Slitherine

hammy wrote: Here is my suggestion:

When iterpenetrating in the movement phase only a BG is only placed on the far side of the BG it is interpenetrating if the front edge of the moving BG would reach the far side of the interpenetrated BG. In this case the moving BG is placed entirely on the far side of the interpenetrated BG. In any other case the moving BG is placed entirely on the near side.

It looks as it works, well done.
Do you think is it possible to heve this "formally" aprouved on the official site

Blathergut wrote:

philqw78 wrote:...I'm glad ...

(Totally off topic...you're plural now...gallic nobles...haven't seen that one before!)

Another 8000 posts and he gets the "sad online loser" picture

MatteoPasi wrote:

hammy wrote: Here is my suggestion:

When iterpenetrating in the movement phase only a BG is only placed on the far side of the BG it is interpenetrating if the front edge of the moving BG would reach the far side of the interpenetrated BG. In this case the moving BG is placed entirely on the far side of the interpenetrated BG. In any other case the moving BG is placed entirely on the near side.

It looks as it works, well done.
Do you think is it possible to heve this "formally" aprouved on the official site

As I am not an author this is not going to happen until we get them to agree on what if anything they want to do.

I have raised the question on the design forum. We will now have to wait for them to discuss the issue.

Sorry to have been absent for 9 pages ...

Yes a bit of a dog that one if you really want to abuse it - and yep legal in RAW although not really in spirit to gain that much by doing it.

There were several thoughts as we wrote the rules

1. The rules don't represent time but rather phases of activity - so generally the view being if in reality you could make it through then so be it and we are not too wedded to speeds and distances within reason.

2. It needs to work in different directions - so for cleanliness really what you want is to pass all the way through a long column of LF if getting away from enemy; but not if its some sort of funnay advantage near to the hot zone. This matcahes (1) as when running away you would get through to safety; but near enemy a different matter.

3. Passing all the way though is the issue as that is affected by base sizes when in reality the troops are perhaps 5mm deep - its an abstraction created by our use of pretty figures. An 8 base LF column is probably 40mm deep in reality!

4. Abuse potential was there but would it really be material was the question we asked at the time - I guess 18 months in maybe someone has figured out it can be. But I would still ask the question "If its rare and looks odd but matters little do we care that much? - I am hearing a yes"

Will mull it over on my travels this week and recommend something to RBS/TS ... which might be as simple as stamp on foot of abuser .. or a rule change.

Would a simple maximum extension of move 2 base depths suffice - so max Cavalry would be 5MU plus 2 x 30mm = 7.2MU say. Neutral to base sizes in terms fo what you can do although of course added "speed" is more for chariots and least for LF. This would be a rule addition.

Being able to reach front to interpenetrate has some merits too - need to think about side effects. What happens if funny angles etc. too. Is itone bit fo the base or all. At a funny angle distance gain could still be huge.

If I were redrafting I might be tempted to leave rules as is, but have troops who extend move disordered for a bound to reflect them having to rush the job - now that would make it exciting! Longer term what do you think of that idea?

Other thoughts most welcome ... but I think this is the first "material legal rule abuse" that will need a permanent fix ...

... contract put out on Phil last night

Si

I am submitting myself to the War Crimes courts next week. But I was only following orders. Everybody else from Manchester was doing it. We didn't think it was a crime. But I'll still be hung no doubt.

Hanged. Hung is, well, something else.

Paul (pedant)

pbrandon wrote:Hanged. Hung is, well, something else.

Paul (pedant)

Providing at least you know the difference Paul maybe 2 of us are happy about the situation.

pbrandon wrote:Hanged. Hung is, well, something else.

Paul (pedant)

Depends where you hang them from. They are from Manchester, don't forget.

shall wrote:Sorry to have been absent for 9 pages ...




Would a simple maximum extension of move 2 base depths suffice - so max Cavalry would be 5MU plus 2 x 30mm = 7.2MU say. Neutral to base sizes in terms fo what you can do although of course added "speed" is more for chariots and least for LF. This would be a rule addition.

Being able to reach front to interpenetrate has some merits too - need to think about side effects. What happens if funny angles etc. too. Is itone bit fo the base or all. At a funny angle distance gain could still be huge.

If I were redrafting I might be tempted to leave rules as is, but have troops who extend move disordered for a bound to reflect them having to rush the job - now that would make it exciting! Longer term what do you think of that idea?

Other thoughts most welcome ... but I think this is the first "material legal rule abuse" that will need a permanent fix ...

