Slitherine

Hello, i have been carefully reading pages 121 and 142 and i haven't found any rule avoiding this deployement:
Being a base frontage 4- and the gaps 3 spaces:
---- ---- ---- ----
Not again, please
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Mikel

I would assume that a base needs to have its front entirely covered by fortifications to get the benefits...

(but what do the rules say on the subject?).

The rules only describe 'defending field fortifications'. I have not read anything about 'partly defending field fortififications'. I think we can therefore assume that unless the base is completely behind them there is no effect from the fortifications.

I would agree. A base has to be completely behind field fortifications to get the benefit, as I read it.

Hello,
in the page 121 in the field fortifications section on the third bullet says "Troops count as defending a FF if they are in contact with its rear edge", i know what common sense says but nobody here has had a 2 hours argument with a rules lawyer because something was of common sense, but wasn't cristal clear written in the rules?
Mikel

See answer to similar question here: viewtopic.php?t=5818

Cheers,
Scott

I kind of agree with Karakhanid that the relationship between PD/FF and the troops defending them needs an official ruling from the FAQ Department. I am sure that RBS is right and the competition umpires would rule that each sector of PD/FF, which must be the same width as a base, counts as defended only if a base of troops is in "front edge and both front corners" contact with the rear edge of the PD/FF. To have it as an official FAQ should prevent players even trying it ( on!!! )

Martin

karakhanid wrote:Hello,
in the page 121 in the field fortifications section on the third bullet says "Troops count as defending a FF if they are in contact with its read edge", i know what common sense says but nobody here has had a 2 hours argument with a rules lawyer because something was of common sense, but wasn't cristal clear written in the rules?
Mikel

Well in this case, it is crystal clear in the rules.

With the current wording, a base with its flank or rear in contact with the rear edge of a fortification would still count as defending it,even if not attacked across the fortification.

If RBS as an umpire would "certainly stamp on any such jiggery pokery" then the rules are wrong and this needs to be noted as an erratum.

hello, i have taken a photo to ilustrate what i was talking about:

I understand that, according the rules, all the spearmen are defending the fortifications as the gap between the FF is smaller than a base frontage, and they all are in contact with the rear edge of the FF.
A similar situation hapenned in DBM (it was even worst) and they had to change rules.I had to play in a tournament against a guy that covered a flank with FF and gaps slightly smaller than a base frontage, the center and the other flank where covered with 20-30 irr KN(S)and (O). I have no problem losing, but i hate to lose because the guy i am playing with has found a legal vacuum in the rules.
Mikel

karakhanid wrote:hello, i have taken a photo to ilustrate what i was talking about:

I understand that, according the rules, all the spearmen are defending the fortifications as the gap between the FF is smaller than a base frontage, and they all are in contact with the rear edge of the FF.
A similar situation hapenned in DBM (it was even worst) and they had to change rules.I had to play in a tournament against a guy that covered a flank with FF and gaps slightly smaller than a base frontage, the center and the other flank where covered with 20-30 irr KN(S)and (O). I have no problem losing, but i hate to lose because the guy i am playing with has found a legal vacuum in the rules.
Mikel

Why aren't the stakes aligned with the bases? AFAIK (don't have rules with me) if the spearmen don't 'own' the stakes then they can't use them and if the spearmen do 'own' the stakes then they should have placed them in alignment. Personally, if your opponent insists on doing this, I'd find another opponent.
(I'm going to the Ascot FoG comp - first ever in 30+ years of wargaming... I can hardly wait if some of the players are like your DBM guy )

Reading this again, the stakes are placed where the base is and the base is moved back to make room. The stakes/base will be in exact front edge to rear edge contact. If the base moves away without taking up the stakes, the stakes are lost, so no-one else can use them!

The problem issue is more with the FF then. If permitted in your list and you "pay" for them, you deploy them after terrain is set but before camps and ambushes, either 10 or 15 mu from your baseline. ( P 142 )

I cant find a reference that says they have to be set up in a continuous line, so the "cheese" formation may be "legal", sadly! This is what needs an FAQ I think.

P 121 does say that troops defending the FF with the flank or rear of their base(S) attacked across the FF turn to fight the attackers.

Martin

If I were an umpire, I certainly wouldn't allow it. The picture that karakhanid posted is downright obnoxious, almost cheating in my mind. I'm very sorry that he encountered such a person. The intent of the rule seems perfectly clear, that each field fortification element be in full contact with one base (and only one) base.

If it isn't crystal clear, then it certainly ought to be added to the FAQ.

To stop FF gamesmanship and silly non-historical use of them, the FAQ needs to indicate they must be placed in a continuous "line", ( or "patch" in the case of something like concealed pits ), with a minimum number for each "block" of FFs, a maximum no of "blocks" allowed and a minimum distance ( in base widths) between them?

Martin

I generally agree with the sentiments expressed so far.

As soon as Simon returns from sunny? Spain, we'll look into it.

Oh Please! What happens next is some guy placing ONE base across a spear frontage saying it all counts. Coomon sense prevails as far as im concerned. If your bow/spear are actually not behind a physical representation of stakes etc, then hey - they are vulnerable.