shooting at artillery from buildings

[deadtorius]

Just wanted to make sure we are clear on the shooting out of buildings.
According to the FAQ1 you shoot 4 dice at each "infantry unit" capable of firing at them at medium range. So as the French recently pointed out they can roll up 2 or 3 artillery batteries at med range, throw out a unit of skirmishers at medium range and I can only ever shoot at the skirmish unit, but will take fire from the skirmishers and the artillery. Is this correct?

Just seems kind of odd that you would ignore an enemy unit that shoots at you strictly because it is not an infantry unit.

[richafricanus]

Still no answer on this one? It does seem anomalous.

[adonald]

Particularly when you would be shooting at an artillery unit if there wasn't an infantry unit involved.

Perhaps a mistake? We all make them. It's nice to resolve then though.

Alastair

[deadtorius]

It does contradict the whole return fire at enemy that can shoot at you. Perhaps the intention was that if no one is shooting at you, you have to target an infantry or cavalry unit as opposed to an artillery unit. Just a thought.

[Blathergut]

Maybe we could work this out ourselves? What could be the reason for adding 'infantry' to that line? Any tactical reasons? Infantry is in your face so you wouldn't be paying attention to artillery further back?

[shadowdragon]

Maybe we could work this out ourselves? What could be the reason for adding 'infantry' to that line? Any tactical reasons? Infantry is in your face so you wouldn't be paying attention to artillery further back?

As one suggestion...infantry aren't really firing at each other at medium-range but have pushed skirmishers forward to engage at close range. So an infantry unit at medium-range actually has skirmishers close to the buildings. Presumably the infantry in the built-up area won't then have sent out their skirmishers to engage the artillery which might be the case if there were no enemy infantry around. Perhaps that has to do with the limited arcs of fire and visibility when fighting from built up areas. Plus if enemy skirmishers are nearby there's the danger of them finding an entry into the built up area. Just reading the latest Osprey in the fighting in and around the Ligny villages.

That's what I can come up with as a rationale. However it might raise other questions.

[KeefM]

It seems the easiest solution, IMHO, is simply to allow infantry in a building to shoot at every unit shooting at them.

[richafricanus]

I agree. Keep it simple.

[adonald]

In any event, the FAQ is not an errata where the rules are changed. If the FAQ is at odd sigh the rules, then the rules override any contradiction in a FAQ document. You shoot at thing shooting at you.

Alastair

[adonald]

Ha. "odd sigh" = "odds with the". Damn iPhones.
Alastair

[Blathergut]

Maybe we could work this out ourselves? What could be the reason for adding 'infantry' to that line? Any tactical reasons? Infantry is in your face so you wouldn't be paying attention to artillery further back?

As one suggestion...infantry aren't really firing at each other at medium-range but have pushed skirmishers forward to engage at close range. So an infantry unit at medium-range actually has skirmishers close to the buildings. Presumably the infantry in the built-up area won't then have sent out their skirmishers to engage the artillery which might be the case if there were no enemy infantry around. Perhaps that has to do with the limited arcs of fire and visibility when fighting from built up areas. Plus if enemy skirmishers are nearby there's the danger of them finding an entry into the built up area. Just reading the latest Osprey in the fighting in and around the Ligny villages.

That's what I can come up with as a rationale. However it might raise other questions.

Ya, I thought similar.

[Blathergut]

In any event, the FAQ is not an errata where the rules are changed. If the FAQ is at odd sigh the rules, then the rules override any contradiction in a FAQ document. You shoot at thing shooting at you.

Alastair

I suppose I could disagree since the Building FAQ statesThe following is list of all rules on buildings in one place: The infantry insertion has not been clarified/corrected/stated-as-an-error as far as I can recall. It seems to have been deliberately changed. But only one person can truly answer this question.

[Saxonian]

I think trying to work out a rationale for any given rule is fraught with problems.
Discussing whether reformed troops in buildings would or would not send out skirmishers brings up another (possibly somewhat unrelated) Issue - reformed troops shooting at unreformed.

If you assume that the range of a musket under these rules is 2MU (i.e. close range), then when reformed infantry shoot at reformed, each have their skirmishers at 2MU in advance of the main body of the unit.
This makes some sense, as it puts the opposing skirmish lines 2MU apart.

