Shooting through invisible units

[Princeps]

Hello,

This a follow-up on a discussion on other media.

Rules on shooting state that:

• Targets must be visible to be shot at.  See the terrain table for visibility distances for various pieces of terrain.(7.C.2)
• For a target to be valid both front corners of the shooting file must be able to draw an uninterrupted line to some part of the target base without passing through friends, enemy or terrain that blocks visibility (7.D.2)

This could lead to a situation where, as described by Gareth : Consider a TuG of elephants in a patch of brush with the powerbow 4.5 BW away. The elephants can be seen and shot at. Now if the elephants were screened by a SuG of 6 infantry skirmishers 2 deep, they, that is the SuG, would be 3.5 BW from the powerbow and therefore not visible. So the powerbow cannot see the SuG to shoot at it and while they can see the elephants which are in range cannot shoot at them because of the invisible SuG

Now I will be first to state that the rules seem clear in their wording, but they lead to a situation which, albeit rare, strikes me as bearing no sense of reality : archers seeing a unit within range and not shooting because of an invisible unit.

Would the game and its realism not be better served with a ruling (and perhaps a modification of the rules when V2 comes along in some time, as Simon Hall alluded to here) ? Something along the lines of modifying 7.D.2 to: "For a target to be valid both front corners of the shooting file must be able to draw an uninterrupted line to some part of the target base without passing through friends, visible enemy or terrain that blocks visibility"

Best,
Antoine

[lionheartrjc]

Probably!   Will look at adding an official clarification after return from Essen.

Richard

[Princeps]

Thank you Richard,

Best of luck at Essen,
Antoine

[badhabum]

OK let me be the annoying guy

Would it not be positive to clarify what can and connaot be done in presence of "invisible" troops and create something that is simple and consistent.

- Ambush : as long as we are not aware of the ambush ( do not see it ) we cannot attack it, shoot at it and we can double move next to it till it is revealed  An ambush is often hidden by terrain effect. Correct ?
- We may not shoot at an invisible UG but as things are now we may not shoot over the head of an invisible UG correct ?
- We may declare a charge on an invisible UG ( not on an ambush even if it is next to the same invisible UG ) Correct ?
- So what about shoot&charge at a hidden UG that's being charged ?
- an invisible TUG stops double move at 4 MU even if "invisible" correct ?


I added after modification : can we have a forced charge on an invisible UG ( not an ambush I know )

I would suggest to clarify all this as I will admit it does not seem so logical to me or I fail to understand the logic .

I will suggest invisible UG being considered the same as an ambush , cannot be charged, shot at and is ignored as a bloking UG for the shooting and so on as it simplifies things

[tarnowski1]

Just because it is not visible enough to be a valid shooting target (or may be the shooting just wouldn't have enough impact to be worth representing...) does not mean you do not know its there or what its composition is. Only an ambush represents the infiltration of a Ug that has been concealed from enemy scouts. What you suggest complicates things.

as to shooting through 'invisible' enemy at Ug's behind them I suggest not changing it as the rules are currently consistent. You may not shoot through enemy bases. Fully visible or not you do still know they are there. If you introduce an exception for this, then why do I have to shoot at skirmishers in the open rather than the Ug behind them that they are screening, I still know the sug in the brush is a sug and where it is..

OK let me be the annoying guy

Would it not be positive to clarify what can and connaot be done in presence of "invisible" troops and create something that is simple and consistent.

- Ambush : as long as we are not aware of the ambush ( do not see it ) we cannot attack it, shoot at it and we can double move next to it till it is revealed  An ambush is often hidden by terrain effect. Correct ?
- We may not shoot at an invisible UG but as things are now we may not shoot over the head of an invisible UG correct ?
- We may declare a charge on an invisible UG ( not on an ambush even if it is next to the same invisible UG ) Correct ?
- So what about shoot&charge at a hidden UG that's being charged ?
- an invisible TUG stops double move at 4 MU even if "invisible" correct ?


I added after modification : can we have a forced charge on an invisible UG ( not an ambush I know )

I would suggest to clarify all this as I will admit it does not seem so logical to me or I fail to understand the logic .

I will suggest invisible UG being considered the same as an ambush , cannot be charged, shot at and is ignored as a bloking UG for the shooting and so on as it simplifies things

[nikgaukroger]

Just because it is not visible enough to be a valid shooting target (or may be the shooting just wouldn't have enough impact to be worth representing...) does not mean you do not know its there or what its composition is. Only an ambush represents the infiltration of a Ug that has been concealed from enemy scouts. What you suggest complicates things.

Like the old DBx "aware of".

My inclination is to agree with your view.

[badhabum]

Yes but that still do not answer the questioning about forcec charges and so on + shoot&charge

[tarnowski1]

Yes but that still do not answer the questioning about forcec charges and so on + shoot&charge

oh sorry, my stab at your answers.

- Ambush : as long as we are not aware of the ambush ( do not see it ) we cannot attack it, shoot at it and we can double move next to it till it is revealed  An ambush is often hidden by terrain effect. Correct ?

Yes, you can double move up to the point that you come within range to make the ambush visible, so 1bw in a forest, 2bw in a wood etc, unless its a bluff and you can just keep on going

- We may not shoot at an invisible UG but as things are now we may not shoot over the head of an invisible UG correct ?

yes, you cant shoot over enemy bases.

- We may declare a charge on an invisible UG ( not on an ambush even if it is next to the same invisible UG ) Correct ?

yes, you know they are there.

- So what about shoot&charge at a hidden UG that's being charged ?

No you may not shoot at them as you shoot at the declaration of the charge and so are out of effective shooting 'visibility'

- an invisible TUG stops double move at 4 MU even if "invisible" correct ?

yes because you are STILL aware they are there and what type of UG they are.

[LawrenceG]

Well, I suppose you might rationalise it as some troops are area-shooting at the invisible troops they are vaguely aware of and others are shooting at the more distant troops they can see and the net result is neither receives enough shooting to be effective.

[badhabum]

Thank you for answering

My main message is : should all this not be grouped on one paragraph in the rules as the answers are to be searched here and there in the rules .

Make things easier for players helps the players

[lionheartrjc]

After getting back from Essen I have reviewed this post and the rules.  I do not believe anything needs to be changed.

VISIBILITY ONLY APPLIES TO SHOOTING and LOCATING AMBUSHES.  It doesn't apply to anything else.  The fact that an UG is not visible doesn't prevent it being charged or prevent others potentially having a forced charge against it.
AMBUSH RULES ARE SEPARATE FROM SHOOTING RULES.

So a visible Elephant behind not-visible skirmishers CANNOT be shot at.
Shoot & Charge - the UG must be visible at the time that the charge is declared (as well as in range) to shoot at it.
You can declare a charge at a not-visible UG.  Rationalise it as moving forward until they are visible and then charging them.
A non-visible UG can result in an UG having a forced charge.

Richard


 

[badhabum]

Thank you

I still would advice for later revision or somewhere in a pdf addenda a specific entre summing up all this so as to simplify researches in the rules . A specific entry about not visible UGs and ambushes specifying the differences and what can and cannot be done. It helps newbies, helps confirmed players and solve many discussions   

[lionheartrjc]

Thank you

I still would advice for later revision or somewhere in a pdf addenda a specific entre summing up all this so as to simplify researches in the rules . A specific entry about not visible UGs and ambushes specifying the differences and what can and cannot be done. It helps newbies, helps confirmed players and solve many discussions   

There are plenty of examples where the rules could be made clearer.  A future edition.

Richard