Firing : Target Priorities

[Blathergut]

I agree...current rule is better than adding in the bit about one corner. Or, deduct for each, but that's a major rule change.

[LeslieMitchell]

I think I'd have to agree with Philip on this. A large unit behind a 2.5 base width gap could find itself totally unable to fire despite the fact that 80%+ on its men/guns had a clear view of the enemy (in reality the figure might well be higher since "units" don't actually occupy the whole tactical footprint). On the other hand a small unit would be able to fire at full dice. As the rules are currently written, the large unit would be able to fire losing 1 dice in 3. This is a bit less than 80%, but seems a reasonable compromise in the interest of simplicity and puts the large unit on the same dice as the small unit in most cases.

Andy D

but would be able to fire as if a small unit as 2.5 base uncover at least on of the middle base corners would be able to see, therefore fires as a small unit

[Blathergut]

Or what about a situation where a unit is right up behind two other units, half a base on each side behind the front ones (giving rear support) but unable to fire despite halving half the unit targetting the enemy to front?

[panda2]

Not on the wording currently proposed. The unit wouldn't be able to draw a line from at least one of its front corners to the target unit so would not be able to fire. Full stop. The rule on a large unit only firing as a small unit if the target was only partially in front of one base would never come into play.

Andy D

[Philip]

A couple of pictures to show the possible undesirable results of not allowing shooting if both front corners are blocked.
In the first example, the troops at the top of the picture can shoot from the centre and one corner through a gap of 1 base-width. The troops at the bottom of the picture also have the same 1 base-width gap, but would be prevented from shooting because both front corners are blocked.


In the second example, the troops at the top of the picture can shoot from the centre and one corner of the unit at the rear. But at the bottom of the picture the unit at the rear has both corners blocked and would not be allowed to shoot, even though a larger part of their frontage is clear. The results are counter-intuitive and looks unfair, so I think the rule shouldn't change. It's working just fine as it is!


(the figures, by the way, are 15mm Minifigs Brunswickers and Dutch-Belgians)

Philip

[dvorkin]

your exemples are quite chosen, but it seems to me if troops at the bottom are in this position is because you put it, isn'it?

So it was your decision to put like this to obtain rear support or it was a mistake and in the two cases in my opinion the rule is fair.

You have to decide what you want exactly, you can't win on the two sides.

But may be I'm wrong and not in the philosophy of the game.

[Philip]

That's a good point about rear support, which I hadn't considered. Getting the benefit of support as well as shooting might be too much of a good thing.

On the other hand there will be examples where support isn't allowed (such as when there is some combination of infantry/cavalry/artillery in that formation). Then the rear units would neither support nor shoot, and that doesn't seem quite right either.

[Blathergut]

Leave the rule as it is. It works fine.

[panda2]

your exemples are quite chosen, but it seems to me if troops at the bottom are in this position is because you put it, isn'it?

Not all moves are voluntary. The only time I've seen positions like the bottom one are as the result of outcome moves forcing units back towards their friends. People don't generally don't deliberately set up situation where they fire at less than full dice in my experience. In the current rule the unit would fire losing 1 dice in three, which seems fair. Making it so the unit can't fire at all, when the gap is big enough for another unit to assault through or stroll into short range is ridiculous. If, as in the cases shown by Philip, the unit behind was infantry it is arguble it should lose no dice at all at medium range since the skirmishers doing the firing would actually be in advance of the intervening units and even if it were artillery (in which case no rear support) it would still beable to bring at least 83% of its guns to bear on a target directly ahead.

The proposed change to the rule seems like a complete overreaction to a minor issue that really only occurs at long range (when there are many fewer dice involved and therefore less serious consequnces), but which could create far greater problems than the issue it seeks to rectify. It is unfortunate that the issue didn't arise in play testing, because that would have hopefully allowed a more considered response that could have been fully tested. As it is, I would continue with the rules that are currently written, rather than make the proposed change.

Andy D

[terrys]

This is only a minor problem that certainly doesn't require a major rule change.

The only problem I can see (if we leave the rule as is) is that if you consider the 1st picture (lower units) the unit to the rear could equally be a large unit firing through the gap, but with more dice. In the case of artillery it makes a big difference.

The logical step would be to leave the rule as is, and change the last bullet point on page 51 to read:
"A large unit will fire as a small unit if the target is only to the front of one 'end' base (one base width) OR IF IT IS FIRING THROUGH A GAP OF LESS THAN 2MU"

Thoughts ?

[panda2]

Terry,

I think your point on the large unit behind the 1 base gap is well made. The result that would be reasonable in that situation would be for it to fire as a small unit, but also losing 1 dice per 3, which would put it on the same dice as a small unit in that position. Your proposed wording would achieve that, but I am slightly relucant to use a solution that involves measuring gaps since it may possibly run into the problems, identified earlier in the thread, as the current prohibition on firing through a gap of less than 1 base width.

One alternative that occurs to me that should achieve the right outcome (and might also reduce impact of the worst cases for long range shooting with large artillery units) would be to change the wording to:

"A large unit will fire as a small unit if the target is only to the front of one 'end' base (one base width) or if it cannot draw a line from the centre point of the front edge of both its end bases to the target"

The deduction of 1 dice per 3 for not being able draw a line from both front corners would still apply in addittion. As would the requirement to be able to draw a line from the centre of the unit to the target.

This would mean in the case in the top of Philip's pictures a large artillery unit would get 4 dice at medium range and in the bottom case it would get 6 dice. In both case the same as a small unit in the same position.

Andy D

[gibby]

I guess its what becomes the worst practice that we don't like that will get us to consensus.
The distance between the foot is 2 inches and the artillery is at less than 6.
I'm not sure a 1 level drop is sufficient penalty but we live and play with whatever the rule is.
cheers
Jim

[img][/img]

[panda2]

On Terry's proposed wording(and mine) it would fire as a small unit (gap less tha 2 MU) and drop one level(cannot draw a line from both corners to target) . That's effectively a 2 lvl drop, which would give it same number of dice that a small unit would get if you took away one of the flank bases.

Andy D

[gibby]

When does that become official and will it be in place for Britcon?

cheers
Jim

[terrys]

When does that become official and will it be in place for Britcon?

We'll make a decision this weekend.
At the moment I'm not convinced we need to do anything. It's a very obvious ploy, only with large units of artillery and very easy to avoid.
I'll certainly not do anything unless I feel there are additional changes to the errata that are more important than this.

[panda2]

Terry

On reflection I've realised that my proposed alternative to your wording doesn't produced the desired result in all cases. Using Jim's picture as a starting point and then removing the right hand unit in front of the artillery would on my wording give the artillery 4 dice, whilst yours would correctly result in 6. Should you decide to proceed with a change then I would go with your wording, except that I might change "2MU" to "2 base widths" to ensure at least 2/3s of the unit was able to fire for it to count as large.

Andy D

[terrys]

except that I might change "2MU" to "2 base widths" to ensure at least 2/3s of the unit was able to fire for it to count as large.

I meant 2 base widths.