Shot at by Firearms

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Shot at by Firearms

Post by petedalby » Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:19 am

The rules are clear that if a BG is shot at by Firearms - even if they themselves don't do any hits - then any CT attracts a minus 1 for shot at by firearms.

I had a BG of 4 LF with firearms and foolishly lost a base. In the next round of shooting the BGs fire was split with 1 dice vs one target and no dice vs another. But of course the single base was still firing - just ineffectively.

So - is it reasonable to suggest that both enemy BGs should have the minus 1 on their CT, assuming that I caused sufficient hits with other shooters?

Views please? (Particularly Mr Fairhurst's who I believe is the Challenge umpire.)
Pete

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by ravenflight » Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:16 am

I would say not.

It's not that you fire and do no effect, you don't fire.

I'd say you have to at least 'roll dice' to be counted as firing.

I see where you're coming from, and partially agree, but I think it's just (pardon the pun) drawing too long a bow.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by philqw78 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:20 am

Completely reasonable unless shooting at 'my' troops. I think everyone would agree with that
(except a scabby blackbird) ;-)
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

AlanCutner
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by AlanCutner » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:26 pm

I think the suggestion is quite reasonable that a single base of firearms is shooting and although it can't do enough damage to qualify for a die, it causes a -1 CT. However I wouldn't want to see this implemented as I can envisage a certain amount of cheese, eg. single rank firearm BG spread out so it can shoot at multiple targets but with no hit dice at all.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Apr 02, 2014 1:36 pm

I don't necessarily believe the following, just the sorts of things that would run through my head as umpire

- troops who are outside of the range of firearms are alos getting a few bullets, should they get a minus too?

- in the following example:

TTTTVVVV

.BBFFBBBB

TTTT and VVVV are enemy BGs facing down

BBFFBBBB are my bow (B) and firearm (F) troops facing up, slightly offset (because of the dot). BB and FF contibute dice against TT, despite part of FF's base being opposite VVVV (it overlaps TTTT more and I want to spread my shooting out to get more tests). BBBB shoots at VVVV.

I get lucky and everyone hits. Does VVVV test at -1 because part of FF is facing it, although not enough to contribute a dice. If not, why would Pete's example get the -1?

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by philqw78 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:48 pm

But they must shoot and who they are shooting at is stated in the rules.

So they their 'target' must take a minus on CT. VVVV do not test at -1 because they are not a target of the firearms
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

mbsparta
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:57 pm

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by mbsparta » Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:49 pm

This, sadly, is what is wrong with tournaments.

You (1) Determine how many dice you get (2) Select your target (3) Roll the dice to see the effect, if any, of the fire.

Simple ... Not complicated ... The target gets the CT modifier ... Not a BG that could have been the target, or might have been the target or even should have been the target, just the target.

FoG is a fun game. As a plyer u should always err on the side of your opponent if the rules are not clear on a situation. But then again, I don't win very often.

Mike B

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by hazelbark » Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:27 pm

mbsparta wrote:This, sadly, is what is wrong with tournaments.
I think what you are reacting is a posting of what could go wrong, not what does happen in tournaments. Graham was constructing a hypothetical if you alter the rules in a sloppy way.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by grahambriggs » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:06 am

petedalby wrote:The rules are clear that if a BG is shot at by Firearms - even if they themselves don't do any hits - then any CT attracts a minus 1 for shot at by firearms.

I had a BG of 4 LF with firearms and foolishly lost a base. In the next round of shooting the BGs fire was split with 1 dice vs one target and no dice vs another. But of course the single base was still firing - just ineffectively.

So - is it reasonable to suggest that both enemy BGs should have the minus 1 on their CT, assuming that I caused sufficient hits with other shooters?

Views please? (Particularly Mr Fairhurst's who I believe is the Challenge umpire.)
Having read the rules I think the -1 may well apply. The LF base works out it's target (shooting section) and shoots. You then check the combat mechanism as to how many dice you get - which is none. But i think the enemy unit is still being shot at by firearms.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by grahambriggs » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:11 am

hazelbark wrote:
mbsparta wrote:This, sadly, is what is wrong with tournaments.
I think what you are reacting is a posting of what could go wrong, not what does happen in tournaments. Graham was constructing a hypothetical if you alter the rules in a sloppy way.
Yes, insulted for trying to help understand the rules. and where did I say I would do this in a tournament setting? Just as likely if asked for an umpire view on a club game. I think Sparta has a chip on the shoulder perhaps.

