Cavalry effect on medium range infantry fire

[hazelbark]

the -2 dice.

Had some enemy Legere in rough cover behind the edge obstacle firing out at my Cacadores.

I had some cavalry within 6 MU of the Legere so thought it should be -2 MU on them. But is there any prohibition on the effect of the cavalry against troops in terrain? Didn't see any so we counted the -2.

[deadtorius]

Pretty sure it just says the cav have to be within 6 mu.

[KendallB]

You can even be on the other side of a river and count the -2 dice for the skirmishers. As long as the cavalry are not wavering, routing or in combat they have their "protection from skirmishers 6MU" spell on.

[hazelbark]

I think Terry was posting somewhere he didn't feel right about cross the river, unless and then he was thinking through details.

The crazy part is I kept taking the -2 for me, when I had rifles. D'yoh!

[KendallB]

Yes, he did but as the rules stand cavalry can even affect skirmishing fire from beyond impassable terrain as well.

I guess it's something else that will appear in a version 2.

[Sarmaticus]

the -2 dice.

Had some enemy Legere in rough cover behind the edge obstacle firing out at my Cacadores.

I had some cavalry within 6 MU of the Legere so thought it should be -2 MU on them. But is there any prohibition on the effect of the cavalry against troops in terrain? Didn't see any so we counted the -2.

Makes sense: at medium range, the skirmishers are actually shooting from well in front of their cover. The cavalry make them nervous about doing so.

[Sarmaticus]

Yes, he did but as the rules stand cavalry can even affect skirmishing fire from beyond impassable terrain as well.

I guess it's something else that will appear in a version 2.

The other side is that if skirmishers are moving out in front at the main body of the unit to shoot, they have to be on the cavalry's side of the obstacle. If the cavalry effect is negated by the obstacle, then so should be the medium range shooting of the infantry. All in all, I find it fairly easy to rationalise the present situation by imagining skirmishers venturing beyond the obstacle and cavalry inhibiting those skirmishers. The tougher one is where the cavalry is contacting the obstacle and inhibiting medium range musketry from the other side. I can still accept that though, as few obstacles narrow enough to be shot over would he totally impassable to the small parties of cavalry necessary to frighten skirmishers. Toughest is when both sides are touching opposite sides of an impassable obstacle at medium range. There the infantry perhaps shouldn't shoot and the cavalry shouldn't inhibit. Imagine what you will going on in the shallows and on the sandbanks: I can live with that as well.
Not allowing cavalry to influence medium range musketry (advanced skirmishers) from beyond an obstacle makes less sense IMHO once we recognise what is being represented.

[deadtorius]

The point of contention is can the cav actually see them or even get physically close enough.
Across a river would depend on river level for example. Raging torrent blocks moves except for a bridge, ankle deep the cavalry could easily venture across, but for simplicity neither affects the cav ability to drive back skirmishers.
Likewise if your on the opposite side of a forest, would the cav even be aware of skirmishing going on over there, let alone send off a troop out of sight to deal with it.
At present it keeps the rules simple, even if reality seems to be getting bent. Personally it has never been an issue in our games.

[hazelbark]

I agree with all that has been posted. But since an eyebrow was raised against me in the game, I wanted to shake out the discussion. Thank you.