Hi dudes!

I'm sure you know the new rules for Fire Support (1.4 RRG page 36). It states that:

Quote

During the “Form Attack Pool” step of a friendly unit’s
ranged attack, each mini in a unit with the fire support
keyword may contribute an eligible weapon to the attack
pool if that mini has line of sight to any mini in the
defending unit.

A weapon is considered eligible if it is a ranged weapon, if
the defending unit is at the weapon’s range, and if any other
requirements of using the weapon are met.

When a unit is using the fire support keyword, range
from that unit is still measured from its own unit leader.

So unit A attacks an enemy unit and unit B with Fire Support wants to contribute to the attack.

Range from A is checked for their weapons. Range from Unit B is checked for their weapons. All ok.

I assume that COVER is from the attack starter, unit A.

BUT, when suffering wounds, must be form Unit A LOS? Or can be from Unit B LOS? Maybe B sees a model that A don't.

In the "wounds" entry (1.4 RRG page 67) it says:

Quote

During an attack, if line of sight to a mini in the defender
is blocked from all minis in the attacker, that mini in the
defender cannot suffer wounds.

I would say that Unit B is part of the attacker, since it's models contributed to the attack. Also, in the Attack entry (RRG 1.4 page 15) it says:

Quote

2. Form Attack Pool: The attack pool consists of all the dice the
attacker will roll against this defender. When forming the attack
pool, players follow these substeps in order:

a. Determine Eligible Minis: Each mini in the attacker is eligible
to contribute to the attack pool if that mini has line of sight to
any mini in the defender.

So it seems that Unit B is part of the attacker. What do you think?

PS: Yep, I know that Chewie/Leia card seems the same, but I would say nope!

so when you do a fire support attack you have 3 units, unit a and b on one team and unit c is the defender on the other. unit a and b have to have range and LOS to any of the minis in the attacker to contribute to the attack. also as part of the LOS check is also range and cover checks too, the reason you do this for each unit is its one attack pool so you have to do the checks from both units to the defender or unit c. so if unit a has no cover to c and unit b has heavy cover to c, then the entire attack pool has heavy cover as its one attack pool.

Well, I was not asking for cover, but I would say that if unit A attacks, and unit B uses Fire Support, you check enemy cover from unit A.

My question is: Since the initial attack is from unit A, can an enemy mini that ONLY minis from unit B can see suffer wounds?

4 hours ago, YuriPanzer said:

Well, I was not asking for cover, but I would say that if unit A attacks, and unit B uses Fire Support, you check enemy cover from unit A.

My question is: Since the initial attack is from unit A, can an enemy mini that ONLY minis from unit B can see suffer wounds?

so looking over the rules FFG will need to clarify for the 100%, but if unit A say can only see the unit leader, and unit B can see everyone, then you would form two different attack pools and key words would have to be chosen when to added to the attack pool (if unit b had pierce then you can choose it to roll with unit a which can see the only 1 mini or unit b with all minis, but in the reverse only unit A key word can be added to the Unit A attack pool). unit b would then be able to to attack all the minis as this is still the same attack just from different angle.
the reason for this is the LOS is determine from both units per the RRG.

16 hours ago, YuriPanzer said:

Hi dudes!

I'm sure you know the new rules for Fire Support (1.4 RRG page 36). It states that:

So unit A attacks an enemy unit and unit B with Fire Support wants to contribute to the attack.

Range from A is checked for their weapons. Range from Unit B is checked for their weapons. All ok.

I assume that COVER is from the attack starter, unit A.

BUT, when suffering wounds, must be form Unit A LOS? Or can be from Unit B LOS? Maybe B sees a model that A don't.

In the "wounds" entry (1.4 RRG page 67) it says:

I would say that Unit B is part of the attacker, since it's models contributed to the attack. Also, in the Attack entry (RRG 1.4 page 15) it says:

So it seems that Unit B is part of the attacker. What do you think?

PS: Yep, I know that Chewie/Leia card seems the same, but I would say nope!

Yes, unit B adds dice to the attack pool, so those minis are attackers and if they can see a mini in the defender, even if unit A doesn't, that mini can die.

15 hours ago, YuriPanzer said:

Well, I was not asking for cover, but I would say that if unit A attacks, and unit B uses Fire Support, you check enemy cover from unit A.

My question is: Since the initial attack is from unit A, can an enemy mini that ONLY minis from unit B can see suffer wounds?

23 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

Yes, unit B adds dice to the attack pool, so those minis are attackers and if they can see a mini in the defender, even if unit A doesn't, that mini can die.

No the definition of an "attacker" is given on page 14 of the RRG, "During an attack, the unit that is performing the attack is the attacker and the target of the attack is the defender." The key words here are "the unit that is performing the attack" which does NOT include the unit that is performing "Fire Support." There is only one attack happening, and only one attacker, Fire Support just allows to the addition of more attack dice in the pool from a second unit, it doesn't specify that the unit using Fire Support is also an attacker.

11 hours ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

so looking over the rules FFG will need to clarify for the 100%, but if unit A say can only see the unit leader, and unit B can see everyone, then you would form two different attack pools and key words would have to be chosen when to added to the attack pool (if unit b had pierce then you can choose it to roll with unit a which can see the only 1 mini or unit b with all minis, but in the reverse only unit A key word can be added to the Unit A attack pool). unit b would then be able to to attack all the minis as this is still the same attack just from different angle.
the reason for this is the LOS is determine from both units per the RRG.

You don't create two different attack pools when you have a single model in the unit that can see the whole target while the rest of the unit can only see a single model, so this is inconsistent with the way the rest of the rules work. As well, this turns Fire Support into two separate attacks on the same unit, which is a bit different as far as Aim and Dodge works.

28 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

No the definition of an "attacker" is given on page 14 of the RRG, "During an attack, the unit that is performing the attack is the attacker and the target of the attack is the defender." The key words here are "the unit that is performing the attack" which does NOT include the unit that is performing "Fire Support." There is only one attack happening, and only one attacker, Fire Support just allows to the addition of more attack dice in the pool from a second unit, it doesn't specify that the unit using Fire Support is also an attacker.

You're right. I went with what seemed more logical to me but it's nowhere specified in the rules that the Fire Support unit is considered attacker. So at least with the rules as they are now, the minis that unit A can't see, cannot die.

3 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

You're right. I went with what seemed more logical to me but it's nowhere specified in the rules that the Fire Support unit is considered attacker. So at least with the rules as they are now, the minis that unit A can't see, cannot die.

Yeah, it can be frustrating when the English definition of a word more closely matches what is happening in a game than the rules definition of that same word. I agree that grammatically the unit using Fire Support should be considered part of the "attacker," but the current wording of the rules doesn't support it. I half wonder if the reason FFG put these rules in the RRG early was to get free proof reading from us. 😛