Behind Field Fortifications

[marshalney2000]

Kevin, first of all sorry for picking up on the side edge thing and the way I responded. I actually missed the actual point you were making in having a dig at Hunter.
Re obstacles I agree this is even less satisfactory as unlike fortifications these do not have a defined front and rear. Presumably therefore both sides would get the -1.
The point re being both a musketeer and a swordsmen is well made and is even worse with theMontrose Irish Brigade although this was a device I agreed with Nik when he refused to make them superior. We had to differentiate them some how and there was historical support.
John

[marshalney2000]

Just to finally kill off the Ludicrous fortification down the side edge thing, you can only deploy fortifications in the central sector and never the flank zones.
John

[spotteddog]

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

Erm No. I think that you have spotted something that needs to be bottomed out but I think that the -poa only applies if you are immediately behind the ff. I can't see it applying to troops 8 inches behind the ff. Neither could it set up a zone of -1 poa goodness 15 inches by 70 inches from the owners flank across the table with their troops "behind" it. I think in both cases a dod of comomon sense dictates our interpretation of "behind". Just MHO though.

Hunter

[marshalney2000]

Hunter, read the posts above. It is impossible to put a fortification in a flank sector let alone a flank edge!
John

[spotteddog]

Hmmmm. I thought it might be possible to set the fortification up 12 inches in from the edge and 15 inches forward from the baseline facing towards the edge (assuming fortifications can be placed 15 inches from the baseline and 12 from the edge - I dont have the rules to hand). That way all your troops could be in a theoretical sweet spot of -1 poa goodness being "behind" the fortifications. Absurd I know but an interpretation of "behind". That is why in drawing the line about what we will allow and not allow its best just to interpret behind as immediately behind or defending and the poa only featuring if the fortification is intervening. And IMHO best to be clear that thats the convention.

Hunter

[marshalney2000]

That does not help because you are then allowing troops lining a fortification to receive fire from the rear and get a POA benefit. Everyone is agreed that for the fortification to be effective the fire must cross the front side of the fortification thereby nullifying your concerns on this point.
John

[kevinj]

As far as I can see the only logical interpretation is that, to receive the benefit of the -POA for shooting, the BG must be lined up behind the fortification or obstacle in such a way that they could claim to be defending it in close combat and the FF/obstacle must be intervening between the shooter and target. Whilst I can see the attraction of the interpretation that a FF is a substantial construction, the ridiculous idea that even a BG lined up behind an Obstacle would suffer the - when shooting at a target at maximum range across it outweighs this and makes it the more sensible interpretation.

But I agree that the current wording is ambiguous.

[spotteddog]

Everyone is agreed that for the fortification to be effective the fire must cross the front side of the fortification thereby nullifying your concerns on this point.
John

That's great news and as far as I can see everyone is similarly agreed that troops must be defending the fortifications to benefit from the poa so that should nullify all concerns.

[marshalney2000]

Sorry You have lost me. The fire crossing the front of the fortification does not automatically mean the troops behind must be defending as defined in the rules. This is only necessary for melee and impact. For shooting they only need to be behind not necssarily defending.
John

[marshalney2000]

Kevin. Would you agree that the wording for the two areasis clearly different in the rules. Would you also agree, therefore, that to change the wording from a situation where the easiest thing to do was to use the same wording would indicate that there was a purpose behind making such a change. To make a clear change without reason is not logical.
John

[marshalney2000]

Kevin, another question for you to help me clarify your thinking on this subject.
A player has placed a line of 4 40mm field fortification markers in a straight line and has he has two left he places one at each end but at a 90 degree angle to the original markers for six in all. He has a six base shot unit in two ranks defending the front of the fortifications but as he does not have enough men to man the whole 160mm he lines up as near to the centre as he can leaving 20mm on each side between the side edge of his unit and the flanking fortifications. (Just to be clear nowhere does it say you have to line up element for element with the fortification) It is now that the shooting phase. He is exchanging fire with a unit to the front so I reckon you would give a-1 POA for that shooting. In addition however a sneaky little two man unit of commanded shot ( there go those pesky beggars again) has moved parallel to the flanking fortifications 4 inches away from the side of the unit facing to the front. Now the commanded shot fire is crossing the front of a fortification piece and hitting a unit defending a fortification but not the piece the fire is coming over. By your logic as they are not defending (20mm away) away from the fortification piece they should not get a -1 POA. If I use the definition actually written in the rules they are actually BEHIND the fortification and would get the -1 POA.
In essence the question is are we going to rule on what each player considers the logic of the situation:
Player 1 - well he is no touching it so he does not get it
Player 2 - ach come on it is only 20mm and he is inside a continuous fortification
Or
Are we going to rule on what it says in the rules that he is behind.
I think the danger is that when we move away from the wording of the rules we create loads of stuff with individual feelings of right and wrong and logic.
John

