Behind Field Fortifications

[kevinj]

Plenty of stuff happening while I've been at work today! For what it's worth, I think either John's reading for this is correct or mine is, but I think there is sufficient ambiguity to warrant it being tidied up via the errata, which is the method for the authors to rectify unclear rules, or those that give rise to unhistorical behaviour. As for the 20mm gap thing, I'd regard that as either unlucky or bad placement. There is certainly no room for the 20mm is ok but 2" is too far approach. If this solely concerned Field Fortifications I'd be more inclined towards John's view, but the situations that it throws up with obstacles, where both sides could claim to be behind them, lead me to believe that this could not be the intended effect.

In the absence of Authorial input, you're stuck with the umpire's view and it is the nature of things that there will be differences of opinion. Personally, my first approach will be the rules, so whilst I might sympathise with John's view that there is an anomaly between the way that his Highlanders benefit (or don't) from protection dependent on whether they are bow or musket armed, I'd never rule that they get a benefit that the rules are clear does not apply.

[marshalney2000]

Kevin, thanks for your posting. At the end of the day, all we all want is some clear guidance from the authors as to what the intention of the rules was on not only the subject of firing at troops behind fortifications but also some of the other areas that have been raised recently such as visibility behind villages etc. If the intention is at odds with the current wording of the rules then this allows a suitably amended wordings to be produced by them as an amendment as outlined by yourself.
As stated before, I have no real strong personal agenda on the fortifications issue ( no cunning plan I am going to spring on the world) but rather I am bemused that there should've such a pronounced change in wording apparently for no reason. If I was writing a set of rules and was seeking to describe the situations where troops would benefit from fortifications and had used the words defending for two situations ( impact and melee) why would I then go to all the effort and bother to produce another set of words if I wanted to describe the same situation for getting the same benefits.
By the way, I agree totally that we cannot go into the 20mm is ok but 2 inches is not situation. I was just playing devil's advocate to see what kind of responses I would get.
To be honest there are quite a few issues that fall into this situation of needing to be clarified by the authors and I think we would all welcome urgent resolution so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
John

[marshalney2000]

By the way, if we are getting a clarification, can we also find out how a fortification is defined. Is it a 40mm section or the entirety of all the pieces in edge to edge contact. This actually could also have a bearing on the cover situation.
John

[spotteddog]

There is certainly no room for the 20mm is ok but 2" is too far approach

Hi Folks

Just to be clear I'm not asserting or even suggesting how it should be for others just what I would personally accept as a reasonable pov if it came up on the green stuff. FWIW I think we should do our level best to agree without bothering the umpire, even if that means a wee bit of give and take - its only a wargame.

HH

[rbodleyscott]

As for the Highlanders, I agree that it is bizarre that only the Shot get the benefit of Protection in the field.

It is partly because it is design policy to punish obsolete weapons, and partly because it is easier for muskeeters behind a hedge/field wall to inflict damage without exposing themselves than it is for bowmen.

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.

Only the front rank are fighting hand to hand. It is no stranger than shot cancelling armour POA when the front rank are whacking the enemy with their musket butts.

[marshalney2000]

Richard, thanks for that but it would be good if you could answer the main point at issue in this thread. In essence was there a reason for the use of the word behind when shooting at fortifications rather than defending used in impact and melee.
Could you also confirm that villages do not block line of sight when firing at troops behind. - see separate thread
Can you clarify also that troops further away than two inches such as artillery cannot fire at troops in say woods who are themselves blazing away.
John
P.S at the end of the day, if you did use the word 'behind' without reason I for one would be severely disappointed after praising your wordsmith skills so highly!!!