Hey Guy's
An unarmored musketeer becomes protected when adjacent to a base of pike when in melee against unarmored lancers. Does the musketeer gain the better armored + in the melee POA?
Better Armour POA
Moderators: terrys, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design
-
kevindgaming
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:43 pm
Re: Better Armour POA
No. Note that unlike FOG-A, "protected" is not an armor class. But the shot always cancel the better armor POA of any stand facing them no matter if the shot is protected or not.Vladius wrote:Hey Guy's
An unarmored musketeer becomes protected when adjacent to a base of pike when in melee against unarmored lancers. Does the musketeer gain the better armored + in the melee POA?
Re: Better Armour POA
No. Note that unlike FOG-A, "protected" is not an armor class. But the shot always cancel the better armor POA of any stand facing them no matter if the shot is protected or not.[/quote]
I am new to the Forum but I have been playing Both sets of rules for some time.
I do wonder why Shot, get to ignore better armor in MELEE. I can readily understand in Impact. I understand the argument used in later periods where the word "melee" does not actually mean hand-to-hand combat. But during most of this period "melee" actually does happen and is HtH combat. And a musketeer is a badly armed , unarmored participant in HtH. That gun is just a big club.
Lloyd
I am new to the Forum but I have been playing Both sets of rules for some time.
I do wonder why Shot, get to ignore better armor in MELEE. I can readily understand in Impact. I understand the argument used in later periods where the word "melee" does not actually mean hand-to-hand combat. But during most of this period "melee" actually does happen and is HtH combat. And a musketeer is a badly armed , unarmored participant in HtH. That gun is just a big club.
Lloyd
-
kevinj
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Derbyshire, UK
It's due to the top down approach of Fog. The capabilities are more about how troops fight and the overall effectiveness of their weapons than the actual equipment that they carry. As muskets became more effective and widespread, use of armour declined.I do wonder why Shot, get to ignore better armor in MELEE. I can readily understand in Impact. I understand the argument used in later periods where the word "melee" does not actually mean hand-to-hand combat. But during most of this period "melee" actually does happen and is HtH combat. And a musketeer is a badly armed , unarmored participant in HtH. That gun is just a big club.
It's due to the top down approach of Fog. The capabilities are more about how troops fight and the overall effectiveness of their weapons than the actual equipment that they carry. As muskets became more effective and widespread, use of armour declined.[/quote]
This should be handled by the actual Fire and Impact combat systems. Once the units are actually in Hand-to-Hand combat the armored enemy (compared to unarmored) would be more capable than the unarmored Shot. If Melee represents actual HtH. Armor was also despensed with NOT just for its effctiveness in combat but its uselessness on marches. This is just like ACW infantry throwing away their coats in the spring and summer because they do not need it NOW. Later, when they could really use it they do not have it.
I am not interested in complaining about the rules. I do not play competetion gaming so this rule will change on my table. But only once I understand the reason for the rule to start with.
Lloyd
This should be handled by the actual Fire and Impact combat systems. Once the units are actually in Hand-to-Hand combat the armored enemy (compared to unarmored) would be more capable than the unarmored Shot. If Melee represents actual HtH. Armor was also despensed with NOT just for its effctiveness in combat but its uselessness on marches. This is just like ACW infantry throwing away their coats in the spring and summer because they do not need it NOW. Later, when they could really use it they do not have it.
I am not interested in complaining about the rules. I do not play competetion gaming so this rule will change on my table. But only once I understand the reason for the rule to start with.
Lloyd
-
kevindgaming
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:43 pm
Re: Better Armour POA
I am new to the Forum but I have been playing Both sets of rules for some time.ducdallas wrote:No. Note that unlike FOG-A, "protected" is not an armor class. But the shot always cancel the better armor POA of any stand facing them no matter if the shot is protected or not.
I do wonder why Shot, get to ignore better armor in MELEE. I can readily understand in Impact. I understand the argument used in later periods where the word "melee" does not actually mean hand-to-hand combat. But during most of this period "melee" actually does happen and is HtH combat. And a musketeer is a badly armed , unarmored participant in HtH. That gun is just a big club.
Lloyd[/quote]
Think of muskets as a second class Heavy Weapon, good enough to cancel armor but not enough for a +1. Big clubs are rated elsewhere as HW.
Kevin D.
-
Vespasian28
- Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm
