the current FAQ.

In his reply to my post, Dave wrote Which I paraphrased in my later post.
Note, 'scouts' were deliberately not mentioned (though implied by Dave) as future questions may well be presented in this manner by naive players or 'rules lawyers'.

I am using these examples to illustrate that this whole approach is flawed in my opinion, because allowing an air transport to land in the ZoC of non-target formations completely undermines a fundemental principle in the rules.

I (and others) are concerned that this may potentially be the start of many further debates on just how things may / may not played, not to mention further revisions / clarifications to the current FAQ, with the associated confusions.

It is far, far simpler to abide by the original rules that prohibit entering the ZoC of a 'non-target' unit.

As to the contentious "screening from behind" FAQ, I thought it was Neal's original intention to clarify this (with respect to ground assaults) along with the various other FAQ revisions as part of a general tidy up. However I am not privy to any off-board discussions that may have taken place on this particular subject.

Onyx

As to language, I apologise if you have taken my comments personally. I take great pride in trying to avoid personal comments or interpretations. However, to be fair, you have been the main proponent of this approach since January this year, and as such I am not surprised you feel this to be 'personal'. There is absolutely no such intention. Ok?

Fair enough Ginger, thanks for the claification.
Maybe I found that insulting because if you knew me, you would know that I'm nothing like that (although I don't seem to have any of my friends/fellow gamers to back me up on that) although I've never worn a tie to a tournament so you've got me there!


I have repeatedly tried very hard not to make this about EpicUK (please read the comments where I've said this over and over again).
Sorry if it lookes that way but it isn't.




The main issue here is that it seems that it's almost entirely players from the UK scene that have a problem with this. Of course, there will be players from around the world who play things differently but it would seem that a significant proportion of the Epic players around the world (that are members of this forum) do not share the concerns of the main critics of the current FAQ. How can it be explained that games around the world are not being destroyed by Thunderhawks landing on formations inside Scout Screens? Rug - You called for this to be playtested... It has been for years with no reported issue (Dave's group in the US, LordotMilk in Geneva, our group in Western Australia and presumably in Neal's own games to name a few).

This isn't a new conversation - that's the truth.
I wasn't the first person in this thread to link to the original discussion. I have merely made several quotes from that thread to help explain how the FAQ was derived. In that respect, quoting from the original discussion has merit.

There's no way that this is going to end with everyone happy. That genuinely saddens me.
The Epic community is not a large community in the big scheme of things but I have seen Epic growing locally and I want to see it continue to grow. I'm starting to see several local players building their 2nd (and 3rd+) Epic armies now. We must be doing/playing something right here. There is no mad rush to build armies that can launch air assaults. In fact, during our last campaign (with 15 players from memory), a lot (the largest percentage of players) were turning to playing Guard. They obviously didn't feel things were unfair.

Sigh.
I really feel this thread should be closed.
Rug - There's no point in continueing this discussion in another thread until Neal can escape real life and see if he can explain things better than my obviously clumsy attempts.

_________________
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.

I don't see them being clumsy at all, it's down to interpretation of the rules coupled with how people think the situation would work in "real life"

I'm happy to play it either way and will happily discuss this with my opponent in the 5-min warmup, I would recommend that someone from the NetERC suggests that as a compromise, or that the final decision is down to the Tournament Organisers if there is a query at an event until the FAQ is reviewed and agreed, so it at least has an air of 'officiality' to it (despite there being no such thing as official these days)

I don't think either interpretation unbalances and spoils the game in any way and I am happy to play either, I can see the arguments from both sides, and find them almost equally convincing

Onyx has repeatedly told everyone to play the game and enjoy it, I for one plan on doing just that in a few hours

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Thanks, np

Please forgive me pointing out that I am objecting to the way this FAQ changes the principles in the rules, rather than Marine transports and scouts in particular (though that is indeed how the debate started). I have no doubt that some or possibly many around the world may have played in the way described and found it 'Ok', but that is beside the point.

I am concerned that this is actually changing the fundemental rule mechanics and in doing so, opens up a whole host of problems that we have yet to encounter. This seems likely to be detrimental to the community because of the confusion it may cause, quite apart from having a greater impact than the "Scouts ZoC" question that originally triggered the debate.

Does that make more sense?