Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 11:46 am
If it was a prepared position they would surely have had stakes or fortifications.
Martin
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:54 pm
good point...but they didn't! They had each picked a position in/around trees and bushes, etc, at the fringe of the wood so they could see across the fields in front of them, well they could see 2MU
Martin
Martin
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:53 pm
Err, really?WhiteKnight wrote:If and when the knights get stuck in, severely disordered and disrupted by shooting, impact will be 4 dice knights v 3 dice archers, equal POA, with the knights having rerolls on 1 and 2 if led by a commander.
In melee, the outnumbered, severely disordered and fragmented horsemen still get 4 dice to 3, but are now a POA up plus rerolls.
I would have had the archer with 6 dice at impact (2 per base=8 dice less 1 per 3 equals 6)
In melee as long at the archers are not fragmented they will get 6 dice at -
Also where does this the archers can only see 2 MU come from? "Troops wholly inside are only visible within 2MU" see P131
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:30 pm
Hammy
You are right, in the impact and melee phase, they get 6 dice unless fragmented, when it will be 4...my mistake
Phil's view was that visibility is mutual, see his earlier post...this is against sense, but I took it for granted he knew something I didn't, which is a frequent occurence! Is he not right?
Martin
You are right, in the impact and melee phase, they get 6 dice unless fragmented, when it will be 4...my mistake
Phil's view was that visibility is mutual, see his earlier post...this is against sense, but I took it for granted he knew something I didn't, which is a frequent occurence! Is he not right?
Martin
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Phil is right a lot more often than Dave but in this case I think that he is wrong.WhiteKnight wrote:Phil's view was that visibility is mutual, see his earlier post...this is against sense, but I took it for granted he knew something I didn't, which is a frequent occurence! Is he not right?
Have a look at P131 and see what you think.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 6:18 pm
Then read first paragraph page 132. There was a long thread on this some time ago. Buthammy wrote: Phil is right a lot more often than Dave but in this case I think that he is wrong.
Have a look at P131 and see what you think.
"Terrain blocks line of sight beyond the visibility distances specified above"
So the end of the thread said visibility was mutual apart from LF and gullies, but shooters can be seen and shot at in the same bound.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 6:30 pm
RBS answer
Last entry on the page. There's a lot of stuff he's put in bold. Perhaps he had a bad day
viewtopic.php?t=6495&highlight=visibilityHere is the answer from the team:
The visibility distances specified for plantations, forests and villages apply equally to
- troops outside looking in at troops wholly inside
- troops wholly inside looking out
- troops whole inside looking at other troops wholly inside.
When shooting, the total distance from the nearest front corner or part of the front edge of each shooting file to the target must be within the specified distance.
(It doesn't matter how much of the distance is in the terrain).
LF in brush, enclosed fields, vineyards and marsh can see out normally. Troops inside a gully can see out normally.
Last entry on the page. There's a lot of stuff he's put in bold. Perhaps he had a bad day
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 7:30 pm
Fair enough, that is not the way I would have read it but I can see the argument.philqw78 wrote:RBS answer
Last entry on the page. There's a lot of stuff he's put in bold. Perhaps he had a bad day
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:51 am
There was a lot he put in plain - must have been having a good day.Last entry on the page. There's a lot of stuff he's put in bold. Perhaps he had a bad day
Si