Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

The Guns of Gettysburg» Forums » Rules

Subject: Bombardment terget & special LoS + Movement question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jonas Krainbring
Germany
Freiburg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I recieved my copy yesterday and after my first solo test run I noticed two issues of which I remain uncertain:

1) In 13.3. it says "For a artillery token to be eligible to bombard a particular target, either the target must bin in the artillery's field of fire or the artillery must be in the target's field of fire." So, if the defending artillery has FoF only because of a special LoS into the attacker's area would that still make this specific artillery a valid bombardment target (as long as there is no obstruction symbol inbetween both positions)? Or am I completely misunderstanding something here?

2) When march moving blocks I was wondering if the only two valid moving options are moving through an area or pivoting around one of the endpoints of the position. Specifically, if there are four positions building a cross with a common central endpoint, is it possible to slide/strave from the left to the right position or would you need two steps (2x pivot) to reach that position. That would seem kind of odd. The rules don't mention such a move, though, if I haven't missed something.

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment. Awesome looking game by the way and the test show quite some replay potential
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AngryDwarf wrote:
I recieved my copy yesterday and after my first solo test run I noticed two issues of which I remain uncertain:

1) In 13.3. it says "For a artillery token to be eligible to bombard a particular target, either the target must bin in the artillery's field of fire or the artillery must be in the target's field of fire." So, if the defending artillery has FoF only because of a special LoS into the attacker's area would that still make this specific artillery a valid bombardment target (as long as there is no obstruction symbol inbetween both positions)? Or am I completely misunderstanding something here?

2) When march moving blocks I was wondering if the only two valid moving options are moving through an area or pivoting around one of the endpoints of the position. Specifically, if there are four positions building a cross with a common central endpoint, is it possible to slide/strave from the left to the right position or would you need two steps (2x pivot) to reach that position. That would seem kind of odd. The rules don't mention such a move, though, if I haven't missed something.

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment. Awesome looking game by the way and the test show quite some replay potential


You march move from one position across an area to the next position. So there is no direct move from one position to another across an endpoint. You would need two steps, if I understood your example correctly.

I'm new to these rules too, but I think the defending artillery is a valid bombardment target in your example above. Also, obstructions don't apply with special lines of sight, other than friendly units.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonas Krainbring
Germany
Freiburg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Thanks. I mentioned the obstruction since the next sentence in the rules says that obstructions in the there mentioned places would prevent offensive artillery fire. Apart from that, I think we agree. Still I find both issues rather odd. Sideways corps movement doesn't sound that exotic on a battlefield. And it seems queer it a positions bonus (Special LoS) suddenly makes a unit a valid target without the attacker having LoS or FoF.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Marley
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1) no it does not make that artillery token a valid target for offensive artillery. To do be a valid target, you need field of fire in either direction, which doesn't exist in that case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rachel Simmons
United States
Los Altos
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Sideways corps movement doesn't sound that exotic on a battlefield.


It wasn't really done. Nobody did "everybody move a 1000 yards to your right" redeployments to shift a battle line sideways.

AngryDwarf wrote:
And it seems queer it a positions bonus (Special LoS) suddenly makes a unit a valid target without the attacker having LoS or FoF.


If you go to Gettysburg, you will find many places on the battlefield where you can see Cemetery Hill but are unable to see the low ground around it. That's why you can see a position like Cemetery Hill without having an LOS into an area adjacent to it and that's what the special line of sight reciprocity simulates.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
youperguy wrote:
1) no it does not make that artillery token a valid target for offensive artillery. To do be a valid target, you need field of fire in either direction, which doesn't exist in that case.

The special line of sight gives the target a field of fire that includes that attacker's position, right? That puts the attacking artillery in the target's field of fire and that satisfies one of the two conditions for what is a bombardment target. What am I missing?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonas Krainbring
Germany
Freiburg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
OK, I did not take the scale into account whan thinking about the moves. That makes sense now.

That special LoS still confuses my. If the attacker can take advantage of the defenders special LoS wouldn't that make the special LoS work both ways (position to area and area to position) rather tahn just one way (position to area?) Or does that only simulate the extended artillery range? That sounds kind of confincing, now that I think about it.

Anyway, thanks Bowen for such great support of your games. That's quite extraordinary.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
9 92 33 JOFA
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My understanding is that the special field of fire extensions are reciprocal (the attacking artillery is in the field of fire of bombardment targets at the position with the special extension, per the definition of the special extension in section 9).

The only "range-driven" issue that isn't reciprocal is when the defender's artillery fires into an extended front area from a non-ridge position -- that artillery fire cannot be hit from the position it is firing against.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AngryDwarf wrote:
OK, I did not take the scale into account whan thinking about the moves. That makes sense now.

That special LoS still confuses my. If the attacker can take advantage of the defenders special LoS wouldn't that make the special LoS work both ways (position to area and area to position) rather tahn just one way (position to area?) Or does that only simulate the extended artillery range? That sounds kind of confincing, now that I think about it.

Anyway, thanks Bowen for such great support of your games. That's quite extraordinary.

I believe the special line of sight is simply defining the full field of fire of a block's position. That limits movement and can impact artillery fire, just like normal extended fields of fire do. It represents a high point on the battlefield, which can see far (and be seen from far). Conceptually, it doesn't differ (much) from a extended field of fire area. It just extends it even further. (One difference is that obstructions are not a factor.) If the defender were on a ridge and the attacker wanted to bombard from a non-ridge in a position in the defenders extended field of fire, he could could bombard then as well (provided there were no obstacles).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonas Krainbring
Germany
Freiburg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
lomn wrote:

The only "range-driven" issue that isn't reciprocal is when the defender's artillery fires into an extended front area from a non-ridge position -- that artillery fire cannot be hit from the position it is firing against.

But wouldn't the attacker's artillery still be in the defender's field of fire in that case, so that an attack would be possible (given the absence of obstructions)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
9 92 33 JOFA
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AngryDwarf wrote:
lomn wrote:

The only "range-driven" issue that isn't reciprocal is when the defender's artillery fires into an extended front area from a non-ridge position -- that artillery fire cannot be hit from the position it is firing against.

But wouldn't the attacker's artillery still be in the defender's field of fire in that case, so that an attack would be possible (given the absence of obstructions)?
No.

The rules text is difficult here, but my understanding is that when section 2 of the attack procedure says that the non-ridge extended front area can be used "for defensive artillery purposes only", it really does mean only. The attacker does not get to consider that as part of a field of fire for counterbattery fire.

As for a rationale, I theorize elsewhere in that thread -- mostly it's that in reality the attacker's artillery is firing in a very different way from the defender's artillery, because the attacker's troops (but not his artillery) advance as part of a combat. The non-ridge extended thing represents a shot that might barely be effective against massed troops in the open (defender firing on attacker) but would be completely useless at an even longer range firing against troops dispersed and in defilade (attacker firing on defender).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.