Portable Defences/Field Fortifications on hills

[Yr_Arglwydd_Rhys]

Excuse me if this has been addressed elsewhere, but I have searched for a debate on hills and PD/FF and couldn't find one.

The rulebook notes that a POA is awarded in the impact and melee phases when a BG is "uphill or foot defending field fortifications or a riverbank".

The "or" in this sentence suggests that even if the PD/FF were uphill from an attacker, only one POA is awarded.

This seems slightly harsh on the defender to me, and takes something away from historical situations were both factors combined to thwart the attacker, such as the English at Crecy, for example.

Any thoughts?

[nikgaukroger]

There is indeed only 1 PoA.

To address Crecy - the English dug pits there which would be represented by some sort of broken ground IMO - certainly not PD as they cannot be taken up and put down and not FF as they would give no cover against shooting. The ground would, therefore, disorder the French knights resulting in loss of combat dice, and by not being Open Terrain would also mean they wouldn't get their Lance PoA or the PoA for fighting MF.

[Yr_Arglwydd_Rhys]

yes, fair point about Crecy. Regarding Crecy, rather than focussing on the type of defences per se, I was particularly concerned with a combination of hill and a form of fortification. This would further

The Scots also used a lot of pits during the C14, a dimension of medieval warfare which I feel is missing in the current rules. Your (Nik) point on the effect of such pits at Crecy is certainly worth remembering for scenarios.

Could the ability to 'create' uneven or rough terrain (i.e. to dig pits!) be an option for a later edition?

[rbodleyscott]

This seems slightly harsh on the defender to me, and takes something away from historical situations were both factors combined to thwart the attacker, such as the English at Crecy, for example.

Any thoughts?

This was deliberate. We felt that 2 POAs would be excessive.

(And pointless as no wargamer would be stupid enough to assault it, so you simply wouldn't get a battle).

[nikgaukroger]

BTW in addition to my first post I'd add that I suspect the writers felt that PD/FF plus Uphill for a ++ would be too much.

I'm sure an ability to "create terrain" would sit well within a campaign supplement.

[philqw78]

But it would stop the Knights from having to test not to charge if you created some rough going

[daleivan]

This seems slightly harsh on the defender to me, and takes something away from historical situations were both factors combined to thwart the attacker, such as the English at Crecy, for example.

Any thoughts?

This was deliberate. We felt that 2 POAs would be excessive.

(And pointless as no wargamer would be stupid enough to assault it, so you simply wouldn't get a battle).

Certainly no sane wargamer would try
Seriously though, when I first learned the rules last year this struck me as a very sensible approach--one POA or the other but not both. Besides a player lucky enough to have hills on his side of the table and field fortifications can protect a lot of frontage between the two

Dale

[Yr_Arglwydd_Rhys]

thanks all for your replies