Fighting while partly in terrain

[andrew]

Hi

At the club today there was some debate about fighting in difficult terrain and when the -1 combat factor penalty should apply.

If you have an element that is straddling good and difficult going (such that the terrain bisects the element frontally), which terrain is the element in from a combat perspective?

If we now turn the element 90 degrees and you have your front edge in the terrain, but the rear is not, which terrain is the element in from a combat perspective?

Similarly, if we now turn the element 180 degrees, such that the rear edge is in the terrain, but the front is not, which terrain is the element in from a combat perspective?

Some people have interpreted the rule that the entire base of the element has to be in terrain, whilst others claim the entire front edge must be in the terrain (before the -1 is applied).  We couldn't find the relevant section in the rules - thoughts anyone?

Cheers
Andrew

[SteveC]

Hello,

According to P20, and Fig 25, 'to defend a terrain feature, all the defending element must be inside an area feature'... and any enemy element contacting it at least partly on the opposite side of the features edge.

Hope This Helps, Steve

[Swampster]

Page 19 says...
"An element in more than one type of going is treated for movement and close combat as the type that would slow Cavalry more and for visibility, ambush and shooting as that which would hinder visibility least".

So, in theory, a toenail in the woods helps infantry vs. cavalry.

The only places I can think of the definition on p.20 applying is the Moving into close combat - Corner contact (p.33) or effect of TZ (p.32).

PK

[andrew]

Hi Steve

Thanks for that.  We found that part but thought it wasn't relevant for the first scenario described (where you straddle the terrain frontally) because it doesn't stipulate how the combat factors are affected.

Hi PK

Thanks for your reply.  I think that is the relevant section (not sure how we missed it).  "An element in more than one type of going is treated for movement and close combat as in the type that would slow Cavalry more and for visibility, ambush and shooting as that which would hinder visibility least."

Looking at the first half, "that would slow Cavalry more" seems to pertinent - but what does it mean?  A Cavalry moves 240 paces in good going, 160 in rough going and 80 in difficult going.  So if any part of your element is in DG, then you incur the combat penalty, where applicable.  It doesn't stipulate the front edge or the entire element, so yes a Bd with a toe in the DG would make the Bd incur a combat penalty.

BUT what if your opponent is partially in DG and you aren't?  The rule states "an element in more than one type of going" - so if a Bd has been recoiled such that he has his toe in the DG, and say my Cav is in frontal contact with the Bd but fully in the GG, then IMO the Bd takes the penalty but the Cav does not.  Is this interpretation correct?  I think the Cav incurring a penalty because the opposing foot soldier has the toenail in the wood is a throw-back to 3.1.

Cheers
Andrew

[toby]

Yes - its a throwback to 3.1. The only case where the going of the opponent is relevant is for Pk(F), Bd, Wb(S/O) or Hd(O) in DG vs mounted who count the DG as GG.

Remember in DBMM the Cv who are fighting are shooting at you from close range, so if they are not in the DG and you are partially in it, they stay out of the wood and just shoot at your guys on the edge of the wood.

[Swampster]

I guess it is more relevant for combat outcomes. My rules aren't handy, but IIRC quick kills by Kn etc. often don't count if the opponent is in non-GG. (By opponent, I presume it means the potential victim ).

PK