MF counted as in the open or cover

[rich0101]

We had a question come up this weekend and in a previous tournament.
If you have a BG of MF half in terrain and half in the open fighting HF or Mounted does the MF have a - for losing combat for being in the open or are they counted as in the terrain.

[lawrenceg]

We had a question come up this weekend and in a previous tournament.
If you have a BG of MF half in terrain and half in the open fighting HF or Mounted does the MF have a - for losing combat for being in the open or are they counted as in the terrain.

See the glossary, page 135.

Note, it is the HF or mounted that must be in the open terrain, not the MF. I doesn't matter where the MF are.

You need to have one base entirely in the open to count.

[kal5056]

We had a question come up this weekend and in a previous tournament.
If you have a BG of MF half in terrain and half in the open fighting HF or Mounted does the MF have a - for losing combat for being in the open or are they counted as in the terrain.

See the glossary, page 135.

Note, it is the HF or mounted that must be in the open terrain, not the MF. I doesn't matter where the MF are.

You need to have one base entirely in the open to count.

Won't be the first time I am wrong on here but I thought the rule of thumb was...."Look at the unit claiming a POA or Taking a Test to determine"

IE---Cav charging MF would claim the POA is the Cav are in the OPEN
---MF taking a CT for lossing to mounted or Heavy foot would look at itself and see if it is in the open before taking the -1 for lossing in the open.

Am I incorect in this logic? If So why?

Gino
SMAC

[Ghaznavid]

We had a question come up this weekend and in a previous tournament.
If you have a BG of MF half in terrain and half in the open fighting HF or Mounted does the MF have a - for losing combat for being in the open or are they counted as in the terrain.

See the glossary, page 135.

Note, it is the HF or mounted that must be in the open terrain, not the MF. I doesn't matter where the MF are.

You need to have one base entirely in the open to count.

Won't be the first time I am wrong on here but I thought the rule of thumb was...."Look at the unit claiming a POA or Taking a Test to determine"

IE---Cav charging MF would claim the POA is the Cav are in the OPEN
---MF taking a CT for lossing to mounted or Heavy foot would look at itself and see if it is in the open before taking the -1 for lossing in the open.

Am I incorect in this logic? If So why?

Gino
SMAC

See this thread: viewtopic.php?t=10361

[rich0101]

Thanks it's clear as mud now. No seriously I get it if any part of the MF is in the open then it is counted as in the open for the cohesion test, correct.

[petedalby]

Thanks it's clear as mud now. No seriously I get it if any part of the MF is in the open then it is counted as in the open for the cohesion test, correct.

Correct

[OldenTired]

Thanks it's clear as mud now. No seriously I get it if any part of the MF is in the open then it is counted as in the open for the cohesion test, correct.

and damn good too. no more of this "toe in the rough" bulldust you used to get in DBM.

[lawrenceg]

Thanks it's clear as mud now. No seriously I get it if any part of the MF is in the open then it is counted as in the open for the cohesion test, correct.

and damn good too. no more of this "toe in the rough" bulldust you used to get in DBM.

Wrong.

It's explained in the glossary, p135.

"POAs and Cohesion Test modifiers only applying "in open terrain" do not count:
If the base claiming the POA or causing the cohesion test modifier even partly enters uneven, rough or difficult terrain."

THe CT modifier is for :

"MF testing for having lost close combat even partly against mounted troops or heavy foot in open terrain"

NOT

"MF in open terrain testing for having lost close combat even partly against mounted troops or heavy foot"

The thing causing the modifier is "mounted troops or heavy foot in open terrain".

[dave_r]

I may have misunderstood your meaning Lawrence, but since the Cavalry aren't in the rough going and are inflicting the - in the CT then this still counts.

This is exactly what oldentired is referring to - if you want to gain terrain advantage your BG needs to be solidly in the terrain not with the rear most chap with his toe in the wood, a la a cricketer desperately trying not to get stumped...

[philqw78]

The problem would occur if you had a terrain piece with a straight edge, so the MF could be in and the Mtd/HF out. In that case there is a - CT modifier if the MF lose due to those causing the test not being even a little bit in the terrain.

[lawrenceg]

I may have misunderstood your meaning Lawrence, but since the Cavalry aren't in the rough going and are inflicting the - in the CT then this still counts.

This is exactly what oldentired is referring to - if you want to gain terrain advantage your BG needs to be solidly in the terrain not with the rear most chap with his toe in the wood, a la a cricketer desperately trying not to get stumped...

You did not misunderstand me, the modifier still counts in the "rear most chap with his toe in the wood" situation.

However, the modifier would not count if the MF were entirely in the open and the Cavalry had their rear edges in the rough, or if the terrain edge was wiggly and part of each MF base was in the open but part of every Cavalry base* was in the rough.

* I assume this includes rear rank and overlap bases as they are in combat, but not other bases of the BG.

[ravenflight]

Thanks it's clear as mud now. No seriously I get it if any part of the MF is in the open then it is counted as in the open for the cohesion test, correct.

and damn good too. no more of this "toe in the rough" bulldust you used to get in DBM.

Actually, I didn't mind this in DBM. Since it was an 'element' game, you would consider the terrain to be about an element larger than the actual terrain piece. Considering it is rare to have a forest cut to an exact edge and that smaller less impressive trees and shrubs would border the forest (similarly with any terrain feature) I thought it worked well. Your lighter troops could operate NEAR the terrain where they felt safe, and your heavier troops would have to stay well away from the terrain where they didn't feel safe (unless it was well and truly 'your' terrain feature).

With BG's it's a totally different game and would work 'less well' IMHO.