morale question

[papsterdino]

In dementia land we had a unit of spear in a column with a gully on their left flank' the spear were to far to see into the gully, but inside the gully were a unit of enemy bowmen shooting away at them' the issue was on morale test from shooting we could see no reason for the spear to not take the minus for threatened flank, even though the enemy were unseen to them. Is there a consensus on this or something in the rules we could not find

[philqw78]

You can see things that shoot at you from gulleys because you can shoot back, unless you are spearmen.

Finding it in the rules is a harder ask though

[zoltan]

You can see things that shoot at you from gulleys because you can shoot back, unless you are spearmen.

Finding it in the rules is a harder ask though

19-2 Visibilty Effects
"When they shoot they become (and subsequently remain) visible to all bases of the battle group they are shooting at - these can immediately shoot back". Despite author protests to the contrary this RAW does not mean literally what it says and must be read in the context of the whole rule book - obviously those shooting back must have a missile weapon!

[bbotus]

Same sentence is on page 140, Hardcopy V2.

OK follow-up question: It says that bases being shot at from the gulley can immediately shoot back. So a MF bow unit approaching the gulley has its left most base targeted by a bow BG in the gulley. Even though 3 files of the MF bow are in arc and could immediately shoot back, only the file that is actually shot at could return fire because they are the only ones to actually see the shooting from the gulley. The other bases would have to wait until close enough to actually see the enemy. Does that sound right?

[zoltan]

Same sentence is on page 140, Hardcopy V2.

OK follow-up question: It says that bases being shot at from the gulley can immediately shoot back. So a MF bow unit approaching the gulley has its left most base targeted by a bow BG in the gulley. Even though 3 files of the MF bow are in arc and could immediately shoot back, only the file that is actually shot at could return fire because they are the only ones to actually see the shooting from the gulley. The other bases would have to wait until close enough to actually see the enemy. Does that sound right?

NO.
1. The RAW says ALL bases of the bg shot at can see the shooters
2. The RAW says ALL bases of the bg shot at can shoot back
3. Common sense (if not the RAW in this section) suggests you then overlay the arc rules on ALL bases of the bg shot at

[bbotus]

NO.
1. You shoot at a bg, not at a base.
2. The RAW says ALL bases of the bg shot at can see the shooters
3. The RAW says ALL bases of the bg shot at can shoot back
4. Common sense (if not the RAW in this section) suggests you then overlay the arc rules on ALL bases of the bg shot at

Well, 'No' is what i also thought until you posted the original answer to this thread and I reread the sentence. It says: "When they shoot they become visible to all bases of the BG they are shooting at ..." I can read it both ways. It doesn't say that if you shoot at any bases in the BG, then all bases in the BG can see and shoot. If the authors wanted it to be the whole BG, then why didn't they just say: "When they shoot they become visible to the BG they are shooting at ..."? Also, in the shooting section, we target individual bases not a whole BG although, granted, the effect is applied to the whole BG.

[zoltan]

I take it back. The shooting rules clearly state bases shoot at target bases.

[ShrubMiK]

Err, disagree.

I guess this is another of those things like the classic "at least partially to the rear" barney we had 6 months or so ago that *could* be read in multiple ways, but it seems to me there is a more natural way and a less natural way.

If they wanted it to be only the shot-at bases that could shoot back, why not say something "they become visible only to the bases of the BG that they are shooting at".

i.e. it is more natural to assume that "all" means actually does mean all, not a sub-set, of what is being referred to.

Clearly you must shoot at specific bases in a BG, but the significance of that is not to do with visibility, it is because different POAs may apply!

Isn't there a rule somewhere that says that if any bases in a BG can see something, the rest of the BG is assumed to be able to? Otherwise you could start worrying about why the guys at the left end would charge into a wood when only the guys at the right end can actually see there is something there, because the BGs are not aligned perfectly parallel.

[zoltan]

Isn't there a rule somewhere that says that if any bases in a BG can see something, the rest of the BG is assumed to be able to? Otherwise you could start worrying about why the guys at the left end would charge into a wood when only the guys at the right end can actually see there is something there, because the BGs are not aligned perfectly parallel.

Well doesn't that bring us back to the rule I previously quoted above?

19-2 Visibilty Effects
"When they shoot they become (and subsequently remain) visible to all bases of the battle group they are shooting at - these can immediately shoot back".

Of course I read into that rule that the second part of it (shooting back) only applies if the BG shot at has a missile weapon, even though it does not explicitly say that in 19-2.

[bbotus]

Isn't there a rule somewhere that says that if any bases in a BG can see something, the rest of the BG is assumed to be able to?

All i can find is the rule that says a BG cannot intercept if due to intervening terrain, no part of the enemy BG is visible to it before either BG moves (Page 66, V2).

