Artillery enfilade

[hazelbark]

Last tourney had this minor question.

We had a BG of 3 bases of artillery

left and center base would clearly qualify for enfialde POA. Right base did bot.

We calculated POAs by base. Which I feel was the moral and author intent. Hopefully the literal too

But strictly reading the glossary it is silent on base or BG. Combat mechanism says base of course.
But the glossary defines as "could deliver a legal flank charge" which creates the whole front corner dilema

is this case the target was at a slight angle which is why the right base would not qualify as it was not wholly behind line, etc. More importantly it would strike the front corner first "if charging".
So..
1) Does that take away the POA for that base? Clearly yes.
2) Does it effect the whole BG losing enfilade?

Interesting. Not especially significant however.

[Vespasian28]

I'm no expert but doing it by base seems perfectly reasonable.

[timmy1]

Sadly as charges are by BG not by base, this does not qualify as enfilade fire given the RaW. Don't disagree with Dan as to that may be the intent.

[daveallen]

Sadly as charges are by BG not by base, this does not qualify as enfilade fire given the RaW. Don't disagree with Dan as to that may be the intent.

But then again, a BG with two out of three bases behind the line extending the front of the enemy BG and with enough distance to wheel in the charge could deliver a legal flank charge. So it does qualify as enfilade.

To piggy back another issue on this thread...

At a recent competition an opponent argued that as his Horse were travelling directly away from the artillery, said artillery could only make a rear charge on them, not a flank charge, and so they were not enfiladed.

We accepted this point as we didn't have the heart* to argue that the Art would get the necessary legal flank charge by wheeling to hit a rear corner.

Although we did insist that another Art BG adjacent to the first, and thus slightly to the flank of the target, got the enfilade.

Thoughts on both points?

Dave

* Withdrawing Horse in front of artillery being almost as desperate a tactic as forming square

[quackstheking]

My thoughts on this:-

1. Shooting is by file and the rules specifically talk about "artillery bases" not BG's firing. Therefore in an artillery BG, if one file has enfilade and another doesn't then one gets the POA but not the second.

2. With regard to getting the POA for shooting at the rear then I believe the answer is "no". The POA is there to represent shooting down the line of the target and causing more damage that way. Shooting at the rear is the same as shooting at the front. It makes no difference if you could wheel to hit the flank as the POA is given at the point of shooting.

Don

[kevinj]

I was going to post something similar to Don on both points, but he beat me to it and expressed it more succintly!

[petedalby]

FWIW I agree with Don & Kevin on both points.

[daveallen]

2. With regard to getting the POA for shooting at the rear then I believe the answer is "no". The POA is there to represent shooting down the line of the target and causing more damage that way. Shooting at the rear is the same as shooting at the front. It makes no difference if you could wheel to hit the flank as the POA is given at the point of shooting.

Fair point, but consider:

HH
HH


A.A.B.B.

The Hs are a Horse BG facing left, A and B are Artillery BGs facing up. Clearly both bases of A can execute a legal flank charge so are in enfillade, but B can only do so by wheeling.

1) Does this mean B can't fire in enfillade?

2) What if B is angled so that the flank of H is directly to its front?

My view on this is that they should be able to enfilade in both circumstances as the requirement to make a legal flank charge only means that a notional BG of battle troops could make such a charge. There is no restriction on how they go about making the charge.

Now imagine H are facing up.

3) Perhaps A can't fire in enfilade, but can B?

Using the arguments above, I'd say they can because they are in a position where a legal flank charge could be delivered.

Regards,

Dave

[hazelbark]

Sadly as charges are by BG not by base, this does not qualify as enfilade fire given the RaW. Don't disagree with Dan as to that may be the intent.

But then again, a BG with two out of three bases behind the line extending the front of the enemy BG and with enough distance to wheel in the charge could deliver a legal flank charge. So it does qualify as enfilade.

I think in FOG R you can only wheel at the beginning of your charge. So ranged shooting is unlikely to get any benefit of this wheel effect.

[daveallen]

Sadly as charges are by BG not by base, this does not qualify as enfilade fire given the RaW. Don't disagree with Dan as to that may be the intent.

But then again, a BG with two out of three bases behind the line extending the front of the enemy BG and with enough distance to wheel in the charge could deliver a legal flank charge. So it does qualify as enfilade.

I think in FOG R you can only wheel at the beginning of your charge. So ranged shooting is unlikely to get any benefit of this wheel effect.

You're right about the timing of the wheel, but how would it make any difference when you wheel in the circumstance described?

