Shooting over non visibility troops

[marshalney2000]

I was watching a game on Thursday where one player had a unit of dragoons in an enclosed field which meant that they were not visible beyond 4 inches. Now as it happened this also placed them in a position where the opponent had a battery of four artillery pieces whose line of sight to other enemy units passed through the dragoons in the field.
I recall this was raised in the forum in July last year under a visibility question and the consensus seemed to be that logic would suggest the guns should be able to fire but that the rules as written indicated that they could not. I was just interested to know if this had arisen in tournament play in the intervening period and if any further progress had been made in resolving the issue.
John

[kevinj]

We've not had an updated errata since this discussion, so there's no formal rules resolution. We did agree that we'd rule that "invisible" troops wouldn't prevent enemy shooting at at Britcon last year. Don was the umpire and posted something on it, but I can't find the thread. It's not come up in any of the tournaments that I've been involved in but I would be happy to continue to adopt that as a tournament condition until a formal errata update is issued.

[marshalney2000]

Thanks Kevin. I just wanted to check the position in the event it did come up.
John

[RonanTheLibrarian]

This came up in a club game a while back - could some musketeers fire at a P&S unit that was immediately behind a unit of dragoons lining the edge of an enclosed field (the latter being technically "invisible" as they were just a smidge over 4" from the firing unit).

[marshalney2000]

Just for pure badness, I have been considering Don's view of this issue from another angle.
I have a dragoon unit in an enclosed field which is visible to a pike and shot unit which is three inches from them. Both these units can shoot at each other but are not visible to all other units who are more than four inches from the dragoons. Now 6 inches behind the dragoons I have an artillery unit which cannot see the dragoons. Should we not equally allow this artillery to fire over the friendly dragoons at the pike and shot unit beyond them.
Don is happy to allow enemy artillery to fire over the dragoon unit which is invisible to them so why not friendly artillery which equally cannot see the dragoons and is equally invisible to them.
According to a strict interpretation of the rules as currently written neither should be able to fire but if we allow latitude in one case then why not the other when the dragoons are equally invisible to both.
Just a thought.
John

[daveallen]

This came up in a club game a while back - could some musketeers fire at a P&S unit that was immediately behind a unit of dragoons lining the edge of an enclosed field (the latter being technically "invisible" as they were just a smidge over 4" from the firing unit).

Only if the dragoons were incapable of shooting the enemy because they were either facing away from them or equipped with arquebus and had not previously fired on them.

[spotteddog]

Oh dear.
I did ask John not to open the box again . Hows about you cant target hidden troops but if you have a legit target beyond them then you aim for that and hit the hidden troops if the projectile path is through them? Not great but worth a punt?
HH

[daveallen]

Just for pure badness, I have been considering Don's view of this issue from another angle.
I have a dragoon unit in an enclosed field which is visible to a pike and shot unit which is three inches from them. Both these units can shoot at each other but are not visible to all other units who are more than four inches from the dragoons. Now 6 inches behind the dragoons I have an artillery unit which cannot see the dragoons. Should we not equally allow this artillery to fire over the friendly dragoons at the pike and shot unit beyond them.
Don is happy to allow enemy artillery to fire over the dragoon unit which is invisible to them so why not friendly artillery which equally cannot see the dragoons and is equally invisible to them.
According to a strict interpretation of the rules as currently written neither should be able to fire but if we allow latitude in one case then why not the other when the dragoons are equally invisible to both.
Just a thought.
John

I would argue that whilst it's reasonable to shoot over enemy troops you can't see, this interpretation shouldn't apply to friendly invisible troops.

This is because in other aspects of the game troops know about friends they can't see. For instance a BG in a forest would still count support from steady troops more than 2" away, they would be influenced by commanders beyond 2" and they would respond to breaks between 2" and 3" away.

So whilst artillery can't see the dragoons in the field they "know" they're there and so can't shoot over them.

[kevinj]

I was just about to post something similar, but Dave beat me to it.

