Support shooting from Forest etc
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Support shooting from Forest etc
Can a 2nd rank that would not normally be allowed to overhead fire be allowed to count as support shooting in impact ?
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
From the FAQ:
viii) SUPPORT SHOOTING AT IMPACT
Can you support shoot if you could not normally shoot from a 2nd rank due to terrain?
No. If terrain (such as Forest) stops you from using the 2nd rank in normal shooting, equally it stops you having the
benefit of these dice at impact.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
lawrenceg
- Colonel - Ju 88A

- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
- Location: Former British Empire
The wording in Appendix 2 for the terrains in question is:
"Troops inside can only shoot in 1 rank."
This does not specify that the 1 rank, in which the shooting troops are, has to be the front rank.
However, the FAQ quoted earlier implies that it can't be a second or 3rd rank, at least in impact combat.
Change the wording in v2.0 to "Troops inside can shoot only from a front rank." if that is what is intended.
"Troops inside can only shoot in 1 rank."
This does not specify that the 1 rank, in which the shooting troops are, has to be the front rank.
However, the FAQ quoted earlier implies that it can't be a second or 3rd rank, at least in impact combat.
Change the wording in v2.0 to "Troops inside can shoot only from a front rank." if that is what is intended.
Lawrence Greaves
Sadly this should be an errata item not an entry in an FAQ. FAQ should be there to explain complex situations and rules not to be a source of rules themselves. The current version of the rules does not prevent what was initially proposed in this thread. The only way to clear this up is to change the rule with an errata item.
Paul.
Paul.