Dave

[kevinj]

I think the problem here is that we're using something that is worded well enough for it's intended purpose for something else and obviously once you start extrapolating more unusual situations it starts to fall apart. In the first of Dave's examples above it seems reasonable that B should shoot from enfilade. However in the second, if you accept that shooting from the rear is analagous to shooting from the front then enfilade shooting does not seem right as you would not be able to do it from in front.

Maybe the simplest solution would be an erratum to allow enfilade to apply from flank or rear, on the grounds that if you present your rear to artillery you deserve what you get.

[daveallen]

Maybe the simplest solution would be an erratum to allow enfilade to apply from flank or rear, on the grounds that if you present your rear to artillery you deserve what you get.

I think you're right.

It seems to be the price we pay for avoiding fiddly measurements. Thus although a reasonable definition of enfilade would be to say that the artillery were within a cone made by extending two lines, one from rear left to front right of the BG and one from front left to rear right (or vice versa) it would be difficult to measure on the tabletop. So we end up with a simple rule that challenges the accepted real world definition of an enfilade.

Dave

[quackstheking]

If the intent is to reflect "firing down the line" why not replicate the POA for ranks whereby it's 3 ranks, or 40mm + of target depth that get the POA.

For an enfilade why not have a clarification that a line needs to be drawn from either corner of the artillery base through both side edges of the BG being fired at to qualify for the enfilade POA. This does at least ensure that the artillery is hitting more than 40mm + depth of the target which is the same as for the 3 ranks POA.

Just a thought - fits the purpose and the spirit of the rule.

Don

[petedalby]

Maybe the simplest solution would be an erratum to allow enfilade to apply from flank or rear, on the grounds that if you present your rear to artillery you deserve what you get.

This will of course be Richard's call - but I have to disagree with your proposal Kevin - sorry. As Don has already mentioned, the enfilade POA is for the depth of the target. This is not present from front to rear or from rear to front.

I don't really get all this stuff about wheeling. The Artillery is either behind the flank or it's not, at the point it fires in the shooting phase.

Where there is doubt I suggest you either throw a dice or call an umpire if it's that critical.

[hazelbark]

I don't really get all this stuff about wheeling. The Artillery is either behind the flank or it's not, at the point it fires in the shooting phase.

I think the simplest (and perhaps author intent) is to calculate artillery POA by base with no requirement for the entire BG to be able to enfilade.

[petedalby]

I think the simplest (and perhaps author intent) is to calculate artillery POA by base with no requirement for the entire BG to be able to enfilade.

I quite agree. On page 121 and 122 the rules talk about 'shooting base' - not BG.

But I'm also very conscious that Kevin is kindly umpiring at the Challenge this weekend

[kevinj]

My suggestion was the simplest, I never said it was right!

I wholly agree that the calculation is by base, not BG.

The problem with consistency arises because the restrictions on declaring a flank charge, which has been recycled for defining enfilades, are less stringent from the rear of the target than they are from the front. In Dave's example above, it looks reasonable for B to claim enfilade as, if you were considering a charge from that position it looks like it could hit the flank. However, if there were another artilley BG to the left of A there would be no question of a flank charge being valid from that position and therefore no enfilade despite the BG being in the same relative position to the actual flank as B.

As Dave mentioned, the area should be a cone (or some other geometric shape, I think it's a trapezium) extending from the flank, but then we get into the issues of measuring angles.

[quackstheking]

Then just follow my suggestion of tracing a line through both side edges of a BG from either corner of the shooting base. The rule is intended to reflect shooting at a depth of target. There has to be an element of common sense in the application of this rule!!!

Don

[kevinj]

I agree that would be a better way to adjudicate it.

[daveallen]

Then just follow my suggestion of tracing a line through both side edges of a BG from either corner of the shooting base. The rule is intended to reflect shooting at a depth of target. There has to be an element of common sense in the application of this rule!!!

Because, Don, that is no less a horrible measurement than the cone I suggested!

What the rules do, imo, is create a 90degree 'cone' from lines extending the front and flank edges. Any artillery within this cone and in arc of fire get the enfilade bonus.

This is quite easy to measure, but it does apply a bit of a tweak to reality in so far as an artillery piece to the flank of a target, but just the wrong side of the front edge would be far more of an enfilade than one almost behind the target and just on the right side of the flank edge.

I can live with that tweak if it makes for an easier flowing game. I think it does.

I could also justify it on the basis that an important effect of artillery fire is on morale, so any artillery fire from the rear(ish) would be more 'effective'. But I won't as that is just another red herring

As this weekend's Scots won't be relying on massed artillery or lots of pointy sticks to survive I'm not presently unduly exercised by this question, but I did want to have it aired here so I wouldn't have to argue from first principles when I next turn up with six heavy guns.

Dave