legal deployment behind FF

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Fri May 28, 2010 5:30 am

FFF -15 inches-
AAABBB
AAABBB

CCC
CCC

DD
DD
DD
-10 inches-

In the example above there are four groups of 6 Spearmen.
A,B and C are facing up. D is facing left.
Which are legally deployed behind field fortifications (depicted as F.

I think it should only be BG A.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Fri May 28, 2010 9:55 am

I believe you left out the "Fs"

david53 · Post by **david53** » Fri May 28, 2010 12:19 pm

berthier wrote:I believe you left out the "Fs"

That would be the Field Fortifactions?

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Fri May 28, 2010 4:50 pm

david53 wrote:
berthier wrote:I believe you left out the "Fs"

That would be the Field Fortifactions?

You are correct but the original post did not have the "Fs" and as you can see I posted my original statement before the original post had been edited.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Fri May 28, 2010 8:58 pm

I understand "completely behind fortifications" to mean "to the rear of, and entirely screened by", so anywhere to the rear of your line of fortifications, in such a way that no part of the BG is exposed. This does not require that the BG be "defending" that is, in contact with the rear edge of the FF.
A is entirely behind and defending the FF, so that is legal. B is adjacent to A, but not directly behind the FF, so is not legal. C is entirely behind the FF, but not defending them, so is legal. Ditto for D.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Sat May 29, 2010 12:07 am

gozerius wrote:I understand "completely behind fortifications" to mean "to the rear of, and entirely screened by", so anywhere to the rear of your line of fortifications, in such a way that no part of the BG is exposed. This does not require that the BG be "defending" that is, in contact with the rear edge of the FF.
A is entirely behind and defending the FF, so that is legal. B is adjacent to A, but not directly behind the FF, so is not legal. C is entirely behind the FF, but not defending them, so is legal. Ditto for D.

In that case A, C and D are legally deployed.

If this is the case I someone can take one FF and plce if at 15 inches at the far left of the central sector. This then enables the army to be deployed at 15inches entirely behind that single FF at 15inches across 4 fooot of the table width. with 2 FF in the exact centre facing each other you can deploy at 15 along the whole table width. 4 are better so you can be 2 deep with mounted. someone is bound to do this in a comp at some stage.

lionheartrjc · Post by **lionheartrjc** » Mon May 31, 2010 9:02 am

The crux of the matter is whether behind means behind with respect to the fortification or behind with respect to the direction the enemy is coming from. If the former, this allows some particularly cheesy deployments and I cannot believe this was the intention when the rules were written.

I think if the rules has said "defending and completely behind" instead of just "completely behind" then that would have been better.

On a related topic - can the troops move through their own fortifications? The rules p121 say "Undefended field fortifications do not impede movement of troops." However if I am defending my own fortifications - does that prevent me moving through them?

My view is that is not the intention of the wording - but I would welcome a definitive view. Again - I think it would have been better to say "undefended enemy fortifications" and have prevented an army from just moving through its own fortifications.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:51 am

On a related topic - can the troops move through their own fortifications?

That's the way I've seen it played. Once the troops begin to move - the fortifications are no longer defended. I understand your concerns that this may not seem right but I would imagine that this is one of those realism vs simplicity issues.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:35 am

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. "Completely behind" does not mean "behind a line extending the front edge of the fortification". Nor does being to the rear of a one base wide FF facing the side edge confer any advantage. The BG in question must be completely screened by the FF from the nearest point(s) of the enemy rear table edge. That's my interpretation. I leave it to the rules authors to give a better one. Preferably in the FAQ.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:40 am

petedalby wrote:
On a related topic - can the troops move through their own fortifications?
That's the way I've seen it played. Once the troops begin to move - the fortifications are no longer defended. I understand your concerns that this may not seem right but I would imagine that this is one of those realism vs simplicity issues.

Consider the time scale. If undefended enemy fortifications do not impede movement, why would friendly fortifications, pose an impediment? You are just jumping over a berm, or wall, or whatever.