Behind Field Fortifications

[marshalney2000]

Reading the rules cover to cover again and noticed an interesting point.
Let us assume a situation where a unit of shot is approaching a line of enemy field fortifications and ends up 4 inches from them. Two inches away from the fortifications on the other side is an enemy unit but that unit for whatever reason has not yet reached the line of it's own fortifications. The shot is in long range of this unit and fires but the question is does the enemy unit which owns the fortifications get hit on fours or fives.
Now like myself before a close study of the rule wording, I am sure the immediate clamour will be do not be silly of course a -1 POA does not apply. Let us, however look at the, I am sure, carefully crafted wording of the rules.
In the case of impact and melee, it is crystal clear that the POA advantage, in this case a +1 only applies" to foot defending the field fortifications." In the main body of the rules defending means being in base contact with the rear of ones own fortifications and it is for this specific reason that front and rear of the fortificationmust be clearly identifiable in the models used to represent them. The only way the enemy can gain advantage is to go over them and turn 180 degrees.
In the case of shooting however the wording changes noticeably. The wording becomes " in cover or behind field fortifications or an obstacle." Firstly we see that mounted and elephants even gain an advantage but more importantly any mention of defending or being in base to base contact with the rear of the fortifications vanish. The description is being behind. Some might argue that RBS of course defined being behind as touching the fortification but this wordsmith does not do this. All he had to say was directly behind or maintain the line of base to base contact used for everything else.
Now many of you will recall the somewhat emotive discussion on visibility behind villages and it is my guess that here we an almost reverse situation of this. I think our visual perception of the cover is coloured by the way we portray field fortifications on the table. In essence we shove down a few gabions and that is our lot. The definition in the rule book describes earthworks and illustrates this further on page 157 with a photo of a defended redoubt. Such a redoubt by it's nature would provide cover from direct fire (muskets and light guns) even if the troops behind were not lining the thing itself one could actually argue they might have better protection not being up front.
My view is therefore that behind a fortification, is not specified in the rules as only applying to troops lining the thing but also up to almost 8 inches behind this being the range of light guns who are the longest shooting troops affected by the POA.
I look forward to views but would prefer views based on something I missed in the rules rather than emotive that cannot be right responses.
Time to get into the bunker.

[ravenflight]

I could see why it would count, but I can also see that it would count for both parties.

[marshalney2000]

It could not count for both parties as you must be behind the fortifications to gain a shooting benefit. The player who does not own the fortifications is in front of them hence he reason the owning player must clearly declare which side is the front. The enemy unit could be behind if he crosses the fortifications and turns 180 degrees. Not a lot of help if he is then showing his rear to the enemy.
Thinking again about field works you are not only throwing up a heap of earth to the front but this is also creating a lower area behind where the earth came from.
By the way isn't the word "behind" really imprecise. For example " the house you are looking for is behind the next hill."
That could be 5 miles behind.
John

[Sarmaticus]

Thinking again about field works you are not only throwing up a heap of earth to the front but this is also creating a lower area behind where the earth came from.
John

In this period, wouldn't you be creating a lower area In _front_ : a ditch? It's a matter of "remblais" and "deblais", as Christopher Duffy tells me.

[marshalney2000]

I think they would do both. Looking at the rules, I think the fact that you cannot charge field fortification unless you are at 1 inch represents the existence of the ditch in front of the fortification slowing down the attackers. Yet again support for the contention that we are looking a fairly substantial bit of engineering.
John

[kevinj]

Practice here has always interpreted "behind" as "defending", but I'll put an entry in the Errata shopping list as it's probably worth clarifying. Whilst the authors are generally clear that the rules as written are as intended, they have also expressed the view that they should also be able to assume an element of common sense on the part of the players. I'm sure they regret that!

I can see a couple of problems with the interpretation that "behind" means merely "the other side of" rather than "defending".

1) Your BG with Musket is in contact with the front of the FF. Mine is within 6 MUs. By this interpretation, you will shoot with -POA.
2) Your BG with Musket is in contact with one side of an obstacle and could claim to be defending it. Mine is within 6 MUs. Clearly I should suffer the -1 POA but, relative to your BG, mine is also behind the Obstacle so yours suffers too?

we are looking a fairly substantial bit of engineering

This is true, but it's a piece of engineering that also poses no impediment to movement.

[titanu]

Reading the rules cover to cover again...

