line of sight

[marshalney2000]

Actually, I was surprised at your rapid concession on line of sight and villages. I have expected you to come back with the thought that if the village had a lamp post then all of your mounted were actually in a long thin column behind the post thereby making them save from artillery fire.
Aye, it will be a long time before I compliment your wit and humour again. (Mainly because it does not arise very often!!)
John

[spotteddog]

Crickey - it's only a wargame. If folks think a village doesnt block line of sight I think I can live with that. Its a bit stragne that there are visibility issues in the village but not outside it but I'm sure you veterans'll have thought that through.

Even a blind pig can snort up a truffle once in a while.

HH

[kevinj]

There's been a continuation of this in the Errata thread, so here is my opinion on the position:

Hunter's summary:

Does a village block line of sight - No (after "gentle" persuasion)
Does an enclosed field with hidden troops block line of sight - No
Does a gully with hidden troops block line of sight - No
Does a lake block line of sight as an impassible - No
Does a quarry block line of sight as an impassible - No
Does a hill block line of sight as an impassible - Yes
Can an impassible have bits which block line of sight and bits which don't - No (too complicated for me)

Realistically of course, what's being debated here is not line of sight, but whether you can shoot, principally with artillery, through these features. There are two categories of terrain to be considered, those which definitively block shooting in their own right (such as Hills, Plantations and Forests BUT NOT VINEYARDS, HUNTER!) and those which do not, but in which troops (other than light foot who can be shot through anyway) can hide. These are Enclosed Fields/Obstacles (for Dragoons), Gullies and (currently) Villages.

The issue with this latter category is whether intervening (but currently invisible) troops in one of these features block shooting at troops beyond. Logic suggests that they should not, but this of course contravenes the rules on overhead shooting on page 109.

Errata queries have been raised for:

Whether it's correct that Villages can be shot through (Rules currently say Yes, but the logic has been questioned)
Whether intervening but hidden troops should block shooting (Overhead shooting rules would currently prevent this)
How Gullies work (you can only see into them from 1MU, but although troops inside can shoot out there's no right to return fire as there is with other forms of concealment)
Whether Impassables block shooting (currently unspecified but I've never had problems with this being placer's choice, as long as it's made clear when placed. I've never even had problems with my waterfall in the middle of nowhere.)

Johns comment:

As for Britcon, I am totally against suggestions we all have a few vote on this that and the other. If we have a problem during a game then we have an umpire to refer to and he will then refer to the rules as printed and officially amended.

This is spot on. We can debate stuff on the forum and make suggestions to the author, but it's totally correct that tournament umpires go by the rules as published (including the errata), unless a tournament/theme variation has been specified beforehand.

[marshalney2000]

Official RBS clarification and amendment on visibility vis a vis villages now received. I have now received a clear note outlining the situation from RBS (well as clear as a Doctor's note written on a prescription pad can be).
Firstly he has admitted an official amendment is required on village visibility. He now states that while troops behind a village can be fired on villages behind Don Avis can not be seen or fired on. an official amendment to this affect will follow.
Yes, Hunter I know you are already thinking a good move would be to put your troops behind a village and then ask Don to stand in front of it.
I am sure we are all delighted that this long running debate has been brought to an end.
John

[marshalney2000]

Kevin, a useful and well thought out summary. Interestingly, I would argue that the current definition of impossible terrain would indicate that it is irrelevant how you represent it. Waterfall or otherwise you cannot move into it but can shoot over it. As I said earlier I suspect this was a mechanism to simplify game play. In otherwise model your impossible terrain pieces as high and as impenetrable as you want but My artillery will still be shooting over it at any troops behind.
John

[spotteddog]

Thanks Kevin and John. So ......... artillery can shoot over villages unless there are troops hiding in the sheds and Kevin and John will require the services of an umpire if Kev places a waterfall and says John can't shoot over it.

Glad that's sorted!

HH

[marshalney2000]

Hunter, no problem as Kevin has confirmed we must play by the rules and the rules as published do not prohibit firing over impassable terrain. Simples!!
John

[spotteddog]

I will be having nightmares about waterfalls and sheds all the way up to Britcon.
HH

[marshalney2000]

Ah you have found a cheaper option than the student accommodation then. How far is your shed from the venue? Must be quite a way as I cannot recall any waterfalls around the halls.
John

[spotteddog]

Outside artillery range anyways ......

[marshalney2000]

Actually it just dawned on me that the reason the waterfall is beside your shed accommodation must mean that you booked the en suite option through the BHGS site.
John

[Vespasian28]

I would argue that the current definition of impossible terrain

I missed this one but still cannot find references to Impossible terrain. Unlikely(sheds) and unfeasible(waterfalls) yes but impossible?

[marshalney2000]

Ah well that will teach me not to type a note after having been at a party for most of the day. My next terrain type will be implausible terrain so watch this space.
John

[kevinj]

My waterfall in the middle of nowhere is definitely implausible.

[marshalney2000]

Kevin we are agreed on this.
John

[spotteddog]

Kevin we are agreed on this.
John

Implausble is not impossible John and the visibility rules as written may support the impossible being not implausable.
HH

[marshalney2000]

Hunter, stop that drinking at work as you are slurring your keyboard skills.
John

[marshalney2000]

Had another thought re sheds etc. I can understand an infantry unit being able to deploy in buildings, sheds etc and be difficult to spot hence 2 inches but how does this apply to a cavalry unit or for that matter elephants. "Quick Carruthers get Jumbo up in the church tower before she is spotted."
John

[spotteddog]

"Quick Carruthers get Jumbo up in the church tower before she is spotted."
John

Implausible but not impossible. Its a bit of as minefield really - impassible.
HH

[madaxeman]

Had another thought re sheds etc. I can understand an infantry unit being able to deploy in buildings, sheds etc and be difficult to spot hence 2 inches but how does this apply to a cavalry unit or for that matter elephants. "Quick Carruthers get Jumbo up in the church tower before she is spotted."
John

Perhaps the concept of writing rules to account for the possibility of elephants in sheds did not occur to the authors when they were writing the rules.

However, now this unlikely possibility has been brought to front of mind by this forum, I for one will make sure to be a lot more careful next time I'm in B&Q..