Supporting Files and Positional Defenses

[Francis Small]

Assume UG A is behind barricades (or some other defense such as obstacles or stakes). UG B next to it is in the open. If A is attacked such that the adjacent file from B can support it, does the file from B figure factors as if it was defending behind barricades? Conversely, if B (in the open) is attacked and a file from A (behind barricades) can support, does the file from A figure out factors as if it were not behind barricades? The relevant rule seems to be:

p. 146, I 5.1

5. To work out the dice to add for a supporting file:

5.1 Calculate its claims as if it were fighting the target base in the position of the friendly base it is supporting.

I guess the question is: which defenses do you assume - those in front of the supporting file, or those in front of the friendly base it is supporting?

[lionheartrjc]

Be sensible.  It isn't behind the Barricades so it cannot claim the factor. 
The rule wording could be improved.

Richard

[Francis Small]

Be sensible. 

Sorry, but it's been bashed into my head too many times that "the rules say what they mean and mean what they say." So I tried to ask politely about them.

As to the original question, I take it that a file fighting behind defenses as an overlap gets to count those defenses.

The exact scenario I had in mind were some mounted knights fighting dismounted knights who are supported with overlaps by longbows behind stakes. Did the longbows get to count their stakes when fighting "in the position" of the dismounted knights they are supporting? In that case the question seemed much more sensible, and apparently they do get to count the stakes (and murder the mounted knights).

[lionheartrjc]

Personally I don't think troops behind fortifications should be able to claim supporting files but that isn't what the rules say. 

Mounted troops charging anything behind fortifications and stakes probably won't last long, overlaps or not...

[Francis Small]

Mounted troops charging anything behind fortifications and stakes probably won't last long, overlaps or not...

The scenario I had in mind involved charging foot not behind stakes, whereas the the overlaps are behind stakes. The charge itself is fine, and what the mounted want, but the having the overlaps count as behind stakes at least makes them pause to consider. Actually, thinking about the dice, it's only 2 for the stakes in melee, and the knights might otherwise be up 2 factors to the bow... that's only a green downgraded to a white. Maybe not be so awful after all.