On p10 in the High Ground example box we have:
"An enemy infantry unit has emerged from a wood and taken cover behind a hedgerow. The FAO can see over the hedge as he is on the hill and as such he can see the infantry unit in contact with the hedge."
Then on p14 under High Ground, in the last paragraph we have:
"Units observing from high ground cannot see infantry units that are on the opposite side and against linear terrain (fences, walls etc).
So which example is right?
Are not rules there for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools?
Well spotted Steve, there is an errorous NOT in that last sentence.
On the errata list - thanks
That's what I thought Mark, but always worth checking.
It's the small words that can make all the difference:
YES
NO
NOT
NEW
OLD
OF
OFF
very worrying to a rules writer - especially when he has trouble with his auto-correct on his phone ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just to clarify here please -
There is no 'dead-ground'.. for units observing from High Ground - when checking visibility of infantry on lower ground, and on the opposite side + against a linear obstacle?
ThNKA
Adam
No ... you are assuming again Adam ... there can be dead ground behind terrain.
If you use the basic principle that a High Area Terrain piece nearer to the target than the observer, will generally get in the way (block) LoS. Then that is not a bad rule of thumb.
Again, you need to try to apply some common sense to this (& I mean that in the nicest way) or you will go mad with the whole LoS/LoF business.
Yes - a Mountain is higher than a Hill, is higher than a Wood, is higher than a BUA, is higher than a hedge or wall. But we are dealing with models on a table top here.
I doubt that were a to-scale Mountain actually be placed on a 6 x 4 table top the unit on its summit or upper slopes would have the range (unless it is artillery) to hit a unit on the table top.
The same goes with hills. Most of our table-top hills are small hillocks or gentle rises not really big hills.
So ... as discussed previously - it is an error that states that the FAO cannot see the unit up against the hedge. Because if the unit is up against the hedge - as per the example on Page 15 - it can be seen regardless of whether the FAO is on the hill or not. But the FAO does gets a positive modifier to his command roll as he is on higher ground.
Thanks Mark
I was just clarifying I had read this omission of NOT answer properly.
You make it clear - an error on p14 ....and the sentence should read -
Units observing from high ground can see infantry units that are on the opposite side and against linear terrain (fences, walls etc)
Very helpful clarification thanks
That's funny because we assumed it was the first statement that was wrong.
In the real world nobody on a hill (or mountain come to that) could see someone immediately behind a wall unless they were jumping up & down or flying flags. If they start doing something, like firing, that is different but just sitting there they would be invisible from the other side of the wall.
It's a rules mechanism - and I'd disagree about not being able to see a Unit behind a hedge - remember this is not just half a dozen guys - it's a reasonable number.