Slitherine

A question that arose for me at Roll Call was whether LF archers in a mixed battle group (with MF impact sword) can ever shoot in the shooting phase.
I know the rules specifically state that 3rd rank LF archers can only shoot against mounted at impact...however if the formation has them in valid second or even the 1st rank formation I can't see why they can't simply shoot in the shooting phase at any target that is valid in the shooting rules. The umpire ruling on the day was that I couldn't shoot but I can't find anything in the rules specifically covering this and would assume therefore that the normal rules apply eg 1 dice per 2 LF archer bases at a range of up to 3 for LF shooting from 1st or second rank.

I'd be grateful for a ruling for the future.
Regards
Martyn Simpson

I'd agree, if they are second or third rank they can shoot. There is no rule not to, and many that say they can.

Sorry meant to write first or second, definitely not third

I use mixed formation a fair bit. My view has always been that LF/B in second rank can shoot. Not so convinced they can if they're in the third rank. But not got rules to hand.

The umpire ruling on the day was that I couldn't shoot but I can't find anything in the rules specifically covering this and would assume therefore that the normal rules apply eg 1 dice per 2 LF archer bases at a range of up to 3 for LF shooting from 1st or second rank.

Who'd be an umpire eh? Unfortunately on this occasion I think they were wrong (sorry whoever it was).

Page 88 - 'other troops shoot only with bases in the 1st and 2nd ranks.' So as long as your formation has the LF shooters in the 1st or 2nd ranks you can shoot. They definitely can't shoot from a 3rd rank other than as support shooting vs mounted.

So I don't think you need a ruling - it's already in the rules with nothing that I can find to the contrary.

Hope that helps.

I agree in a sense that no ruling is needed as the general rules permit it (with no exceptions that I can find) however once your opponent asks the umpire for a decision it is a matter for a ruling if the umpire so decides.

I think there is a need for this to be added to the FAQ as the umpire indicated the interpretation at his club was that the bases couldn't shoot and that he'd never heard of this being allowed before. So this isn't just an odd ruling, there are a number of people out their who take a different view.

Can we add this to the FAQ please?

Who was the umpire? I suspect it will be easier to influence them than getting a FAQ for this.

Who the umpire was isn't irrelevant, he was just doing the best job he could. I'm just trying to lock this rule down, one way of the other, so I know what to expect the next time I use the army in a competition.

But you said this was at Roll Call which is a BHGS event.

In my experience the BHGS umpires do a great job but occasionally things can be misunderstood. I have no control over whether this becomes a FAQ or not but it certainly doesn't meet the criteria for one. But if its a BHGS umpire I will almost certainly know them and ask them to review and comment on this thread.

But I can't do that if you won't disclose their name......

Well if we are naming and shaming Pete........................

Mr Fairhurst balls'ed up a ruling in my game with Mr Evans.

Mind you it was in my favour....................

Rob

OK I admit I was wrong ,although I don't think anyone in the general area disagreed with me ,I've never even considered it was a possibility in all the years I've been playing.
As to Robs that was a case of ruling in haste without reading the rules first,something I shall never do again,if anyone sees me without the rules tell me.
In my defence I wasn't expecting to umpire
David

Cheers David - we've all made similar mistakes - it's not the end of the world.

But hopefully that is now resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Having been an umpire on many occasions in the DBM world I have every sympathy with anyone making an incorrect ruling. Umpiring is not easy nor error free. But every umpire does the best they can.

However I'm entirely with LordNytram that no umpire should ever be called to task on a forum for rulings they have made. It is needless embarassment and undermines them in future rulings. I think its a great shame that an umpire has been treated in this manner, even if with the best intentions.

Hi Alan

Hopefully my naming and shaming was just the usual jesting between David and myself in good spirits and in no way casting any dispersions on his umpiring abilities.

Many of us know of various parts of the rules that could be interpreted in various ways. It is great to have someone to make a decision on the actual interpretation on the day rather than have 2 opponents falling out after half an hour of arguing.

Rob

davidandlynda wrote:OK I admit I was wrong ,although I don't think anyone in the general area disagreed with me ,I've never even considered it was a possibility in all the years I've been playing.
As to Robs that was a case of ruling in haste without reading the rules first,something I shall never do again,if anyone sees me without the rules tell me.
In my defence I wasn't expecting to umpire
David

Not to worry. In a month or so's time people will be looking back at such things in misty eyed recollection of the Golden Age of umpires. That's after the tripe I'm likely to serve up.

Served up in shovels, oh no, those are your hands

So if I decide to put my LF in the 1st or 2nd rank of a mixed Bg to shoot but now want to move them to the 3rd rank, how is this done? Does it take a full move to do this?

Other than reforming, which tends to only apply after you've ended up in an illegal formation for some reason, there's no mechanism to shuffle bases around in a BG. You probably need to use expansions/contractions to do it, which may take more than one turn.

richafricanus wrote:So if I decide to put my LF in the 1st or 2nd rank of a mixed Bg to shoot but now want to move them to the 3rd rank, how is this done? Does it take a full move to do this?

The mechanism to do this is a "contract" move as defined in the movement section. Depending on troop type you might be able to do this on the spot or it may require an advance of 3MU or more. This reduces the width of the BG by 1 or 2 files by moving the bases in those files. So if you were:

LFHFHF
LFHFHF

you could contract the file of LF to this:

LFLF
HFHF
HFHF

Alternatively, a 90 degree turn could (I think, rules not with me) leave you with a one base wide column facing to flank with HF in front 2 ranks and LF in the 3rd.

It's rarely worth putting the LF in the first two ranks as the shooting is lame at 1 dice per 2 bases and you're then in a daft formation. But there will be circumstances where it's worthwhile.

It's rarely worth putting the LF in the first two ranks as the shooting is lame at 1 dice per 2 bases and you're then in a daft formation.

I agree its rarely worth putting the LF in the second rank purely for the shooting (although a nice bonus). However its very worthwhile if you want to maximise impact. A 6 base BG including 2 LF in three ranks has a frontage of 2 bases, or 4 dice at impact. Put them in two ranks (LF in second rank) and you get 6 dice. Could be very important if using impact foot. Ofcourse, although LF fight as front rank bases, you lose a dice in melee (1 per 2 LF) - but swings and roundabouts.....