MF defeated by HF in the Open

[spotteddog]

as far as i can see there is no rules based argument that challenges stewarts view that medium foot who lost impact frontally to the medium foot element of a p+s bg dont take a minus one on the cmt for losing to hf.

I may well be wrong though not having attended the recent FOG R training camp down madeira way

the same applies if the pk are not in overlap to the losing mf for sure as far as ai can see e.g. in column behind.

i reckon i wouldnt get too humpy if i was asked to take a minus one if I lost with medium foot to p+s in their regular formation of s,p,s even if it was still mf to mf only as long as the pk were overlapping. having said that there may be some debate there about the protecting pk being in "combat". the does "overlap = combat debate" havng already been had in the fog am arena iirc. i think someone asked if it was combat as the overlaping unit was free to move away at any time.

the difference here could be that the pk are not free to move away but the same would apply to mf facing commanded shot with mounted giving overlap.

hh

[marshalney2000]

I think I now agree that the rules as written do not give a -1 in the impact phase if only a medium foot element of a pike /shot unit is fighting and equally would not give a -1 if such unit was in your favourite formation of column. Although the p/s unit in columbwould test as heavy foot if they themselves lost despite MF being at the front.
In a melee situation where a pike overlap is contributing a dice to a melee there is no doubt in the rules that element is fighting and the -1 would apply to the solely medium foot if it lost the melee. This would apply in both cases I.e. An integral pike element or a seerate unit in overlap. It would also give a -1 to the solely MF unit if the overlapping element was mounted etc. Where does it compute that an overlapping element which is contributing a dice to melee is not fighting? Indeed you cannot shoot at that element because it is fighting. Read the rules!!
The fact that the unit can move away is irrelevant until it actually does.
John

[spotteddog]

rules say minus for "having lost close combat even partly against heavy foot" not "fighting".

the debate - if there is one - is around if overlap = close combat. the doubt being - can a bg be in close combat and be able to move away (not break off for the avoidance of doubt).

my view is that overlap = close combat but i can see the argument - having read the rules.

[marshalney2000]

Discussion finished I think. Unless anyone else would like to confirm just to put Hunter's mind at rest.
John

[spotteddog]

i think this shows the value a fresh pair of eyes brings to the game. well done to stewart who spotted this. not totally convinced that in overlap = in close combat but i'm happy to play it that way as it seems to make more sense to me in terms of what the authors intend. watch this - my first oppo at britcon will instruct me that in overlap = in overlap, not in close combat !!! its only a wargame!

nice discussion. thanks all, enjoyed it.

hh

[marshalney2000]

Hunter look at the shooting factors where it describes factors that apply to shooting at and shooting from units that are in close combat. There it defines a situation for units who are in close combat as an overlap only I.e. It clears indicates that units in an overlap situation only are defined as being in close combat but you do not get a -1 POA for shooting at or with them albeit you cannot actually target the element in overlap as a target. This is pretty much a clincher to me.
John

[kevinj]

Yes, there is no question that troops in overlap (whether or not they are able to move away at some point in the future) are in close combat. John has pointed out a number of areas in the rules that specifically state this.

The question of when the -1 for losing to HF (or DF) applies against a P&S unit is less clear. There are 2 options:

1) The P&S counts as HF regardless of the position of the HF bases. This argument is supported by the facts that the BG both moves and takes Cohesion Tests as if it were HF and is based on the design premise that a P&S BG represents a number of smaller units grouped together. In essence the pike and shot are more intermingled than the base depiction implies.

2) That the - only applies if the HF contributed to the combat, including as an overlap. This is based on an extension of the way that mounted or elephants are assessed as having participated and has at least an element of consistency with those other situations.

Personally, I favour option 1, but I can see the other argument.

[quackstheking]

I'm with Kevin and I have always played that any loss to a mixed BG counts as losing to Heavy Foot.

My rationale is that this is a "Top Down" set of rules and that each base represents the majority type of troops therein. Thus whilst we depict P&S 6 paks, as two pike bases with musket/arquebus either side, the reality is that there are pike in the MF bases and vice versa. Therefore if you lose to what appears to be just an MF base in a mixed BG, there are at least some HF in that BG and therefore when losing to any base in a mixed BG, I am happy (!) to take the -1 CT for losing to HF!

That's my pennyworth and I too accept, as Kevin points out above, that the rules are not explicit but I believe are implicit in this interpretation!

QED!

Don

[marshalney2000]

Don, thanks for your input and I think your comments on micro components within each base has a lot of logic. I suppose at risk of arguing against myself, I could then say that if this was the case why would an element of shot turning to face a flank attack not count as being protected by the inherent pike.
Funny how this thread has grown arms and legs. The issue game out of a club game last Thursday when a unit of my pike and shot impacted a BG of commanded shot but only my shot hit the one base frontage of the enemy rather than the pike. If my nut had counted as HF the extra -1 would have dropped the enemy to fragmented rather than disrupted as I outscored them 2 to 0 in the impact.
John

[quackstheking]

Because there were insufficient foot inherent within the base to give protection!

(plus the rules explicitly cover this situation!)


Don

[marshalney2000]

Don, I agree the rules are clear on this point and I certainly do not want to open up another can of worms.
John

[nigelemsen]

See, I'm just avoiding the situation and not bringing hf... Expect the -1 to be applied anyway simplessss....

[quackstheking]

See, I'm just avoiding the situation and not bringing hf... Expect the -1 to be applied anyway simplessss....

Nigel - you are naughty - you must know your Hatamoto's Guard are Heavy Determined foot?

Don

[nigelemsen]

See, I'm just avoiding the situation and not bringing hf... Expect the -1 to be applied anyway simplessss....

Nigel - you are naughty - you must know your Hatamoto's Guard are Heavy Determined foot?

Don

Sssh.. My ninja spies must typed that bit of duff info anyway my proposed list is on my blog... Which means any wins I squeak in will be all the humiliating for my opponents

[marshalney2000]

Nigel, a really lovely army. I look forward to seeing it on the table at Britcon.
John

[nigelemsen]

Nigel, a really lovely army. I look forward to seeing it on the table at Britcon.
John

Yes will be interesting to play, "mongols with terrian troops" the photos are borrowed for inspiration.. Need to edit images to a due reference...