Interpreting the Protective Cover of Walls in Crossfire

A discussion on the Crossfire Yahoo Forum got me thinking about the protective cover offered by wall features in Crossfire. I think I had it wrong. The difference of interpretation relates to whether or not a wall provides protective cover in direct fire between two squads, neither of which is touching the wall.

What Crossfire says

Crossfire does not say very much about walls:

CF4.4 p. 5 “Bocage/Hedges/Walls (Protective Cover)”, “Bocage and Hedges Block LOS. Walls do not.”

Walls - Protective Cover from Direct Fire

Walls – Protective Cover from Direct Fire

My original interpretation

Originally I thought protective cover to any fire (direct or indirect) required target stand to physically adjacent to the wall.

My current interpretation

Following the discussion on the Yahoo group I think a wall provides protective cover if the shooting squad is not touching the wall and the LOS / line of fire crosses the wall (direct fire only).

Some things remain unchanged from my original interpretation:

  • walls provide no protective cover to direct fire if the shooter is touching the wall
  • walls provide protective cover to indirect fire if the target is physically touching the wall

5 comments to Interpreting the Protective Cover of Walls in Crossfire

  • doctorphalanx

    Steven

    I didn’t follow this on the CFYG but I find your new interpretation perfectly acceptable in a game that is in any case abstracted in many ways. But real life is not a perfectly flat table! In reality you can often see over walls quite easily and they would only provide cover if you were quite close to them. I’m therefore more inclined to Lloyd’s ‘nearer than’ rule. Apologies if this has already been argued out.

    Richard

    • Steven Thomas

      I believe Lloyd only uses the ‘near than’ rule when firing from a hill over intervening terrain.

  • Dick Bryant

    We have alwasy applied the rule as in “the difference”. I never realized that some had a different interpretation.
    Dick Bryant

    • Steven Thomas

      Dick, I could say something similar … I just had a different initial interpretation. Unfortunately, the rules are not at all clear, which is why people all over the globe are doing their own interpretations.

      • Dick Bryant

        Too true! This is one reason why an umpire works so well. He interprets as he sees fit, No arguments – use his ruling for the rest of THAT game. When game over look up and research the ruling and make corrections for next time. Keeps the game going.
        Dick Bryant
        “No rule set survives first reading by a wargamer!”

Leave a Reply