Can warriors claim to be protected in an enclosed field?

[nigelemsen]

During a game with Alasdair, we came up against the following question.

Do warriors count protected in an enclosed field? (We think yes) Alasdair remembers being ruled against in a comp and does remember being shown the rule. We can't find it... Does anyone know the page to find it please?

We have found:

1. Warriors defined as foot.
2. Foot count protected in an enclosed field.
3. POA's only mention shot. But does not distinctly exclude warriors...

Thanks

[marshalney2000]

Nigel, as I recall it is one of those strange rules in that only foot, including warriors, who are shot get a plus for being protected. I recall raising this with RBS or Nick in that I could not understand why highlanders with bow defending an encoded field would be any less effective than highlanders with musket. The answer was along the lines that it was a conscious decision in that they did not want obsolete weapons to get the same benefit as shot.
Hope this helps.
John

[nigelemsen]

Nigel, as I recall it is one of those strange rules in that only foot, including warriors, who are shot get a plus for being protected. I recall raising this with RBS or Nick in that I could not understand why highlanders with bow defending an encoded field would be any less effective than highlanders with musket. The answer was along the lines that it was a conscious decision in that they did not want obsolete weapons to get the same benefit as shot.
Hope this helps.
John

Ok... So if I had warriors armed with arquebus or musket.... Then they would count protected...

So in answer to my original question it's the poa Chart that clarifies the point in the rule book? Ie. it states only shot get the adjustments.

[Schnockel]

If you look up the glossary, where far too many of the rules reside, it says that foot bases entirely in enclosed fields or a village also count as protected. Pg 174.

See also pg 126. Last sentence in the top section

Also pg 169 the description of an enclosed field.

So...ANY foot base...which includes determined foot, heavy foot, medium foot, warriors, light foot, dragoons, mobs, battle wagons(!!!), and artillery. See page 22.

[Schnockel]

The funny part is that the warriors gain NOTHING by having that so-called protection...not one of the POA's gives them any benefit...even from mounted charging!

I think I see something that needs rectified.

[marshalney2000]

I think we are all agreed on what the rules say I.e. Shot only benefit. As I said in my original reply though this seems to have been a conscious decision by the authors.
To take this a stage further, foot of any kind in difficult terrain such as woods even shot, have a hard time against mounted who come in after them despite the mounted being severely disordered.
John

[nigelemsen]

If you look up the glossary, where far too many of the rules reside, it says that foot bases entirely in enclosed fields or a village also count as protected. Pg 174.

See also pg 126. Last sentence in the top section

Also pg 169 the description of an enclosed field.

So...ANY foot base...which includes determined foot, heavy foot, medium foot, warriors, light foot, dragoons, mobs, battle wagons(!!!), and artillery. See page 22.

Hi, yes thanks alasdair and I found that. But he remembers being ruled against and been showing the sentence in tne book that supported it. I think as mentioned below it was a concept ruling. I suspect if challenged in a future comp the out come would the same.

RBS, please: is there a clarification in any amendments that have been released please?

Would the "Challenge 2014" Umpire: be able to give a ruling/clarification before please? As you may have guessed by army choice has warriors....

Thanks
Nigel

[marshalney2000]

Nigel, I think you are going to struggle as you may be protected but under the rules the protection will not get you any benefit for being so other than warriors who are also shot.
John

[daveallen]

This is somewhat similar to the Bow in a mixed Bow/Pike/HW BG (eg Elizabethan English with the shot detached). The Bow are Protected Foot so don't give mounted a + for "Unprotected MF in the Open" in Impact, but are not Shot so won't get a + against the mounted, and mounted weapons are not negated even if the Bow are in good order. Similarly when faced by HW, Spear, etc.

I think the rule is pretty clear - any and all foot bases fully in enclosed fields are "protected," but only shot gain any benefit from that protection. Oh, and Pike benefit from being protected when faced by HW, Swd & Lt Sp.

The only rule I can see that might have caused the confusion you describe is the first bullet point of the definition of Protection (p173) which refers to Medium Foot in a BG with Heavy or Determined Foot. The umpire might have extrapolated (incorrectly IMO) that only MF could be protected.

Dave

[rbodleyscott]

The definition of Shot (p.174) is "Foot with arquebus, musket, musket* or salvo capability".

So Warriors with any of these capabilities are shot and will gain the benefits from being Protected shot when in an enclosed field.

Warriors with bow will not. They will be Protected, but only Protected shot get any benefit (actually Protected pike also do if fighting spearmen, heavy weapon or light spear, as the protection cancels those weapons' POAs).

The rationale is as John (marshalney) says - we wanted to favour non-obsolete troop-types.