Visibility

[petedalby]

On Page 79 - the impact on visibility of Plantations and Forests are defined.

There are no similar definitions for other terrain types such as Villages, Hills or Impassable?

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

On Page 79 - the impact on visibility of Plantations and Forests are defined.

There are no similar definitions for other terrain types such as Villages, Hills or Impassable?

Pete

I don't understand. As far as I can see there are.

[petedalby]

Apologies if this was unclear.

In my Version 6.0, P 79, Plantation includes the following sentence: "Troops beyond a plantation cannot be seen."

A Forest has the same sentence.

But there is no similar explanation for a Village or Impassable?

So can I shoot at troops beyond?

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

In my Version 6.0, P 79, Plantation includes the following sentence: "Troops beyond a plantation cannot be seen."

A Forest has the same sentence.

But there is no similar explanation for a Village or Impassable?

So can I shoot at troops beyond?

Presumably so. Whether you should be able to, of course, is another matter.

Impassable could be a lake or a quarry, in which case obviously yes, or a massive crag in which case no. Given the minimum size of terrain pieces this is only going to be an issue for heavy artillery or across a corner of the terrain feature.

I think you could make a reasonable case for being able to shoot across a corner of most such terrain features - in the case of a crag you would be shooitng across the lower slopes and in the case of a village, across the gardens. Siting your artillery so that it can shoot across a corner of an impassable piece might be a cunning way to protect it, but the enemy isn't forced to come within range/arc. Siting your artillery to shoot across the centre of an impassable piece or a village would be pretty pointless.

In short, I am not convinced this is an issue which needs to be addressed.

[petedalby]

That's fine - thanks Richard. I guess I'm used to having a Village block line of sight.

So if my BG of archers is on one side of a 4 MU deep village and an enemy BG is on the other side and in range, but with neither BG actually in the Village, I can shoot with both ranks, and the enemy don't count in cover?

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

That's fine - thanks Richard. I guess I'm used to having a Village block line of sight.

So if my BG of archers is on one side of a 4 MU deep village and an enemy BG is on the other side and in range, but with neither BG actually in the Village, I can shoot with both ranks, and the enemy don't count in cover?

Pete

That appears to be so. It won't happen very often!

[shall]

I think impassible the answer is clearly yes as in general thay are lakes, quarries. Hard for them to be a crag when so small - most impassible "moutnaisn" are more the size of our table.

Villages is less clear cut - ancient small villages were hardly very dense things, not very tall, a few buildings, pens full of animals etc. Not exactly ancient rome or londinium. Nothing as tall as trees in terms of buidings.

A town (or large village in the rules) of course is rather larger and denser but will aleady stop shooting to all but heavy artillery due to range or visibility.

Is there any strong view on it en-masse?

Si

[KenWinland]

Howdy,

I think that a 4 MU deep "village" is more of a handful of farmsteads or a little clump of houses - it certainly wouldn't block line of sight. Would it affect archery? Possibly, depending on line-of-sight, ambient cover, etc.... But that's a WHOLE lot of variables to take into account for any set of rules.

The only situation that I could imagine a "village" coming between two BGs would be between skirmishers who perhaps want to grap the property. Two formed units shooting at each other and charging through a clump of houses?! UGH!

Ken

[ravenflight]

I think impassible the answer is clearly yes as in general thay are lakes, quarries. Hard for them to be a crag when so small - most impassible "moutnaisn" are more the size of our table.

Villages is less clear cut - ancient small villages were hardly very dense things, not very tall, a few buildings, pens full of animals etc. Not exactly ancient rome or londinium. Nothing as tall as trees in terms of buidings.

A town (or large village in the rules) of course is rather larger and denser but will aleady stop shooting to all but heavy artillery due to range or visibility.

Is there any strong view on it en-masse?

Si

Re-inventing this thread because it came up in a game recently:

I had a player who could have shot across an impassible terrain feature if it was a lake. We decided that it wouldn't be able to be shot across because if I'd defined it when I placed it (which I didn't - apart from 'impassible) I would have declared it a 'craggy mountain'.

I do get what you mean Si, about it being too small, but I disagree.

There can be craggy outcroppings and boulder fields, the lakes can be heavily forested on the banks (which is usually the case actually) which makes troops beyond the bank not visible.

Personally, I think it would be up to the placer to determine if troops were visible beyond the impassible terrain feature.

Thoughts?

[expendablecinc]

In short, I am not convinced this is an issue which needs to be addressed.

In games where itsmattered that I have played its in relation to ambushes.
In the case of villiages it woudl be good if it if was clear whether your ambush marker could be deployed behind a villiage or it it had to be in it.
For impassable the same goes, or at least permit the placing player to define whether it either blocks line of sight entirely or not at all. Less an issue for the second item as generally sanity prevails.

anthony