Oh, and he got the order wrong. You check taget priority and then work out how many dice. I don't agree that if the rules are unclear you should err in favour of the opponent. Surely you should both agree what is reasonable?

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by kevinj » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:25 am

Whilst I can see the logic of Pete's original siuation, the opportunities for dubious extensions of this logic (as suggested by Graham and Alan) are enough to persuade me that the simple interpretation is best, if the firearms aren't contributing a dice then they're not shooting sufficiently to affect the enemy's morale.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by hazelbark » Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:46 pm

grahambriggs wrote: I don't agree that if the rules are unclear you should err in favour of the opponent. Surely you should both agree what is reasonable?
You're right that is not acceptable. The real criteria is rule in whatever way will harm Ruddock the most and get him howling for a decade.

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by petedalby » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:19 pm

The real criteria is rule in whatever way will harm Ruddock the most and get him howling for a decade.
:D
Pete

davidandlynda
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:17 am

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by davidandlynda » Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:07 pm

For what its worth and since you ask so nicely Pete,,bearing in mind the number of questions I got wrong at Roll Call.
I would be ruling no on the grounds of the wording of the shooting dice section page 96.
My reading is 1 base of LF are not eligible to shoot therefore aren't classed as shooting
David
PS no more complicated questions we're both tired celebrating the arrival of the next Fairhurst family wargamer, a bouncing 9lb 5oz grandson born Tuesday(April Fools day ??? )
David

ney63
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by ney63 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:47 pm

davidandlynda wrote:For what its worth and since you ask so nicely Pete,,bearing in mind the number of questions I got wrong at Roll Call.
I would be ruling no on the grounds of the wording of the shooting dice section page 96.
My reading is 1 base of LF are not eligible to shoot therefore aren't classed as shooting
David
PS no more complicated questions we're both tired celebrating the arrival of the next Fairhurst family wargamer, a bouncing 9lb 5oz grandson born Tuesday(April Fools day ??? )
David
Congradulations David And Lynda :D And thankgod we have you as the umpire david and i totally agree with you that if the Handgunners are not contributing dice there not firing and lets keep it simple.

Andy

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by philqw78 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:19 pm

davidandlynda wrote:For what its worth and since you ask so nicely Pete,,bearing in mind the number of questions I got wrong at Roll Call.
I would be ruling no on the grounds of the wording of the shooting dice section page 96.
My reading is 1 base of LF are not eligible to shoot therefore aren't classed as shooting
David
PS no more complicated questions we're both tired celebrating the arrival of the next Fairhurst family wargamer, a bouncing 9lb 5oz grandson born Tuesday(April Fools day ??? )
David
Well that is utter rubbish Dave, you are asking for complicated questions by ignoring the rule where they must shoot.

What if I have 1 base of MF javelin and 1 base of LF firearm shooting at the same target. How many dice do I get and at what factors if shooting against lets say elephants, then protected foot?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8701
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by philqw78 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:20 pm

ney63 wrote:Congradulations David And Lynda :D And thankgod we have you as the umpire david and i totally agree with you that if the Handgunners are not contributing dice there not firing and lets keep it simple.

Andy
Its more complicated :evil:
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by petedalby » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:05 pm

I would be ruling no on the grounds of the wording of the shooting dice section page 96.
Congratulations on the new arrival David & Lynda!

And very happy with your ruling David. In x years of playing both FoG A&M and FoGR the issue had never arisen before - just one of those rare things that is guaranteed to divide opinion. And hopefully it will be many years before I see it again.

See you on Saturday.
Pete

davidandlynda
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:17 am

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by davidandlynda » Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:04 am

Phil
The LF is not eligible to shoot so 1at MF factors
David

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2991
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Shot at by Firearms

Post by grahambriggs » Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:10 am

davidandlynda wrote:PS no more complicated questions we're both tired celebrating the arrival of the next Fairhurst family wargamer, a bouncing 9lb 5oz grandson born Tuesday(April Fools day ??? )
David
Excellent news David and Lynda - congratulations! 9lb 5oz - ooer!

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”