Guys,
Played another game tonight, my Mordor vs Bryans Elves. I got a bloody nose again, but at least destroyed an elven unit for a change, so I am getting better. Might have done better if there hadn't been two parallel hedges stretching the width of the table which took an age to cross, even with Wings of Terror! But I digress...

What cropped up was a discussion about area terrain. Here I am typically referring to an area of woodland, which counts as defensible terrain. We delineate this with an area of felt upon which are placed single model trees which can be moved as needed for model placement.

Now we know that this will be assigned an occupancy limit, and we are quite happy with the mechanisms associated with that.

What causes endless discussion is the situation where a formation cannot/or chooses not to occupy the terrain, but wishes to move through it. It then does so such that all companies are entirely within the boundary edge of the wood.

So questions:
1. Can it be SEEN by a formation outside the wood and thus
a) Can it be shot at? If so, does it get any cover bonus.
b) Can it be Charged by an enemy outside the wood?

2. What happens if a unit from each side is in the same terrain feature (neither "occupying").
a) Can they see each other to shoot? If so, is there any cover bonus?
b) Can they see each other to declare a charge?

My interpretation was that units outside the wood would NOT be able to see those in the wood, who are entirely within the terrain area, and not occupying it. There fore they cannot be shot at or charged. And this would therefore likewise hold if both units are in same area, the woodland prevents them from clearly seeing each other...

My opponent felt that the terrain would block line of sight if the terrain feature was BETWEEN the opposing units (in other words - they were either side of it) but it would be possible for a unit to see a unit in terrain area from the outside of it. And also for that matter looking through the terrain feature if both units were in it together. On top of this he felt there would be no cover bonus as this point is clearly stated in the rules, although this to my mind was referring to the "our numbers are too great" where part of the unit is sticking out of the terrain feature...

I tried to suggest a compromise house rule; you can see in or through 2", but target unit gets defensive bonus, at least against shooting.

We would welcome your thoughts and clarification on this issue.

regards
Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

1. No, it cannot be seen and it cannot see out of the wood unless it is occupying it.
a) No, unless you see part of the formation that is not in the wood
b) Same as above

2. a) Unfortunately, rules don't cover that, so it would be a no, they can't see each other
b) Same as ave

Problem with the rules on terrain is that they don't specify defensible terrain as being difficult or whether you see through it if you're in it. I know that the official UKGT rulling was (as I was there) that all terrain counts as difficult in addition to occupyable.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

Thanks thats pretty much as I see it too. It makes sense that all terrain would be difficult too.
Cheers
Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

Just a point - rather gamey, but you could take Radagast and one company of hobbit milita and "hide" them in terrain this way (not occupying) it. And they could never be seen or charged and yet Radagast could still cast his spells from the cover with impunity...

Having had a chance to think through the consequences of this clarified ruling, I have realized that this will allow a unit fully within a terrain feature, yet not occupying it, to be effectively invulnerable, as no enemy unit can see it to shoot it or charge it, even if they march into the terrain feature and stop a millimeter distant to the 'hiding' unit. Such a formation could therefore deny access to any area of the battlefield without any negative consequences.
Imagine a narrow mountain pass, with a wood stretching right across it. One (or more) units sit fully in it stretched across its length yet not occupying and no enemy unit can move through the wood. Pass blocked yet the defender cannot be attacked either.

I think this fact alone means some sensible house rule will be mandatory...

regards
Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

Why not read the rules? Page 55. If not being occupied the terrain feature gives no defence bonus, so you can shoot and charge with no problem.

Believe me I do read the rules, over and over. Its the ambiguity that is the problem. Particularly where one thing is stated on one page, but something contrary is on another...

I see where you are coming from from "Our numbers are too great" on p55,

but look at p37 "Can I see"; 3rd paragraph - line of fire cannot be traced through...defensible terrain features. Players must assume the entire base of the terrain feature blocks a companies view in this manner..."

So to me that means no shooting! And if LOS is blocked then you have nothing for your spearhead company to see to charge at, so no charging either...

I always thought your reference was where a formation marched through a terrain feature but presumably part of it would be sticking out somewhere - because it is TOO BIG for the terrain feature!

Now do you see my problem?

The diagram on bottom of p37 goes on to discuss hills in this issue. It suggests troops on a hill CAN see into defensible terrain feature!? So suddenly because you are up high, you can see into a wood? Doesn't make sense to me. The diagram shows C able to see 2 and vice versa. I could go along with C being able to see past the dark gray ruined wall, I supposed. But every other war-game I have played would still give 2 a bonus for cover.

This diagram is further unclear because we see 2 as a single company in a terrain feature. It does not state whether it is just standing there, or it is occupying? It is not until we get to diagrams on p54+55 that we suddenly see the skull icon placed over the whole terrain feature to suggest "occupying" status. So... was 2 occupying on p37 or not???

regards
Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

The example causing the confusion shows shooting at targets the otherside of terrain and not at targets in terrain. Targets in terrain and not defending it get no bonus.

@hithero

So you are saying the 3rd Paragraph "can I see" p37 - is incorrect.

Therefore a formation travelling through a wood (not occupying it, nor protruding from it) can be CLEARLY seen by all, so can be shot at freely and similarly charged?

Terrain ONLY blocks line of sight if it is between formations on either side of terrain feature?

Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

The terrain is considered occupied though so all can see it. I'm pretty sure, without opening the book.

_________________
http://drinkingwotr.blogspot.com/ - Links to my CrAzY House Rules, Games and 'poor man's' terrain.

Having looked at this again, it just shows what poor use of english can cause; On one line it talks about seeing 'over', but then follows up with seeing 'through'. The second line should have remained seeing 'over' too.

Sigh

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

The main issue for me lies around the interpretation of the word "through"

Does through mean "through a milimetre' of the terrain, or does it mean "through the feature". I believe it's the latter, as earlier under the heading "Can I See" it says line of fire cannot be traced through other formations, defensible terrain "features" or hills (noone would argue that a formation on a hill cannot be seen because the line of sight crosses a part of the hill, but on the far side of it would not be seen) The reference to shadowy figures I believe is talking about figures/formations beyond the defensible terrain, blocked by the feature, not in it. I read that as defining the feature as a whole, not as a part. It is not referring to formations "in" the terrain (backed up by the diagrams it uses to illustrate the point).

So I can see into the feature, but not through it if I am on the same level.

My argument is that formations moving through defensible terrain features are not making use of the cover and therefore can be shot at as per normal, therefore it's better to occupy it, if you can.

Also if you look at unit 2 in the diagram on p37 it is clearly in a tray, in the terrain, not denoted by the "skull" as illustrated on p54/55 as occupying the terrain. It clearly is able to trace its view through part of the terrain.

Hope that made sense. This way you will not end up with odd situations of troops "hiding" in terrain, not being able to be shot, or charged - ever.

@celebdrial

I think that is indeed going to have to be the fact. It will effectively force troops to OCCUPY terrain and not just try and move through it.

I just fail to see the point of the pathfinder skill now.

Why would you bother to move as fast as possible through terrain with this skill, when you could in one turn move in and occupy it, and in the following turn pop out the other side, regardless of how large the terrain feature is. I shall now enjoy 'teleporting' my troops through large terrain features Bring on the woods! Big ones!

On refection I find the way they have handled terrain in this rules set very odd. At first reading I thought what a simple neat solution, but upon examination its full of holes. I cannot think of any other rule set that would not give troops some kind of cover modifier for being in a wood.
The other issue that has crept up is the range of throwing weapons out of OCCUPIED woods, if the feature is large enough, you cannot shoot out! Very odd for a formation that is supposed to be defending the periphery of the terrain feature, be a it a wood or ruin or whatever...

I think it would have been easier if they dumped the Occupied status, and gave any unit in 'concealing' terrain a cover bonus, unless some part of the unit is sticking out and can be clearly seen. Perhaps introduce a set depth of view through terrain: I believe in Warhammer used to be 2", and Flames of War I think is 6"? Greater than that distance and it blocks line of sight.

But we have to go with the majority ruling, no matter how daft it seems...

Incidentally I am up for a rematch anytime you are passing

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

But you only have problems with terrain and teleporting if you decide to include very large pieces, don't and you won't have a problem and area capable of holding 6 companies is plenty big enough. Throwing weapons and terrain is an issue though shooting in or out of it, don't know why they couldn't have said to measure from the closest point

I agree, you have to be very careful to keep the pieces regulation size and below, or they just cause issues. So another habit from other games that I had to unlearn!

I just let coys at 1" ish (or further, if they can hit the centre) throw their weapons in, seemed the simplest way to handle it.

There are still definite 'warping properties'from defensible terrain in this game though. While the rules about what to do when it is not óccupied are pretty straightforward (though the title of the section causes unneccessary confusion), I see many people get caught out by the flexibility of the rules around exiting terrain. It isn't the distance gained, it is that you can exit anywhere, with any facing and have a great deal of freedom in terms of the formation as well. So you have to be really careful when moving first near occupied terrain pieces lest you suddenly have flank or even rear exposed to whichever coy they will use as the spearhead for the charge.

jscottbowman, the benifit of the pathfinder skill is that it allows troops much more flexibility in terms of charges. You cannot charge out of a terrain piece you occupy and if you do not occupy, the piece is difficult going. Well played mobile units with pathfinders can be a real nightmare when they exploit terrain that ties up their targets to sweep around and line up a spearhead coy for a flank charge. I think this is a real strength for the Elven and Moria lists and I rate Radagast's ability to confer this to cav very highly.

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

Sure, but I have a feeling I'm about due to get my "clocks cleaned" so to speak.

I'll be gentle with you...
Besides I am sure you will still find a way to win, you always have so far, and I wont be going for the Uber killer list, but I have a better idea about my wraiths now. I'll still try and take a balanced themed list.
At least I know whats on my painting priority list now, once I get current batch of elves finished...

I'm free saturday night for a game if you like (SWMBO is out)

regards
Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

I'll txt you, not sure I'll have time though, I'm coming down Sunday arvo as I'm flying to Christchurch on Monday to help with the relief effort

No worries mate, I quite understand your work down in Chch is rather more important than a game of soldiers.
Hope all goes with your journey and work there.

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

The rule is in there pg. 55, Our Numbers are too Great
"... and can be shot at exactly as if it were in the open."

And they can be charged aswell, the defensive structure is treated as difficult terrain.

_________________
http://drinkingwotr.blogspot.com/ - Links to my CrAzY House Rules, Games and 'poor man's' terrain.