+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Panzer Grenadier Rules (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. (/showthread.php?tid=1547)
Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. - Blackcloud6 - 08-03-2017
10.1 says this in regards to blocked fire and friendly units on different elevations: "This rule applies to units firing from a higher elevation through their own troops on a lower elevation as well." What about the converse? Say there are units at the base elevation, firing at units at level 40 with a friendly unit in between on the 30 level with no open hex between the friendly unit on level 20 and the target. Is the fire blocked or not? I think that since the statement in the rules specifies higher to lower fire that lower to higher is OK. So I think the fire in my example is OK and not blocked. What do you think?
RE: Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. - Poor Yorek - 08-04-2017
(08-03-2017, 11:39 PM)Blackcloud6 Wrote: 10.1 says this in regards to blocked fire and friendly units on different elevations: "This rule applies to units firing from a higher elevation through their own troops on a lower elevation as well." What about the converse? Say there are units at the base elevation, firing at units at level 40 with a friendly unit in between on the 30 level with no open hex between the friendly unit on level 20 and the target. Is the fire blocked or not? I think that since the statement in the rules specifies higher to lower fire that lower to higher is OK. So I think the fire in my example is OK and not blocked. What do you think?
I read this as stating that different elevations for firing/target have no affect on the implementation of the underlying fundamental rule. My take on why they felt the need to reinforce the application of the rule to the case of higher firing on lower rather then a more generic "this rule applies regardless of relative elevation of target/firing unit" is that the rule author simply didn't think that the issue you pose would come up or would be considered "well, of course not."
Of course, that's inferring from a negative, but that would be my guess. I'm certainly willing to be corrected by authority. But I think the plain reading of the text is to apply the generic rules for "blocking fire" regardless of relative elevation.
RE: Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. - J6A - 08-04-2017
I've always done it as reciprocal. It's also a pain in the ass not to be able to fire over the heads of friendlies.
RE: Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. - Blackcloud6 - 08-04-2017
My take on the rule mentioning the specific from firing from higher to lower tells me the rule was written explicitly, therefore lower firer to higher target is not prohibited. If it was meant to be prohibited both ways, it should say so.
Who is the proper authority to get clarification from? AP on CSW?
RE: Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. - J6A - 08-04-2017
(08-04-2017, 04:42 AM)Blackcloud6 Wrote: My take on the rule mentioning the specific from firing from higher to lower tells me the rule was written explicitly, therefore lower firer to higher target is not prohibited. If it was meant to be prohibited both ways, it should say so.
Who is the proper authority to get clarification from? AP on CSW?
I get what you're saying, I just in my mind translated that to reciprocal.
AP on CSW, although Mike might defer to people here, since he didn't do the design/development on 4th Edition.
RE: Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. - J6A - 08-04-2017
BTW, the main reason I think I've done it as reciprocal is because the rules talk about the "If I can see you, you can see me" situation. I just extended that to "If I can shoot you, you can shoot me" or, in this case "If I can't shoot you, you can't shoot me." That doesn't mean it's correct, though.
RE: Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. - Blackcloud6 - 08-04-2017
I'm suspecting this is just some sloppy rules writing and they wanted it to be reciprocal.
RE: Blocked Fire and elevation, 4th Ed. - richvalle - 08-04-2017
(08-04-2017, 06:09 AM)Blackcloud6 Wrote: I'm suspecting this is just some sloppy rules writing and they wanted it to be reciprocal.
I agree.