Question raised at Usk

[david53]

Hi There

This was raised at Usk at the weekend at deployment I chose a Obstacle ie a wall page 170 explains what it is it also includes the following is otherwise trated as a FF

Now looking at FF, they must have a front and back and can only be defended when a base is up against the rear of the FF, page 150

I was told whoever gets to the obstacle can defend it now I thought that like FF they had to have a front and back declared when you placed it on the table.

Dave

[nickdives]

Perhaps there is a difference between a field fortification designed to give cover from attackers, but if taken designed to provide no advantage to the attacker and a wall which has two vertical sides either of which would provide cover from each direction!

[rbodleyscott]

I am afraid that this is a case where common sense should prevail over a literal reading of the rules.

One for the FAQ in due course.

[david53]

I am afraid that this is a case where common sense should prevail over a literal reading of the rules.

One for the FAQ in due course.

You never said you need common sense to play FOG!

In my defense its usually wargamers reading things into rules thats not there, not reading things that are there and then supposed to have common sense as well....

Still we played it your way on the day and will do the same in future.

I think you should add this terrian feature into AM I can just see Armoured Drilled Superior Impact foot Skilled Swd Romans using it my my that should cause a few hair pulling sessions.

Liking the FOG R the more I play it BTW.

Dave

[deadtorius]

I think the reference to being similar to FF's was how you attack it, you stop 1 MU out then can charge it next turn, not that walls decide who's side they like better and only that side can use it for cover.
Perhaps that sense RBS refers to is not too common after all....