I'm going back to Zoltan's original answer, if a BG gets shot at, then the whole BG can shoot back. Hopefully, everyone plays it this way.

Seems like the RAW can be read 2 different ways and i was hoping someone would have a clear cut response i missed in the text.

[papsterdino]

As I started it if ,you had the same situation again, but with say spear in the gully, would you take the minus 1 for threatened flank, or say I can't see you so no minus 1 for me?

[ravenflight]

As I started it if ,you had the same situation again, but with say spear in the gully, would you take the minus 1 for threatened flank, or say I can't see you so no minus 1 for me?

I think it depends on the situation.

A BG is known to exist if it is on table and therefore the morale effects are there. If it is not 'on table' (by being in ambush) then it is not known to exist and therefore no morale effects.

Additionally, the 'threatened flank' situation is only where a BG is in a position RIGHT NOW where it can charge in their next turn, so it would be fairly hard pressed for a situation to come up where the BG was able to charge in the flank in their next turn and NOT be known about. If it is in ambush it is currently not 'on table' and so cannot be in a situation where it can charge in their next turn. If you've exposed your flank to a flank charge by a unit in a gully, then unfortunately your guys know about the guys in the gully (even if they can't see them) and take the morale drain.

[zoltan]

How do you know about guys you can't see? Wasn't that a DBM concept; not sure it applies to FoG. And isn't the requirement for the -1 threatened flank simply that the enemy can charge the flank, not that the victims must know about the threat?

[ravenflight]

How do you know about guys you can't see? Wasn't that a DBM concept; not sure it applies to FoG. And isn't the requirement for the -1 threatened flank simply that the enemy can charge the flank, not that the victims must know about the threat?

If you march to within 6" of a BG of non-skirmishers that are within a forest, but not in ambush, do you have to stop?

[petedalby]

If you march to within 6" of a BG of non-skirmishers that are within a forest, but not in ambush, do you have to stop?

Yes - you have to stop just beyond 6MU whether you can see them or not.

[petedalby]

As I started it if ,you had the same situation again, but with say spear in the gully, would you take the minus 1 for threatened flank, or say I can't see you so no minus 1 for me?

Yes - you would take the minus 1 for threatened flank.

Unless deployed in ambush, all BGs are 'known' to the enemy. The visibility rules sometimes stop you shooting, charging or intercepting them but you always know that they are there.

[ravenflight]

If you march to within 6" of a BG of non-skirmishers that are within a forest, but not in ambush, do you have to stop?

Yes - you have to stop just beyond 6MU whether you can see them or not.

Thanks Peter - my comment was rhetorical to illustrate my previous point.

[petedalby]

Thanks Peter - my comment was rhetorical to illustrate my previous point.

Such subtlety is lost on me - sorry.

[dave_r]

As I started it if ,you had the same situation again, but with say spear in the gully, would you take the minus 1 for threatened flank, or say I can't see you so no minus 1 for me?

Yes - you would take the minus 1 for threatened flank.

Unless deployed in ambush, all BGs are 'known' to the enemy. The visibility rules sometimes stop you shooting, charging or intercepting them but you always know that they are there.

The threatened flank is for "enemy non-skirmishers in charge reach and capable of charging the flank or rear"

Within the charge section it states

"To be allowed to declare a charge, there must be a visible enemy base that can be ...."

Therefore if you can't see the enemy you can't charge and if you can't charge you don't get a minus. Even if you "know" they are there.

[bbotus]

As I started it if ,you had the same situation again, but with say spear in the gully, would you take the minus 1 for threatened flank, or say I can't see you so no minus 1 for me?

Yes - you would take the minus 1 for threatened flank.

Unless deployed in ambush, all BGs are 'known' to the enemy. The visibility rules sometimes stop you shooting, charging or intercepting them but you always know that they are there.

The threatened flank is for "enemy non-skirmishers in charge reach and capable of charging the flank or rear"

Within the charge section it states

"To be allowed to declare a charge, there must be a visible enemy base that can be ...."

Therefore if you can't see the enemy you can't charge and if you can't charge you don't get a minus. Even if you "know" they are there.

True, true, true. However, for this question, you would still take the minus 1 for a threatened flank. Troops in a gully are only visible from outside within 1 MU but troops in the gully see out normally. If you are at 2 MUs from the gully, you cannot see the spear in the gully but they can see you. So they can charge you and you have a threatened flank (-1). There is no requirement that the BG with the threatened flank be able to see the enemy unit capable of charging them.

Now if the spear were MF in a forest and your BG was 2-1/2 MUs away, then you would not have a threatened flank, since the MF could not see you and therefore would not be capable of charging you (visibility being 2 MUs for both BGs).