MF losing to foot and mounted in the open

[AlanCutner]

Had a game at the weekend where a BG of MF longbowmen had to take a cohesion test for losing a close combat. They were fighting a mix of MF Dailami and Cv. Overall they took more hits than inflicted, but against the Cv they inflicted more hits than taken from them.

The question that arose was, does the -1 for 'losing a close combat even partially to mounted in the open' apply. I thought it did, and the ruling went that way. My opponent disagreed.

[hazelbark]

I am very sure it counts as the -1.

[gozerius]

The MF lost the combat. Its opponents included mounted. Therefore it has lost a combat at least partially against mounted and suffers the -1.

[SirGarnet]

The MF lost the combat. Its opponents included mounted. Therefore it has lost a combat at least partially against mounted and suffers the -1.

Aye, as stated ** in the CT table on p 113.

[ShrubMiK]

I can't think how else "losing a close combat even partially to mounted in the open" cpoud be interpreted.

[grahambriggs]

I think you're right Alan, but I can see how it might be argued. For example, say I have some MF that fight other MF and cavalry. the MF beat mea 5-0. I beat the cavalry 4-0. I've lost, so test.

Have I lost a combat even partially to mounted? They did no hits, so I might claim I haven't lost partially to them in that to lose at all to them I have to have suffered a hit.

But if the cavalry hit at all, it's clear cut. And I would play it that if the cavalry fight but do no hits it would also be a -1.

[SirGarnet]

That the BG lost the close combat is clear - a loss is against all opponents together.

The table also does say the modifier for fighting them applies whether or not they inflicted more hits.