... contract put out on Phil last night

Si

If you want additional move when interpenetrating I'd suggest make it an extra 2MU and then it's the same as when LF go through oother troops (otherwise people will get it muddled up).


One way you could do it is folks interpenetrating skirmishers in movement phase who don't make it the whole way through, just move the skirmishers back to make room. Kind of like bursting through in impact phase.

G

philqw78 wrote:I am submitting myself to the War Crimes courts next week. But I was only following orders. Everybody else from Manchester was doing it. We didn't think it was a crime. But I'll still be hung no doubt.

Hang all them all from MAWS I say as an example

I'm vindicated. Free the Manchester 2.

philqw78 wrote:I'm vindicated. Free the Manchester 2.

Don't you have to wait 17 years first?

Mark

I am seriously impressed.

Phil

If they hang you for this it has two benefits:

1, Guarentee of a new National Champion next year
2, People will most likely not risk trying its again
3, You will not be the person with most post on this forum much longer

(Oh B%$^£*r thats 3).

Terry and I have had a preliminary mess around with some figures ....

First a question (and apologies for nt having time to read it all but getting married on Saturday) ... in the aforementioned versions did the BASES passing through all reach the interpenetarted BG (page48). I have seen some people play the entire BG goes through when its front reaches. I expect the answer is yes but will ask anyway to be sure.

Yes we need to do something to stop extreme abuse and will find a way .. but for the first time it is probably a rule change or alteration.

How about an option as follows :

For a base to pass through if it doesn't have enough distance, it must be able to reach beyond the rear edge of the front rank of the BG being interpenetrated .. normal other rules apply.

So if you were mooving 2 deep cv through a 8 deep column of foot ....rear base of Cv would need to get far enough to get into the front base of LF. If I get my maths correct.

Column of LF = 160mm deep
2nd rank Cavalry at rear = 30mm further back
To get into front rank would need to "move" 170mm

So with this rule even if at very back you couldn't get through moving 5MU = 125mm.

Thoughts from the sufferers, observers and abusers welcome. Just food for thought for now.

Si

shall wrote:and apologies for nt having time to read it all

Don't apologize us. Keep your apologies for your wife, you will need. Believe me, you will need them.

shall wrote:but getting married on Saturday

Piz par te! (phrase in dialect of my city which means "Peggio per te" in Italian and "Too bad for you" in English)
Don't you believe me? You have time to change your mind... a lot of time...

P.S. I'm happily married since 1997... sic...

shall wrote:Terry and I have had a preliminary mess around with some figures ....

First a question (and apologies for nt having time to read it all but getting married on Saturday) ... in the aforementioned versions did the BASES passing through all reach the interpenetarted BG (page48). I have seen some people play the entire BG goes through when its front reaches. I expect the answer is yes but will ask anyway to be sure.

Yes they did. All was totally above board albeit in a rather smelly way.

shall wrote:Terry and I have had a preliminary mess around with some figures ....

First a question (and apologies for nt having time to read it all but getting married on Saturday) ... in the aforementioned versions did the BASES passing through all reach the interpenetarted BG (page48). I have seen some people play the entire BG goes through when its front reaches. I expect the answer is yes but will ask anyway to be sure.

Yes we need to do something to stop extreme abuse and will find a way .. but for the first time it is probably a rule change or alteration.

How about an option as follows :

For a base to pass through if it doesn't have enough distance, it must be able to reach beyond the rear edge of the front rank of the BG being interpenetrated .. normal other rules apply.

So if you were mooving 2 deep cv through a 8 deep column of foot ....rear base of Cv would need to get far enough to get into the front base of LF. If I get my maths correct.

Column of LF = 160mm deep
2nd rank Cavalry at rear = 30mm further back
To get into front rank would need to "move" 170mm

So with this rule even if at very back you couldn't get through moving 5MU = 125mm.

Thoughts from the sufferers, observers and abusers welcome. Just food for thought for now.

Si

Si/Terry

After you discuss this with RBS, can you post the completed amendment the interpenetrations rules on P47-8, so it is in context rather than an orphan line.
I also think there is some millage in what Hammy as added regarding interpenetrating only through front or rear base edges (not from a side edge or through a corner).

Spike

shall wrote:Terry and I have had a preliminary mess around with some figures ....

Yes we need to do something to stop extreme abuse and will find a way .. but for the first time it is probably a rule change or alteration.

How about an option as follows :

For a base to pass through if it doesn't have enough distance, it must be able to reach beyond the rear edge of the front rank of the BG being interpenetrated .. normal other rules apply.

Rear edge and front rank probably need to be worded different, otherwise what if I go through a 2 deep and 4 wide LF BG from the side edge?