[marshalney2000]

Take it a stage further, you have two artillery units facing each other with an enclosed field in between with a hidden dragoon regiment in it. Are we really saying one artillery can fire at the opposing artillery while the other cannot despite being aware of their presence of the enemy artillery on the other side of the field. Both are beyond 4 inches of the dragoons so neither can see it.
The friendly artillery need not necessarily be aware of the presence of the dragoons, they could have moved into ambush the night before. In fact according to the rules the dragoons could be holding the equivalent of a rock festival in the field and would still be invisible provided they are beyond 4 inches. I do not think the rules differentiate between visibility for enemy and friendly troops.
John

[marshalney2000]

As for the suggestion from Hunter, nice try but I do not think we can write completely new rules but rather read what we have. No one has yet pointed put where the rules cover the situation.
John

[spotteddog]

As for the suggestion from Hunter, nice try but I do not think we can write completely new rules but rather read what we have. No one has yet pointed put where the rules cover the situation.
John

What - like your "rule" that foot could more as far as they liked as long as they ended up supporting artillery? A complete battalion of 17th C Hussain Bolts as I recall

HH

[spotteddog]

We can do whatever we want as long as we all agree. Well .......... as long as its not illegal or immoral off course!
HH

[marshalney2000]

Who's the we that all have to agree? Those attending Britcon? those attending any competitions? All FOGR players in Britain, the World, the Universe? We cannot I would suggest agree anything that contradicts the rules?
Fair does on moving up behind artillery -,My memory was wrong. Bit hard you having a dig at me when you did not know after five years how interception charges work and was sorely amazed when I pointed out to you that they did not actually charge into the enemy other when making a valid flank interception.!!!
John

[spotteddog]

Who's the we that all have to agree? Those attending Britcon? those attending any competitions? All FOGR players in Britain, the World, the Universe? We cannot I would suggest agree anything that contradicts the rules?
Fair does on moving up behind artillery -,My memory was wrong. Bit hard you having a dig at me when you did not know after five years how interception charges work and was sorely amazed when I pointed out to you that they did not actually charge into the enemy other when making a valid flank interception.!!!
John

The universe will do for starters .......

HH

[ravenflight]

Just for pure badness, I have been considering Don's view of this issue from another angle.
I have a dragoon unit in an enclosed field which is visible to a pike and shot unit which is three inches from them. Both these units can shoot at each other but are not visible to all other units who are more than four inches from the dragoons. Now 6 inches behind the dragoons I have an artillery unit which cannot see the dragoons. Should we not equally allow this artillery to fire over the friendly dragoons at the pike and shot unit beyond them.
Don is happy to allow enemy artillery to fire over the dragoon unit which is invisible to them so why not friendly artillery which equally cannot see the dragoons and is equally invisible to them.
According to a strict interpretation of the rules as currently written neither should be able to fire but if we allow latitude in one case then why not the other when the dragoons are equally invisible to both.
Just a thought.
John

I would argue that whilst it's reasonable to shoot over enemy troops you can't see, this interpretation shouldn't apply to friendly invisible troops.

This is because in other aspects of the game troops know about friends they can't see. For instance a BG in a forest would still count support from steady troops more than 2" away, they would be influenced by commanders beyond 2" and they would respond to breaks between 2" and 3" away.

So whilst artillery can't see the dragoons in the field they "know" they're there and so can't shoot over them.

Sounds a lot like APDSFS which has 'do not fire over FRIENDLY troops'

The sabot will risk injury to troops in front somewhere between the gun & target, but we're not really bothered if it hits enemy troops, but will be concerned about hitting friendlies!

[marshalney2000]

It would be great if the rules said artillery could shoot over enemy hidden troops. It would be equally good if they said artillery could shoot over hidden friendly troops. In fact they state neither. Should the correct conclusion to be drawn is that the rule writers do no differentiate between shooting over hidden and non hidden troops. In essence you cannot shoot over troops ( hidden or non hidden a) unless they meet one of the three criteria stated in the rules. Namely:
shooting over light foot
Shooting through enemy artillery
Shooting artillery when uphill
I have no axe to grind on this and no secret cunning plan linked to it. I am just flagging up an area of doubt in the rules which can create unrealistic outcomes.

[spotteddog]

Calling all umpires and even lesser playing mortals! Has this ever been an issue at any of the BHGS competitios before? Is John groping about for enlightenment on something which altready has precedent, fumbling around in the dark with a non-issue or has the proverbial blind pig snuffled up a truffle that needs to be aired?
HH

[kevinj]

In terms of frequency, this has not been an issue at any tournament that I have umpired. I am not aware of it being an issue at any at which I have been playing and it has not been raised here as having occurred in any others. That said, it was discussed at length last year and was one of a number of items regarding visibility for which errata clarification was sought in order to avoid rare, but potentially contentious, situations. Until that happens I am happy that we continue to apply the solution that was developed for last year's Britcon.

[spotteddog]

Thanks Kevin
Lid closed Move along folks - there is nothing more to see here ...........
HH