Shooting on steep hills

[viperofmilan]

We had an interesting situation arise in our game yesterday.

A French unit and a British unit were on opposite sides of the crest on a steep hill with light cover. Both units were within 1 UD of the crest and facing each other.

Page 70 of the English Edition of the rules states:

"A unit on the reverse slope of a steep hill at 1 UD or less from the ridge line can see without being seen beyond the ridge line. It can fire with its integrated skirmishers. It receives enemy fire as if it is detached skirmishers (-2 modifier)."

Ignoring for the moment the conundrum that both units could see their opponent but not be seen by their opponent, we found these conditions very confusing when applied to both units. Both units had skirmisher values of "1". So calculating the modifiers for both units, the results, to be determined as skirmisher fire would be:

Basic 1, -2 because all incoming fire receives a minus, -1 for light cover = -2. Resolving this shot on the skirmisher fire table, because all shooting by each unit is considered skirmisher fire, make it impossible to inflict any damage on your opponent.

This seemed nonsensical to us, so we resolved the fire as normal salvo fire, applying all normal modifiers and taking an additional -2 modifier to account for the intervening crest. This at least allowed for the possibility of inflicting some damage.

Did we do this correctly? And if not, how should such fire be resolved?

Thanks.

[gibbyj]

I would think just the -1 for cover, normally skirmisher vs skirmisher don't get the -2. Rules not to hand but that seems the sensible way.
cheers
Jim

[viperofmilan]

Thanks for your thoughts gibbyj.

Don't know that I disagree, but how can you just ignore the very specific -2 modifier mandated on page 70?

[Talleyrand]

FT1 against FT1 = +1 for all
No penality because they are both integrated skirmichers (p53 bullet 3 in french version). The -2 modifier is only for salvo fire against skirmish or deployed artillery.
Ligth cover = -1 for all

0 vs 0.
You hit on a 5 or 6 dice roll

[gibbyj]

I agree.

[viperofmilan]

Again, thank you both for your responses, but I just do not see how you reach this conclusion based on the language in the English Edition of the rules.While it is cl;ear that units within 1 UD resolve fire as skirmisher fire, it is equally clear that any unit firing at them take an additional -2, even though this normally does not apply to skirmisher fire. Then of course there is the additional complication of units within 1 UD being able to see, but not be seen by units on the other side of the ridge.

All in all, very confusing and muddled.

Kevin

[gibbyj]

p53 of the English version is the same in that it specifies Target is unlimbered artillery or skirmishers -2 It says "This penalty does not apply to the fire of skirmishers"
It doesn't make the distinction between integrated or detached
I think the visibility point is moot because firing reveals both units positions as per the diagram on p70.
cheers
Jim

[viperofmilan]

OK gibbyj, I follow your reasoning. But if the 2 enemy units are on opposite sides of the ridge, and each within 1 UD of the ridge, and so within the 2 UD salvo range, why wouldn't this fire be resolved as salvo fire with the additional -2 modifier applied to both to account for the intervening ridge? What are the over-riding arguments against this approach? That is how we resolved this conundrum. Otherwise, all fire from units within 1 UD of a ridge is resolved as skirmisher fire with an additional -2 modifier - that is what is says in more-or-less plain English on page 70.

You choose to ignore one of the requirements (the additional -2) while we choose to ignore the other (all fire is skirmisher fire).

[gibbyj]

Its not an additional -2 as far as I'm concerned, its a reference to the -2 modifier for shooting at skirmishers.

Normally the skirmishers would be deployed out front so I would presume that's why. That and you can't physically shoot a musket ball through the hill. However in this unique situation, maybe you could salvo at the skirmishers deployed ahead but why would you as the odds are a lot worse.

It would also cover those without skirmishers. For instance French with FT1 vs Austrian no FT. Both 1 ud from the ridge. Initially the French could see the Austrians but the Austrian do not see the French. The French have a choice to shoot with their skirmishers or not. If they choose too, this reveals them and the Austrians presumably would salvo at the skirmishers with the -2.

All just my opinion of course and you can play it however you want.

[viperofmilan]

Good discussion Gibbyj. As you say, in the absence of a definitive ruling, we will all have to noodle through this issue as we think best.