field fortification and movement

[domblas]

how can we move over, cross, stay on FF?

i had such a situation when my bowmen bg was behing my FF, then it crossed it to advance and shoot at ennemi than it turned back and recrossed it the other sens, then it turned 180 ° coming in the original position.
was it possible?

second situation would need a draw but i cant do it. Can a BG cross a FF in anydirection? and what if it does not completely free the FF by its move? I mean some bases may be overcrossing the FF?

fogly

[ars_belli]

According to the rules, undefended field fortifications do not impede movement of troops sufficiently to warrant representation on the tabletop. So I would say that the answer to all of your questions is "yes," provided that the same movement would be allowed if there were no field fortifications at all. In the case of a unit not completely clearing the fortifications by the end of its move, I would follow the rules for interpenetrations on pages 47-48.

Just my two denarii's worth.

Cheers,
Scott

[SirGarnet]

As you say, Scott, p121 provides that if undefended they don't impede movement so just move normally.

The complication is in charging across them -if enemy is defending only part of the field fortifications and you seek to charge them across an undefended portion. To say you need to move round to the portion they are facing and charge frontally is absurd. The other options are that they shift over to occupy the portion you are charging across, but this forced shift is counter to the way the rules handle combat adjustments and could be abused, or that they turn to face in place if you can make contact and count as defending fortifications frontally, which I think is the best answer.

[ars_belli]

Well, if my opponent was considerate enough to leave a section of his field fortifications undefended, I would be tempted to simply move my troops over the undefended section, then turn to attack the enemy. The defending BG would subsequently turn to face the attack, as per the rules. Unless someone has already determined such a maneuver to be illegal in some way, I can't see anything in the rules to prevent it, and it also has the benefit of being quite sensible in historical terms.

Cheers,
Scott

[SirGarnet]

Well, if my opponent was considerate enough to leave a section of his field fortifications undefended, I would be tempted to simply move my troops over the undefended section, then turn to attack the enemy. The defending BG would subsequently turn to face the attack, as per the rules. Unless someone has already determined such a maneuver to be illegal in some way, I can't see anything in the rules to prevent it, and it also has the benefit of being quite sensible in historical terms.

Cheers,
Scott

I think you are right since you are not charging across fortifications, and passing the lines before charging is, as you say, quite sensible.

[shall]

All seems reasonable.

The intent is to have fortifications play a significant role if defended, but not to allow cheesy use of them as obstacles in their own right where these inanimate pieces of wood somehow fight back!

We do not track time but think rather in phases of time. I doubt crossing anything undefended would take very long without any interference from enemy in reality. So if reached then it is simple short pahse of battle while they are crossed, broken through.

Moral of story. If you are going to use them put something behind them or they are just a wate of points. Makes a certain sense surely.

Si

[daleivan]

All seems reasonable.

The intent is to have fortifications play a significant role if defended, but not to allow cheesy use of them as obstacles in their own right where these inanimate pieces of wood somehow fight back!

We do not track time but think rather in phases of time. I doubt crossing anything undefended would take very long without any interference from enemy in reality. So if reached then it is simple short pahse of battle while they are crossed, broken through.

Moral of story. If you are going to use them put something behind them or they are just a wate of points. Makes a certain sense surely.

Si

It makes perfect sense to me
I have yet to try them but am looking forward to doing so with my Late Republican Romans.

Cheers,

Dale

[madcam2us]

Total waste of points IMO.

Played them using Ottoman Turks and had the Azab behind them. Knights still get their POA for both MF in open and lancer bonus...

Why bother??? yea, it only made them a net + poa but still, why would lancers get the benefit?? Why would the MF still be treated as in the open....

The one benefit I they give is the ability to get a BG that normally has to start at 10MUs up to 15 MUs in the center sector.

Very disappointed with FF and their benefits. I'd rather have stakes of the English LB and others....

Madcam.

[rbodleyscott]

Played them using Ottoman Turks and had the Azab behind them. Knights still get their POA for both MF in open and lancer bonus...

No they don't. See the definition of Open Terrain in the Glossary.

Why bother??? yea, it only made them a net + poa but still, why would lancers get the benefit??

They don't.

Why would the MF still be treated as in the open....

They aren't.

[madcam2us]

Arg

Richard, something like this needs to be better presented.

Too many key rules are present nowhere in the main body of the rules and are nestled away within the glossary...

Do spear become disordered too? Probably not, but it would be nice....

Madcam.

[rbodleyscott]

Arg

Richard, something like this needs to be better presented.

Too many key rules are present nowhere in the main body of the rules and are nestled away within the glossary...

In hindsight you are correct. You are by no means the only one to miss this.

Do spear become disordered too?

No. Troops fighting across fortifications don't count as in terrain (unless they are), but they don't count any POAs or Cohesion Test factors that require Open Terrain.