|
|
Post by twrnz on Nov 17, 2017 19:18:26 GMT
To be honest we have never encountered this kind of situation. Our archers are usually hunting mounted targets or disrupting infantry groups. This situation, or at least a variant of it, came up several times in recent games here. I ruled it wasn’t possible... |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 17, 2017 19:32:08 GMT
Wonder why we have a 1/2 BW restriction inserted in the rules, then? It seems a contradiction that an element 21mm inside a wood is invulnerable from outside, but the left front corner of the shooting element in the original pic can reach the enemy with its bowfire from 60+mm away.....ho hum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Nov 17, 2017 20:59:44 GMT
The effect of the rule is to allow Bow to shoot from bad going, without having to move forward to the point where they can be engaged in close-combat by an enemy entirely in good going. That's what I read the intention to be, anyways. I think I would be happier if the rule were that lines drawn from both corners of the firing edge could pass through no more than 1/2BW of bad going, but who am I to quibble?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 17, 2017 22:15:55 GMT
 It's a game mechanic - I tend to think of neither unit being of well formed ranks when in woods. That's the penalty for some troops come from while Aux,Wb and PS etc. are not impacted as they don't rely that strictly on formed bodies up anyways. So the archers get some ranged 'larger than skirmish' distant power in woods. I never had much of an issue with it in thinking this way. It helps that I think of woods not not deep virgin forest but broken tree clumps of trees and lightly wooded area's as it's around where armies are moving. Impactful but not wilderness. Yes. It is a game mechanic. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 17, 2017 22:21:57 GMT
The effect of the rule is to allow Bow to shoot from bad going, without having to move forward to the point where they can be engaged in close-combat by an enemy entirely in good going. That's what I read the intention to be, anyways. I think I would be happier if the rule were that lines drawn from both corners of the firing edge could pass through no more than 1/2BW of bad going, but who am I to quibble? With you on that one, Michael. Makes more sense. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by diades on Nov 19, 2017 10:58:13 GMT
I believe this thread stems from a recent event at which I was adjudicator. I ruled as per Joe Collins and allowed the shot. It is a rule mechanic. It is far from the only rule that makes little logical sense at first thought.
If we use the lines from the extremes of the shooting and target edges and there is less than half a base width of terrain encountered, but there is more than half a base width over the entire area between, the situation is little different to that illustrated. Similarly if the lines are blocked, but the entire area between is not, what sense is there in not permitting the shot?
I believe the target was a Psiloi, which fled. I may have had an issue with how that was handled, but wasn't watching at the time the shot was resolved....Flee from shooting on rear edge...about face then flee....the first part of flee is about face, so if fleeing, the element turns a full circle and still moves away from the source of the shooting! Or maybe that was what happened...
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 20, 2017 19:37:13 GMT
"Entirely" is the key word here. The "uncrossed lines" block is limited to "any element" between them. Terrain doesn't matter.
As long as the shooters can see a bit of the enemy they can cut loose (not open fire). Would massed archery be as effective passing through this distance of woods etc.? No (might be OK shooting over a hill). But it might do something and we didn't want to have shooting modifiers into woods. (I think the old rule was that there was no distance shooting in woods you had to be on the edge). You also have the problem if you reduce the factor say to +1, that two Bow shooting at each other in the Woods become very deadly (this cropped up in DBM for a while), its just a quirk of the "doubling" system - see the French game for an alternative approach. So this was the best we could do. The angle here makes for an extreme case.
But I'm always interested in better ideas - if anyone has one fire away (or let loose).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 20, 2017 19:44:04 GMT
Due to the quirk of the doubling mechanism, and the way support shooting works, and with no hit point tracking system, bowfire is either deadly or useless if one is not careful with rules modifications. Heavy restrictions on shooting in woods severly limits the effectiveness of fast bow...
And as an element is not supposed to be viewed as a rigid rectangle, we accept the ups and downs of shooting as is...
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 21, 2017 9:42:36 GMT
Thanks MM Yep, it was the Ps, and I also had an element of uncertainty about the direction it fled. As far as you remember, should it have fled towards table edge*, rather than towards table centre and river, as actually was done?? A rethink suggests you may have highlighted another hole in my understanding of the rules  . Lack of PIPage meant it would have played little further part in that particular game anyway, but nice to know for future reference. Martin S * ie in the direction it originally faced before the shot on its rear...... |
|
|
|
Post by diades on Nov 21, 2017 22:09:36 GMT
Thanks MM Yep, it was the Ps, and I also had an element of uncertainty about the direction it fled. As far as you remember, should it have fled towards table edge*, rather than towards table centre and river, as actually was done?? A rethink suggests you may have highlighted another hole in my understanding of the rules . Lack of PIPage meant it would have played little further part in that particular game anyway, but nice to know for future reference. Martin S * ie in the direction it originally faced before the shot on its rear...... My recollection was that it was facing towards the board edge with the bows to its rear, so I believe it should have fled towards that edge. I was surprised to find it later in the middle of the board. For the shot to have been possible, the way it appears to have been moved, it must have fled with its front corner grazing all across the shooting element's front edge? If that had happened it would have to have stopped and lined up to combat next bound. By the way, this decision was a great deal easier than some of the Warwagon ones posed on the day! |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 22, 2017 9:09:19 GMT
Thanks. So it should have headed towards the board edge... makes more sense.
Also, would have suited me to have grazed the bow and then lined up!! That bow was troublesome 😳
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 22, 2017 18:15:51 GMT
Besides the "deadly" effect of shooting we also have Recoil results which break up groups - not perhaps as important in Woods but very important in how the Group/PIP system works. Again see the French game for how to royally screw up this concept (they don't have Recoils so you can't break up Groups with shooting).
Another matter to consider - what if the target is comletely beyond the wood/bua? But when you measure the "corner" or whatever that's in between the distance is slightly less than 1/2BW?
Seems you can still shoot them.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Dec 1, 2017 21:22:35 GMT
We tried the interpretation that has been described here during this week’s game.
In this situation a one corner of a bow element was within 1/2 a base width of the edge of a bad going feature and the rest of the stand was at 90 degrees to the edge. Under the interpretation outlined here the stand can fire. In both players view this interpretation was broken.
In future we will return to our previous interpretation that both corners are restricted to being within 1/2 a base width.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 1, 2017 21:25:16 GMT
We tried the interpretation that has been described here during this week’s game. In this situation a one corner of a bow element was within 1/2 a base width of the edge of a bad going feature and the rest of the stand was at 90 degrees to the edge. Under the interpretation outlined here the stand can fire. In both players view this interpretation was broken. In future we will return to our previous interpretation that both corners are restricted to being within 1/2 a base width. We have a similar view. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 2, 2017 23:09:43 GMT
Well if that's the way you guys would play it, there goes one of the big reasons Fast Bow are so useful.
So would you apply the same reasoning to the range of a bow shot if entirely good going? That is, both firing corners must be in range to the target? If not, why not?
|
|
. Lack of PIPage meant it would have played little further part in that particular game anyway, but nice to know for future reference.