second rank shooting

[dvorkin]

Question in the rule, it is specified that only first rank can shoot in a wood plantation or village.
A mixed battle group with a first rank of spear and a second rank of Bow what is the decision knowing that a second rank of shooters in mixed BG is considered as a first rank?

other question A bg of shooters with only the second rank inside wood plantation or village is it allowed to shoot with the second rank?

[dvorkin]

apparently these questions are too difficult to answer or nobody interested

[rbodleyscott]

apparently these questions are too difficult to answer or nobody interested

Sorry Olivier,

Too difficult for me to answer at work without a copy of the rules at hand.

[sagji]

The literal wording is "can only shoot in 1 rank" - in other words can only shoot if 1 rank deep. I suspect this is incorrect and that it should be only the front rank can shoot.

[rbodleyscott]

As Alan says, it says "can only shoot in 1 rank", not "can only shoot with the 1st rank".

There may be some ambiguity, but as umpire I would not hesitate to rule (on the basis of the current wording as well as the intention of the rule) that they can only shoot with the front rank of the battle group.

So no shooting possible in either of your examples. The trees get in the way.

[dvorkin]

thanks for the confirmation

[rogerg]

Is this a good ruling? If the few troops that have only second rank shooters represent a thin wall of spears with a mass of archers behind, are they not more like archers than spears? This formation is already quite well handicapped in other ways (one rank of shooters, weak second rank melee). Preventing use of their primary weapon seems a bit harsh.

I haven't got the rule book with me so I cannot quote it. My memory of this section suggests the rule implies that these mixed units shoot with only the second rank, but it shoots as if it is the first. They have a 'cushion' of spears to absorb the impact, but are handicapped in the melee.

It would be much prettier to have the rules state that in these particular types of terrain "only the front rank shoots", which implies a low trajectory only is possible. The mixed unit, only shooting over a few non-shooters in front of them, is still only using a relatively low trajectory and is covered by "shoots as if the front rank."

If for nothing else it would be nice to encourage the use of some more unusual troop types because they add a bit of colour. Go on, give them the benefit of the doubt.

[rbodleyscott]

Is this a good ruling? If the few troops that have only second rank shooters represent a thin wall of spears with a mass of archers behind, are they not more like archers than spears? This formation is already quite well handicapped in other ways (one rank of shooters, weak second rank melee). Preventing use of their primary weapon seems a bit harsh.

If for nothing else it would be nice to encourage the use of some more unusual troop types because they add a bit of colour. Go on, give them the benefit of the doubt.

Well, of course, if you have evidence of such units forming up in woods and shooting....

[rogerg]

Unfortunately not, is there evidence that they didn't? I am not aware of any evidence of anyone shooting in any type of wooded area, Robin Hood excepted.

[jlopez]

Unfortunately not, is there evidence that they didn't? I am not aware of any evidence of anyone shooting in any type of wooded area, Robin Hood excepted.

Cretans and slingers did have a bash at Romans advancing through a wood at, IIRC, the Aous Pass but didn't achieve much other than making a lot of noise from their missiles bouncing off shields. Apart from that I can't remember any other mention of shooting in woods other than, maybe, Aetolian javelinmen taking apart hoplites in a wood.

You are right there is no evidence that they didn't shoot in woods but then neither is there any evidence that they didn't use laser guns and we really don't want to go down that road, do we?

Regards,

Julian