Interpentration and Blocking BG

[marioslaz]

The pushing back allows BG that attempt to interpenetrate 2 BG to fit on the table if they don't reach the second. A game mechanic.
So






only has move to get through so ends up pushing back like so

Yes, I know this. But this doesn't apply to the case we are examining, because the two BGs are not one back the other, but side by side. In this case I still think better solution was that you proposed in your previous post.

[sagji]

Each base is considered seperately.

Logically the steps are:

First you move the BG as if the other BGs weren't present.

Now you fix the fact you have bases one on top of another.
And base that is on top of another is moved forward to clear the BG(s) it is on top of. If there isn't a gap beyond the BG then other BGs that don't have bases on top of them are moved to make space.

Bases that were behind bases that were moved forward in step 2 and moved forward so they touch the first BG that was passed through.

If no base in a file ends the move interpenetrating then there is no need to move it clear - so it stays where it is.

SO it ends up at 1.

[MarkSieber]

Thanks, Sagji. This confirms my thoughts after thinking through the arc of the thread.

[marioslaz]

Thanks, Sagji. This confirms my thoughts after thinking through the arc of the thread.

I don't know what do you now think about the question you asked, anyway your diagram with n. 3 is wrong. You push back a BG if there isn't room beyond BG you are interpenetrating (p 48 6th bullet 2nd case). This means if you have 2 BG one back the other, when an LF interpenetrates the first, the LF are placed between the 2 BG moving back the second to make room. Something like this:

Code: Select all

 before            after  
                   2222
  2222             LFLF
  1111             1111

  LFLF

If you have 2 BG side by side, as in your case, your LF must have the movement to interpenetrate both, otherwise LF should split. The problem will be if LF split like in Phil first post, or in a way like this:

Code: Select all

    LFLFLF
  ElEl
  ElElPkPk
      PkPk
      PkPk
    LFLFLF

The difference with Phil solution is I consider Elephant and Pike a block LF must interpenetrate, so if they cannot I put a row of skirmishers before this block and another row beyond it.

[marioslaz]

There is another argument against your solution (diagram n. 3). I use this time emoticons. = Elephants, = Pikes, = LF, = empty. Imagine the situation is this:










That is elephants are aligned to front of pikes (or even near aligned and slightly ahead). Now let's suppose LF can clear elephants but not pikes. Following your diagram n. 3 we will have:










That is pikes (blocking BG in this case) pushed back to make room. The result is illogical IMO.

[deadtorius]

they would not push back the pike since they have to interpenetrate them and the elephants since both units are pretty much even frontage to each other, so you would split the skirmishers if they can't clear the pikes but could clear the elephants. I would think you would end up with half your skirmish line on the back side of the pikes and the other half in front of the elephants and the pikes praying there is no pursuit or its game over for them.

[marioslaz]

they would not push back the pike since they have to interpenetrate them and the elephants since both units are pretty much even frontage to each other, so you would split the skirmishers if they can't clear the pikes but could clear the elephants. I would think you would end up with half your skirmish line on the back side of the pikes and the other half in front of the elephants and the pikes praying there is no pursuit or its game over for them.

Yes, I agree with you, of course, since my example wanted to demonstrate exactly this, that is diagram n. 3 in initial post is wrong because skirmishers cannot push back elephant (in initial case) but they must interpenetrate them. Look also at my post of 24th August.

[sagji]

they would not push back the pike since they have to interpenetrate them and the elephants since both units are pretty much even frontage to each other, so you would split the skirmishers if they can't clear the pikes but could clear the elephants. I would think you would end up with half your skirmish line on the back side of the pikes and the other half in front of the elephants and the pikes praying there is no pursuit or its game over for them.

Yes, I agree with you, of course, since my example wanted to demonstrate exactly this, that is diagram n. 3 in initial post is wrong because skirmishers cannot push back elephant (in initial case) but they must interpenetrate them. Look also at my post of 24th August.

You are incorrect.
In the initial post the LF don't reach the Elephants, thus they can't interpenetrate them. If a base of the LF has both elephants and pike in front of it then it would be placed beyond the pike and the elephant would be moved back to make room. What you don't do is consider the resolving of the interpenetration as an extension of the move and thus that the LF in moving clear of the pike gets extra move distance which then means it reached the elephants, which in turn means it is placed beyond the elephants.

In your new diagram as the front rank reaches both the elephants and the pike the bases that reaches the elephant are placed beyond the elephant, the bases that reach pike are placed beyond the pike.

[zeitoun]

there is too many problems with "Interpenetration" . I think to simplify the rules, we must forbid partial interpeneration . If you cannot clearly pass a BG you stay in front of it.

WHat do you think about that. ?

[marioslaz]

there is too many problems with "Interpenetration" . I think to simplify the rules, we must forbid partial interpeneration . If you cannot clearly pass a BG you stay in front of it.

WHat do you think about that. ?

IMO there isn't so many problems with interpenetration rules. All you need is not to confound beyond with aside. If a BG is beyond the one you are intepenetrating you can move to make room. If the BG is aside, you must interpenetrate and if you can't, you must stop, or split.