fighting mounted in rough

[sparabara88]

in a recent game i had a bg of immortals who charged a bg of lancer cv who enterd a plantation, i now know that was a mistake i lost the advantage i had with the light spear because i charged shock mounted, so on impact we had two dice each on 4
but what was realy annoying was in the melee the cv expanded and because only the front rank of cv was in the rough they fought with two dice so did not lose anything for disorder and because the back rank were still in good going they had two dice, we both had armour but he was swordsmen so had a plus, 4 dice on 4 for the cv 6 dice on five for the immortals, the immortals lost then rolled 4 on the test and became disrupted!
my point is how can a second rank not count as disorderd when the front rank is disorderd and it is fighting a bg who is in rough going, it just seems wrong to me

[hazelbark]

The short answer is the author's had too pick a definiation. They picked to define it by base.

Compare how much better you were that in the open. In the open the would have gotten + for lances + for MF. Then when they won you would have another -1 on the CT.

So had you just wandered up to 2 MU put the cav in a restricted zone and then shot them to pieces.

If the cav tried to turn you could have flank charged them and they would have started disorderd.

[nikgaukroger]

The short answer is the author's had too pick a definiation. They picked to define it by base.

Compare how much better you were that in the open. In the open the would have gotten + for lances + for MF. Then when they won you would have another -1 on the CT.

No you wouldn't. Even in terrain if you lose to Lancers you get the -1 on the CT - and as it is the same modifier as the MF losing one there is no difference.

[hazelbark]

No you wouldn't. Even in terrain if you lose to Lancers you get the -1 on the CT - and as it is the same modifier as the MF losing one there is no difference.

That's what I get for not checking. I thought that was an open penalty. It still would have been a -- POA for MF charging lancers in the open.

[sparabara88]

yes at the time i was in two minds if i should charge or shoot, i thought i was on better factors if i had known i had lost the plus for spear i would not have charged, i guess i am still thinking of dbm factors, it has made me take another look at mf and lf in uneven and rough they are not as safe as i thought!
but i still think if the front rank of a unit is fighting in rough the supporting ranks should count any disorder the same as the front rank, i think thats common sence and not to complicated to apply

[graym]

On a related topic , mounted lancers [ entirely in the open ] fighting troops within terrain keep their + 1.

Do they keep the open terrain +1 fighting against fortifications ?

[nikgaukroger]

On a related topic , mounted lancers [ entirely in the open ] fighting troops within terrain keep their + 1.

But not, IIRC, against other Lancers as you don't get the lancer PoA against lancers (unless you are knightly). of course you may be on about the mounted PoA against MF in the open ...

Do they keep the open terrain +1 fighting against fortifications ?

IIRC the rules say that fighting over fortifications does not count as in open terrain.

[grahambriggs]

So your archers had a reasonable target at their mercy and decide to rush out from their shieldwall and fight them hand to hand rather than slaughter them from a distance? I'm thinking you won't need to learn that lesson more than once!

[sparabara88]

that is true but i was in a plantation so only one rank could shoot so i would need to hit him twice to make him test and three times to get him take a death roll, failing only on a one
why should anyone take a -i on test for losing to lancers in rough when they only count there lance in good going

[hazelbark]

that is true but i was in a plantation so only one rank could shoot so i would need to hit him twice to make him test and three times to get him take a death roll, failing only on a one
why should anyone take a -i on test for losing to lancers in rough when they only count there lance in good going

Because the lance is a sharp long pointy stick. And i get nervous when Fritz standing next to me gets one poked in his eye. Imagine he only has 3 eyes left after that!

[graym]

Nik, that's why I find this area inconsistent. Fighting guys in a wood you keep your plus, fighting guys behind pointed sticks you lose it.
Although I cant find the page that says this .

[nikgaukroger]

Nik, that's why I find this area inconsistent. Fighting guys in a wood you keep your plus, fighting guys behind pointed sticks you lose it.
Although I cant find the page that says this .

That is because it isn't there. Lancers do not get their PoA for being Lancers in the rough.

What I was pointing out is that if you lose to Lancers in rough you still take the -1 CT modifier for losing to Lancers.

[grahambriggs]

that is true but i was in a plantation so only one rank could shoot so i would need to hit him twice to make him test and three times to get him take a death roll, failing only on a one
why should anyone take a -i on test for losing to lancers in rough when they only count there lance in good going

"So, Satrap. You put the best that Persia can offer in a position where they can't shoot properly. You then charge enemy lancers with your shorter spears. And then you're surprised that the enemy break into your formation and start stabbing with their long spears? Didn't you realise that these are hoplites on horses? Don't you recall what happened at Plateae when the hoplites got through the shield wall?"

Fighting lancers in bad going gives you an advantage in that they fight with worse factors usually. But if you do lose, they still have the nasty pointy stick!

[graym]

Sorry Nik , to clarify I am talking about lancers [ or mounted v MF ] in totally clear terrain fighting MF infantry who are in rough.
They seem to keep the lancer and mounted plusses as long as they dont come into the rough. .

The query was about fortifications , with again the mounted seemingly in open terrain on the other side of the forts.
I see it says they are not in the open on page 135 by definition if they are attacking OR defending forts.

Which leads to to another point which I hadnt realized . i.e. heavy infantry defending forts are therefore disordered

[viperofmilan]

Maybe I'm missing something from your example, but why did the cavalry expand to create overlaps? Were not all front and rear rank bases already in combat in the bad going?

Kevin

[gozerius]

Sorry Nik , to clarify I am talking about lancers [ or mounted v MF ] in totally clear terrain fighting MF infantry who are in rough.
They seem to keep the lancer and mounted plusses as long as they dont come into the rough. .

The query was about fortifications , with again the mounted seemingly in open terrain on the other side of the forts.
I see it says they are not in the open on page 135 by definition if they are attacking OR defending forts.

Which leads to to another point which I hadnt realized . i.e. heavy infantry defending forts are therefore disordered

Two things. Mounted completely in open terrain fighting MF in rough suggests that the MF are not entirely in the rough.
Second, Heavy infantry defending fortifications are not in disordering terrain unless they are in uneven, rough or difficult terrain.

[graym]

Yes , MF partially in the rough.

And yes I see it's only POA and Cohesion tests only applying in open terrain that are affected by forts.

[azrael86]

"rolled 4 on the test"

This is the crux of your problem. Overall it's an even combat assuming the cav are superior, if they are average then you should win.

viper - 2 dice at impact suggests that the cav were in column.

[peteratjet]

"rolled 4 on the test"

viper - 2 dice at impact suggests that the cav were in column.

All the more reason to shoot them