[MatteoPasi]

Byzantine bureaucrats would have loved this discussion, the Romans would have considered a waste of time

[marshalney2000]

If they were shooting across the fortifications at troops BEHIND the Romans would be interested.
John

[spotteddog]

Kevin, another question for you to help me clarify your thinking on this subject ........
John

Time to stand down IMHO John. It's up to the umpire on the day to rule what he/she thinks is the right balance between RAW and sensibleness. For BC14 I think we can rest assured Don is more than able. (Oh look I buttered up the umpire again )
Hunter

[spotteddog]

Kevin, another question for you to help me clarify your thinking on this subject.
A player has placed a line of 4 40mm field fortification markers in a straight line and has he has two left he places one at each end but at a 90 degree angle to the original markers for six in all. He has a six base shot unit in two ranks defending the front of the fortifications but as he does not have enough men to man the whole 160mm he lines up as near to the centre as he can leaving 20mm on each side between the side edge of his unit and the flanking fortifications. (Just to be clear nowhere does it say you have to line up element for element with the fortification) It is now that the shooting phase. He is exchanging fire with a unit to the front so I reckon you would give a-1 POA for that shooting. In addition however a sneaky little two man unit of commanded shot ( there go those pesky beggars again) has moved parallel to the flanking fortifications 4 inches away from the side of the unit facing to the front. Now the commanded shot fire is crossing the front of a fortification piece and hitting a unit defending a fortification but not the piece the fire is coming over. By your logic as they are not defending (20mm away) away from the fortification piece they should not get a -1 POA. If I use the definition actually written in the rules they are actually BEHIND the fortification and would get the -1 POA.
In essence the question is are we going to rule on what each player considers the logic of the situation:
Player 1 - well he is no touching it so he does not get it
Player 2 - ach come on it is only 20mm and he is inside a continuous fortification
Or
Are we going to rule on what it says in the rules that he is behind.
I think the danger is that when we move away from the wording of the rules we create loads of stuff with individual feelings of right and wrong and logic.
John

I'd allow the poa for that one if I was shooting at it FWIW but I'd ask the Umpire for a call if the BG was 4 inches behind the fortification facing my BG right in front of it. Oh - and I would gracefully thank and accept the Umpires decision

Hunter

[marshalney2000]

Even if that unit that was 4 inches away had a side edge touching another piece of fortification on the flank. It would then be defending a fortification!! Oh sorry defending is irrelevant to shooting you just have to be behind.
Seriously though I do not really care what the decision is I just want a decision from the writers of the rules. I do not want a decision made on a competition by competition basis by umpires who could give a different decision each time. Umpires vary with good ones going by what it says in the rules while others less good base it on their perception of logic.
As I said earlier, if we want to apply perception of logic rather than written rules then I am happy for my artillery to fire from 24 inches at a unit hidden in a village if they have give away their position by firing at another unit of mine. Now the rules as written would seem to say I cannot do that but my sense of logic says that the rule writers could not have logically meant that though and I will free to apply my own logic in future and hope the umpire agrees.
John

[spotteddog]

I will feel free to apply my own logic in future and hope the umpire agrees.
John

It was never otherwise John.

SD

[marshalney2000]

Hunter just to clarify the situations you would be happy not to refer to the umpire. You are ok with not defending a fortification if a 20mm gap but not a four inch gap. Is one inch ok, two inches or three inches. Is there a difference if you are the guy with the fortifications.
It reminds me of the episode of Yes Prime Minister when Jim Hacker was being questioned as to when he would press the nuclear button. It started with a couple of Russians in a Jeep crossing into Western Europe (certainly not) and professed through the various stages where he had still decided not to press the button until it reached a point where the Russians were marching down Whitehall.
On a more serious point what is the definition of the fortification? Is it an individual 40mm frontage section of the whole or are all the bases which are grouped together and touching in it's entirety the fortification. So if you have six 40mm sections all connected in a legal structure if that the fortification. As you must have a minimum four pieces to have one and also looking at other wording in the rules I am actually pretty sure it is the latter. Which would make the behind situation more logical.
John

[marshalney2000]

Sorry for the duplicate posting.
John

[spotteddog]

Hunter just to clarify the situations you would be happy not to refer to the umpire.You are ok with not defending a fortification if a 20mm gap but not a four inch gap. Is one inch ok, two inches or three inches. Is there a difference if you are the guy with the fortifications.John

I'd be okay allowing the -poa to troops 20mm behind the right angled bit of fortification you mentioned.

I think I might ask for Don's ruling on 1, 2 or 3 inches behind but it'd depend on the circumstances i.e. if I was desperate for a win and that'd do it

Given my low ranking and lack of tournament experience the latter is most unlikley - so rest easy Don

Hunter