But when reformed shoot at unreformed, this rationale begins to break down. Either:
1/ the skirmishers have to be shooting at a range of 4MU, or
2/ the skirmishers have to advance to 4MU in front of the main body if the unit, which would place them within 2MU of the unreformed target which is unable to return fire even though the skirmish line is within range (i.e. 2MU).
In the first instance, the skirmishers have doubled their range. In the second, why can the unreformed target not return fire (at a reduced effectiveness, of course, for shooting at skirmishers)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a change to the shooting rules - I'm happy with the way they are.
I just think this illustrates that this is a situation where, short of a clarification from Terry, the rules should be used as written, even where this may seem counter-intuitive.
We've had discussions about this at our club, and apart from instances where a rule is clarified, we have chosen to not change the rules as written unless included in an official errata.
Too many local changes will end up killing the rules by making it too difficult to get consensus from one group to the next.
As one of our members said, the rules are designed to give a good, balanced game - and will therefore always be an imperfect simulation. This is always a balancing act, and I think these rules get it right.
Having these questions come up on the forum is great, but I think it is important to recognise when an official ruling is required.........and to get it!

Just my two penneth......

[Blathergut]

but I think it is important to recognise when an official ruling is required.........and to get it!

Just my two penneth......

I know. This is the concern. With only one person able to answer, it can be frustrating/saddening. I know of no way to contact him, so in the end, I guess we are left with the unanswered question. But I think you are right to play as written, as strange as the situation may be. Otherwise you end up with a mishmash of interpretations and you never quite know where you are.

[richafricanus]

Maybe we should bring out a cartoon book with crowds of people where one of them is holding a pen and a book of wargames rules and wearing a red and white shirt, and you have to try and find him in the picture, and the book is called, "Where's Terry?"

[adonald]

2/ the skirmishers have to advance to 4MU in front of the main body if the unit, which would place them within 2MU of the unreformed target which is unable to return fire even though the skirmish line is within range (i.e. 2MU).

History tells us that unreformed troops did volley fire from time to time at skirmishers but were ineffective, while the skirmish fire had an effect on the unreformed troops. I would not say that both formations were not firing at each other at 2MU, but that only the skirmishers deployed from the reformed columns/lines back at 2.1 to 6MU are producing EFFECTIVE fire.

Alastair Donald

[Blathergut]

A reply from Terry (thanks!!):


>> The question that's come up is if this is as intended. Why not able to shoot at artillery?

You need to picture what's happening when units are firing into buildings.
> Obviously anyone with 2MU can be shot at from the building because they are in firing range.
> All Medium range fire by INFANTRY is considered to be done by the integral skirmishers in the unit advancing ahead of the main body and firing from within 2mu. These skirmishers are the target that the defenders are firing at.
> Artillery at medium (or long) range never get to within the 2MU range of the defenders. therefore can't be fired back at.
> The defenders are assumed to be within the building and do not leave it to fire - regardless of skirmisher content - Therefore even unreformed infantry can return fire at infantry firing at them at medium range.
> We allow reformed units to send their skirmishers out from the buildings if there are no legal targets they can fire at (and are subject to reductions from enemy cavalry in this case).

Hope this helps

Regards
Terry

[Blathergut]

Thanks for the detailed explanation! Makes sense when thought of that way!!

[adonald]

The defenders are assumed to be within the building and do not leave it to fire - regardless of skirmisher content - Therefore even unreformed infantry can return fire at infantry firing at them at medium range.

This makes NO sense at all. Who is shooting at what? The only way for this to be happening is that skirmisher a from the reformed building occupiers have advanced up to the unreformed attackers.

In that case, why can't the same skirmishers engage the artillery?

Stunned,
Alastair Donald

[KitG]

Norwegian Blue stun easily...

Why would any self respecting infantry brigade, demi regiment, or whatever, of any nationality or training NOT send out infantry skirmishers to engage enemy units approaching their defended buildings?

Wasn't this exactly what happened at Hougoumont? Not to mention any number of other engagements...Fuentes de O'Noro? Arcole?

Wouldn't these skirmishers (from the unit in the buildings) also take any opportunity they could to shoot at artillerymen?

Not to mention that the dynamic of the basic principle of shooting at/from buildings actually worked very well from a war gaming perspective, in my opinion.

As did the recovery mechanism until this was changed (units facing in any direction upon recovery).

These games take 3.5 hours and you don't necessarily get a result - I've been to a lot of tournaments now, most of the games end with the time limit. Playing more than two in a day is impractical. We are starting to look like DBMM.

Introducing yet a further exception to a sound basic rule is not going to assist with making this a more playable game.

Stop this tendency before you ruin the whole thing.