Dark nights drawing in already in Scotland I see

[spotteddog]

Another problem is that troops anywhere behind a fortification could claim cover when shot at under the RAW regardless of the direction of fire. 14 inches or 47 inches with the help of a willing opponent! Dod of common sense anyone ........ ?

Hunter

[Sarmaticus]

I think they would do both. Looking at the rules, I think the fact that you cannot charge field fortification unless you are at 1 inch represents the existence of the ditch in front of the fortification slowing down the attackers. Yet again support for the contention that we are looking a fairly substantial bit of engineering.
John

A battery might be excavated to a slight incline behind the parapet (to facilitate low angle fire I presume) see http://artflx.uchicago.edu/images/encyc ... 10_30.jpeg . Earthworks for infantry seem to be piled up from the ditch in front http://artflx.uchicago.edu/images/encyc ... 10_35.jpeg (both illustrations from, "Military Art – Fortification." The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert (1762), available here http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/did/did2222 ... w=fulltext

[kevinj]

Another problem is that troops anywhere behind a fortification could claim cover when shot at under the RAW regardless of the direction of fire. 14 inches or 47 inches with the help of a willing opponent!

I think the previous discussion has at least been based on the premise that the FF/Obstacle is at least in some way between the shooters and target. Let's not extrapolate this to the totally ludicrous. Let's face it, if the FF/Obstacle is on my side edge facing off the table, I could claim to be behind it anywhere across the table that was in line, so nearly 72 inches of benefit.

[spotteddog]

Agreed! Dod of common sense anyone ........ ?

[spotteddog]

Oh - another one would be where the BG is both behind and defending the fortifications but snuck up on and shot at from the rear. Clearly no -1 POA for the shooters.
Hunter

[kevinj]

Oh - another one would be where the BG is both behind and defending the fortifications but snuck up on and shot at from the rear. Clearly no -1 POA for the shooters.

Possibly the reasoning for the use of "behind" rather than "defending"...

[spotteddog]

Quite possibly Kevin. Anyways good discussion as always and I'm operating on the basis that you have to be cheek to jowl with your fortifications to benefit from a -POA on shooting.

Hunter

[ravenflight]

It could not count for both parties as you must be behind the fortifications to gain a shooting benefit.

Don't worry about the rules for a second, just try to think of the sense in what you're saying.

A big stuffing wall between you and the enemy, and for some reason the musket bullets don't seem to be affected by the wall if you're 'behind it' but it does seem to affect the bullets of the person on the other side.

What a crock.

The reason this wouldn't be the case if you're defending the position is because there would be able to take cover without it affecting your aim.

[MatteoPasi]

If a FF give protection not only in contact than I can deploy forlorn hope in front of a linea ostacle that is far from my deployment area with the sole limitation that this LO must be between my units and at least one enemy.

[marshalney2000]

Kevin, there are lots of crocks in the rules. If I have two units of highlanders one with sword and musket and the other with sword and bow and both are in the same enclosed field then one gets support factors and the other does not. Da??
Anyway back to the fortification situation. The situation of putting a piece of fortification on a side edge and claiming everything behind it is in cover is pure flummery on your part and you know it. Clearly the firing has to pass through the fortification to get the -1 POA and this would apply whether the troops were behind or actually defending the thing. Any fire from the rear or flank would attract no benefit in either situation.
Still waiting for someone to tell me where my reading of the current written rules re field fortifications is wrong. Lots of emotional outburst similar to the topic on firing at troops behind villages but as you yourself said recently we play to the rules as written.
John

[marshalney2000]

I have made progress in that Hunter has written to me off forum admitting I am probably right on fortifications. Just off to frame this.
John

[marshalney2000]

Matteo, re your question on forlorn hope. You could end up with different units having different POAs depending on whether or not the enemy line of fire passed over the obstacle.
By the way it is interesting that POs do not slow charges and do not impede firing so immediate conclusion no ditch and limited cover.
John

[kevinj]

Yes the side edge thing was totally facetious, but it was answering one of Hunter's points so I'm sure you'll agree that's allowable!

I think "behind" rather than "defending" covers the situation where the FF does not intervene, but the target are defending it. However, interpreting "behind" as just intervening gives especially strange results with obstacles, where both sides can claim to be behind them, as in my example above.

As for the Highlanders, I agree that it is bizarre that only the Shot get the benefit of Protection in the field. I also think it's odd that the musket armed ones can simultaneously cancel a better armour POA due to being Shot, but also count as Swordsmen in melee.