Shooting through enclosed fields.

[Urizen]

The rules state that an enclosed field provides cover to a BG wholly within it. It seems illogical that a BG outside the field, on the edge of it, shouldn't receive such protection?

Also, how is it possible for two BGs to shoot at each other over the corner of (or indeed over a very thin) enclosed field? Surely the hedges would prevent this from happening? And even if it were possible, why do neither get cover bonuses?

Am i missing something? Had a huge argument today with a new player to the game who decided the rules were terrible because they allowed this - what is the rationale behind this rule, if it is indeed the case?

Thanks

[deadtorius]

Imagine that the hedges or walls are only low, to keep livestock out but allows any farmer to see into it just in case. To get cover from such things you need to be actually behind the walls/hedge kneeling etc. Who is to say the field is not low ground with a slight rise to the troops in behind who are in the open and above the field. There are only a few terrain types that actually block line of sight, and a village is not one of them apparently which seems odd to me .
I would have to say that it is a typical game mechanic that unless you are directly behind an object you don't gain the benefit, a lot of games that I have played over the years are exactly the same so I never had a problem with the concept.
hope that helped a bit.

[daveallen]

Hi Urizen,

did your friend ever see the light and realise that FoGR is the greatest rule set ever?

Further points in favour of not counting enclosed fields as cover when outside it (and, incidentally, obstacles when not in contact with them):

• - Fields can be enclosed by ditches;
  
  - Troops use ballistic weapons not lasers so any small obstruction (say, a wall 4' high) will only protect those immediately adjacent;
  
  - Unlike our tables, most terrain is not flat but undulates gently and thus further reduces the effect of small intervening variations in ground or cover;
  
  - Finally, it would mean troops shooting out (except from the very edge) would also take a minus for cover, which feels even sillier.

Hope this helps,

Dave

[hazelbark]

Am i missing something? Had a huge argument today with a new player to the game who decided the rules were terrible because they allowed this - what is the rationale behind this rule, if it is indeed the case?

Well I would submit the following.

1) This will rarely matter as the range of weapons rarely will cross terrain. Unless you engineer the terrain to be thin. If you do I would submit they are obstacles.
2) It could matter if you have one file of an end of one BG shooting past a corner of a terrain piece.
3) The authors needed to adopt some rule. They picked one.
4) What constitutes shooting across? If I am back from edge say 1 inch and you are in open beyond do I suffer a penalty for shooting through?
5) Scale. It really assume what scale you are imagining hear. At a skirmisher level with LOS maybe there is an argument. But one kind of "enclosed" fields are we talking? As someone said, with ditches stone wall or wooden picket fences. Some rules try to measure the difference. These just said, the distinction is without a difference.
6) Some have argued that the real issue is visiblity not a firm barrier. Very few troops actually hid behind a wall and fought like in the movies. The wall would be waist high or lower and troops stood to relaod. In the ACW there are a number of times troops defended a split rail fence. It was more a morale barrier than an impediement to lead.