Direct Shifting to Indirect Engagement b/c of LOS

[Dan Pratt]

Was playing a 999g skirmish the other night (the "Capture the Homestead" scenario for the international campaign - play it!). And had this situation come up:

A unit of elite Warriors of Baalor were activated under attack orders. Very close by was another bloodied unit of WoB that had just been ambushed by 3 Krokodares.

I'm looking at the sight requirements for an engagement under 6.10.2.1 and the definition of "potential engaged unit" under 6.10.3.

The unit meets the requirement that the leader has LOS to at least one enemy unit. However the only unit the WoB champion can see is across the table. He cannot see the nearest enemy unit (but his other warriors can):





We played it that since the champion did not have LOS to the nearby unit, they instead ran toward the distant scrum.

In hindsight, per 6.10.1.3.1, maybe it would have been appropriate to indirectly engage the nearby Krokodares?

[Rob Lane]

Dan,

Yea, it's in 6.10.1.3.1; they couldn't actually engage the unit further away, so they indirectly engage the Krokodares.

Cheers
Rob

[Rob Boyce]

So am I correct in thinking here that if the leader & champion could not see the more distant enemy unit they could use the sight of another member of the unit to charge the krokodares, but him being able to see the other unit prevents them from charging the krokodares and means they have to indirectly engage?

[Rob Lane]

Correct. The positioning of a unit's leader is very important ;o)

Cheers
Rob

[That Guy]

Interesting. (I'm the Krok player in those pics)
I was suspicious that it would work something like that but didnt know where to look in my rules binder (so excited that I'll have a table of contents in a real book soon).This clears it up perfectly.
Thanks.


-P.S.-Death to the Sea Devil scum! I shall grind their puny icy bones beneath superior scaly feet!