Dodgy Interpenetration

[MarkSieber]

LF interpenetration is historically legit and without it some armies wouldn't function properly or would waste the troop type entirely. For example, Mid Republican Romans would find the velites clustering on the flanks.

I would support no moving through unless there's room to make it with a +2mu. But I don't like the push-backs--a column of elephants being pushed back by light foot just doesn't comply with the laws of physics

[DavidT]

Substitute the bullet at p 48 with:

• If a battle group does not have sufficient move distance to pass fully through another battle group:
  • battle group pass completely through if there is room beyond and it doesn't exceed its normal move distance by more than 2 MU. It cannot shoot this turn.
  • Otherwise, bases of the moving battle group that reach far side of the battle group being interpenetrated are moved all the way on the far side. Those that did not reach are placed with the front base in the contact with the near side. [...]

I think this is an excellent fix.

[speedy]

Nik,

"The more I think on this the more I prefer the idea that if you can't interpenetrate fully then you can't at all."

You need to be mindful of 25mm, which has a completely different relationship between bases sizes and move distances.

Zero tolerance would prevent two ranks of English billmen interpenetrating two ranks of English Archers (minimum move distance of 14cm, versus a 3" move) .... or a single rank of Chariots or Elephants interpentrating two ranks of LF (minimum move distance of 14cm again, versus a 4" move) .... or two ranks of cavalry interpenetrating two ranks of LF (minimum move distance of 14cm again, versus a 5" move.)

Cheers, Ian.

[nikgaukroger]

Ian, good point. I'm only just starting with 28mm and so tend to just think in 15mm terms

[spike]

Nik,

"The more I think on this the more I prefer the idea that if you can't interpenetrate fully then you can't at all."

You need to be mindful of 25mm, which has a completely different relationship between bases sizes and move distances.

Zero tolerance would prevent two ranks of English billmen interpenetrating two ranks of English Archers (minimum move distance of 14cm, versus a 3" move) .... or a single rank of Chariots or Elephants interpentrating two ranks of LF (minimum move distance of 14cm again, versus a 4" move) .... or two ranks of cavalry interpenetrating two ranks of LF (minimum move distance of 14cm again, versus a 5" move.)

Cheers, Ian.

I know its an obvious point, but "Big toy's" might have to use bigger MU's, to make the rules work in the same way as "Small toys".

Spike

[dave_r]

That's the whole point though isn't it - if you artificially reduce the width of the table then the game is hugely different. In DBM 25mm armies never had Light Chariots or Light Horse because just about any flee move would have them off the back of the table....

Because like it or not at competitions we use a 4' wide table then it is very good that they use the same movement rates.