MF defeated by HF in the Open

[marshalney2000]

A battle group of entirely medium foot is beaten by a mixed battle group of MF ands HF. Does the medium foot unit count as being beaten by HF in the open even if the central heavy foot elements did not fight I.e. Only the end shot elements at one end of the unit made contact in the initial impact. In other words does the definition of mixed battle groups on page 147 apply to both the testing unit and the one doing damage to it
Thanks in advance.
John

[ravenflight]

A battle group of entirely medium foot is beaten by a mixed battle group of MF ands HF. Does the medium foot unit count as being beaten by HF in the open even if the central heavy foot elements did not fight I.e. Only the end shot elements at one end of the unit made contact in the initial impact. In other words does the definition of mixed battle groups on page 147 apply to both the testing unit and the one doing damage to it
Thanks in advance.
John

Yes, I think so, because there is something in the rules about a BG 'testing' as if it is the heaviest base in a mixed formation.

So, whilst the MF are fighting MF I think this (a little ambiguously) makes the mixed MF effectively HF.

[marshalney2000]

I think the section is page 147 under mixed battle groups and what category they are considered to be.
John

[ravenflight]

I think the section is page 147 under mixed battle groups and what category they are considered to be.
John

Yes, but if you read that, it's not as clear in the OP example as one would like it to be. I think though it makes sense to be read that way.

The rule on 147 says they TEST as, but doesn't say they 'cause tests as', or 'modify tests as'

[marshalney2000]

I agree it is not clear and that was why I raised it. Looks like we need help.
As I recall, this is the way it was played in the past and you would anticipate that a combined pike and shot unit would have an advantage in combat resolution over say a unit of guys armed with just muskets or indeed bows. They get no POA advantage so this ( if it indeed exists) is all that there is.
Richard or Nick are you out there somewhere?
John

[marshalney2000]

An additional thought is that if not counted as HF could lead to cheesy charges with solely MF units just charging musket elements at impact.
John

[StewartR]

OK, here's my take on this.

When conducting a cohesion test there's a -1 for MF who lost against heavy or determined foot. What is at issue here is whether opposing MF who are protected by the presence of an adjacent HF element count as such? Now as has been pointed out p147 does speak to the assumed troop type of mixed units when testing, but is silent on whether a mixed unit assumes the heavier troop type to inflict the cohesion test on their opponent.

In my head MF are still MF whether they are protected or not and there are many other examples where protected shot/pike are specifically given advantages in the combat phase.

[spotteddog]

C'mon surely a mixed BG in column with 2 MF at the front shouldn't have an advantage over another column of solely MF in combat. That'd be bonkers! I'm with the pfc on this one - protection is your lot!
HH

[marshalney2000]

But if mounted are fighting mounted they get an advantage for an adjacent file of commanded shot who are not fighting so maybe not so bonkers. Indeed MF get a positive POA for adjacent pike even although they are not fighting so maybe not so bonkers.
The reason of course is that even while not in frontal combat they are providing support to the neighbouring files so why are the pike not providing support in the case in point to their regimented shot.
I must confess looking at the wording again and again, they probably do not count as HF but looking at other examples where adjacent files do provide an advantage it seems wrong. I think particularly when you have a unit of MF with say bow being hit by a solid body of pike and shot you would imagine that some advantage should exist somewhere!!

[madaxeman]

Is it in the section on Good Going? As in, "outcomes applying in..?" that's got some useful wording on similar thing to do with MF

[marshalney2000]

Not that I can see, Mr Porter.

[ravenflight]

C'mon surely a mixed BG in column with 2 MF at the front shouldn't have an advantage over another column of solely MF in combat. That'd be bonkers! I'm with the pfc on this one - protection is your lot!
HH

However, if a column of mixed P&S get contacted frontally by a Kiel and lose the combat they are treated as HF not as MF even though only MF were involved in the combat!

[spotteddog]

Extension - If a BG of HF adds a dice from overlap to one of two 2 MF BGs fighting each other and the one without the HF helping loses - does it count as having lost to HF?

There's more - What about if it the MF BGs scored no hits on each other and the HF BG scored 1?

HH

[marshalney2000]

Hunter, read the rules as both those points are quite clear. See cohesion tests and the asterisked points
to the right of minuses for losing to various types of troops such as HF, mounted etc. In essence the HF -1 comes into play in both cases. The heavy foot do not even have to cause any casualties the fact that they are contributing as an overlap is enough.
John

[spotteddog]

[quote="marshalney2000"]But if mounted are fighting mounted they get an advantage for an adjacent file of commanded shot who are not fighting so maybe not so bonkers. quote]

not if they are behind the mounted like what the pike is in our theoretical p+s bg.
HH

[marshalney2000]

Commanded shot behind mounted - is this not an irrelevance to the subject being discussed or is this another new strategy you are developing to blind us with your brilliance at Britcon?

[spotteddog]

Commanded shot behind mounted - is this not an irrelevance to the subject being discussed or is this another new strategy you are developing to blind us with your brilliance at Britcon?

adjacent commanded shot and pike confer protection as far as i can see. i still cant see in the rules how they impose a minus on the test for opposing bgs per the op.

[spotteddog]

especially if the pike are in a column behind the shot. but i may well be missing something in the rules .........

[marshalney2000]

Still open to debate I agree in the Impact phase. In the melee phase no doubt at all. If they contribute a dice to the melee as an overlap then the HF provide a -1 on the cohesion test of the defeated MF battlegroups even if the HF fail to score a hit. Equally overlapping horse would provide a -1 on cohesion tests to all MF battle groups even if they fail to score a hit. Assuming open terrain et al.
Once again, look at the Cohesion test table in the rules.
John

[marshalney2000]

I agree pike in a column behind shot in a column are not particularly advantageous other than as pointed out by another esteemed poster that the whole unit if testing cohesion counts as HF rather than MF.
John