Slitherine

Stop this tendency before you ruin the whole thing.

I'll second that.

This makes NO sense at all. Who is shooting at what? The only way for this to be happening is that skirmisher a from the reformed building occupiers have advanced up to the unreformed attackers.

Hy Adonald,

The answer is in fact pretty simple :

If unreformed infantry with no SK attachment moves within 2 MU of the BUA, it is in firing range . If it is outside 2 MU it cannot shoot at the BUA and the BUA garrison cannot shoot back as there are no firers . The idea is that the guys in the BUA stay in the BUA and have a 2 MU shooting range . The guys outside, if reformed or with SK attachment have a 6 MU range because their SK advance in range of the BUA ( 2 MU ) and engage in joyous firing . It's the assaulting guy who approach, not the "defender"

Does this help

Sorry, don't have the rules with me.

Can cavalry, being the only target, get shot at by troops occupying a BUA at greater than 2MU?

Alastair

At present yes if there is no other target they have to fire at. I believe the usual dice reductions will occur.

Almost. According to the Building FAQ, unreformed Line infantry without an artillery attachment cannot shoot a town at medium range.
However the defenders, assuming they are reformed or have a gun, can shoot at a single unreformed target at medium range. So the picture of a combat between attacking skirmishers and defenders on the walls doesn't really fit all circumstances.

And yes, defenders get dice reduction for enemy cavalry if there is no-one firing back.

My view is that the rules as currently written can't really be explained based on what is taking place, they're simply 'the rules'.

The defender may shoot BACK at any unit firing at them if within 6 MU and not artillery !

So unreformed inf at 6 MU outside a building cannot be shot at .

Check page 3 of Building FAQ "if no enemy infantry is capable of firing at the building, 4 dice at the nearest single enemy unit of any type within the firers' normal range"

We will need Terry's statement here !

As has been stated this one needs a review for V2.