cheesy rule

[bahdahbum]

If you have a good look at the movevement rule pg 48, moving trough friendly troops might lead to some interesting cheesy movement, much more cheesy than terrain and still very legal . it was shown to me at britcon ( and used in a restriced manner as my dear opponent found it also cheesy but allowed ) .

When one unit interpenetrates another unit and all bases reach the interpenetrated unit, the moving unit is pushed forwards and the bases are placed on "the far side" . Now imagine this : a LF unit is interpenetrated by a CV unit which moves his full 5 MU, all bases reach the LF but the CV is still in the LF . So the CV is placed on the far side and moves more than 5 MU ( will move 6-7 MU if the LF is in 2 ranks ) . Now very legaly , you could move a LF unit 4 bases deep in front of a CV unit, have the CV unit move to reach the rear of the LF unit, all bases reaching the LF, the last ones by one millimeter , and your CV unit is moved to the front of a 4 bases deep LF unit, more than 7 cm further ahead, or at least 3 MU making it a 8 MU move . Rocketspeed and still legal

Is that not cheesy ..

Now is simple way to counter this is to change the rule and permit this only in case of unvolontary interpenetration while fleeing, evading etc....

any comments ?

[david53]

If you have a good look at the movevement rule pg 48, moving trough friendly troops might lead to some interesting cheesy movement, much more cheesy than terrain and still very legal . it was shown to me at britcon ( and used in a restriced manner as my dear opponent found it also cheesy but allowed ) .

When one unit interpenetrates another unit and all bases reach the interpenetrated unit, the moving unit is pushed forwards and the bases are placed on "the far side" . Now imagine this : a LF unit is interpenetrated by a CV unit which moves his full 5 MU, all bases reach the LF but the CV is still in the LF . So the CV is placed on the far side and moves more than 5 MU ( will move 6-7 MU if the LF is in 2 ranks ) . Now very legaly , you could move a LF unit 4 bases deep in front of a CV unit, have the CV unit move to reach the rear of the LF unit, all bases reaching the LF, the last ones by one millimeter , and your CV unit is moved to the front of a 4 bases deep LF unit, more than 7 cm further ahead, or at least 3 MU making it a 8 MU move . Rocketspeed and still legal

Is that not cheesy ..

Now is simple way to counter this is to change the rule and permit this only in case of unvolontary interpenetration while fleeing, evading etc....

any comments ?

I fear this will appear more now.

Is that right a light foot unit two bases wide four bases deep ie 80mm(3mu) deep. A Cavalry BG is 4 and a half MU behind the light foot. If moving there full move the Cavalry all front bases touch the rear base of the Light foot they all move 2mu in front of the light foot having moved 9 and a half MU? is this correct.
Dave

[bahdahbum]

It was bound to spread anyway ! so let's find a solution before it get's out of hand .

And as for 9 MU movement it seems more or less correct ...

I discussed it with Gilles for tournaments and it will be restricted one way or another .

[david53]

It was bound to spread anyway ! so let's find a solution before it get's out of hand .

And as for 9 MU movement it seems more or less correct ...

I discussed it with Gilles for tournaments and it will be restricted one way or another .

No your right I knew about this was shown how it worked at the club on Monday night. To be honest can't see how the writers can stop this happening its not like the problum with restricted area. This is actually how it is written so a FAQ can't work in my mind. I think it was raised at Britcon and passed by the umpire if I can remember sorry Hammy if I'm wrong. it seems like one of those things the more it appears the more people will shout loudly about it watch this space.

[timmy1]

Simple way to stop it (assuming I have understood). Allow the non moving player 3 options:

1, the interpenetrating unit passes though and gets the bonus
2, the unit interpenetrated gets pushed back and the front of the moving stands where it reaches with it's natural movement if the interpenetrated unit were not on the table
3, the interpenetrated unit gets pushed forwards.

The non-moving player is not allowed to choose an option that would otherwise result in an illegal move. In the example from Dave, the options produce

1, Cav 9 MU move.
2, Cav 5 MU move and the LF retrograde about 1 MU
3, Cav 5 MU move and the LF forwards 0.5 MU

How does that sound? It can be added as an errata.

[bahdahbum]

Dave,

I did speak of it to Hammy but asked no ruling as it is legal . I just pointed out that it might need some attention and an errata .

Now it seems to me that Timmy's solution is too complicated , but it is in searching and discussing hat a solution will be found .

A simple solution is , unless evading/routing if you interpenetrate another unit, you must be able to go the whole way trough it or you may not go trough .

[hazelbark]

This has been pointed out before and the authors are aware.

It could actually be worse, imagine an 8 stand LF unit and you hit it the long way. I think that was the real teleport.

I think the general consensus was to ask players not be abusive or egregious of this rule in the spirirt of not trying to break the rules and then wait to see who deserved the punch in the mouth for breaking the agreement.

Search RBS punch in the nose recommendation.

[david53]

This has been pointed out before and the authors are aware.

It could actually be worse, imagine an 8 stand LF unit and you hit it the long way. I think that was the real teleport.

I think the general consensus was to ask players not be abusive or egregious of this rule in the spirirt of not trying to break the rules and then wait to see who deserved the punch in the mouth for breaking the agreement.

Search RBS punch in the nose recommendation.

Can't find the thread your talking about.

So if this happens in a game it must be okey as its written that way and it can be planned. No need to call an umpire then.
Dave

[hazelbark]

If they used it for a 1/2 MU gain or it was the result of an unplanned position, I would let it slide. But if they seemed intent to plan to abuse it I would call the umpire and expect a ruling in favor of sportsmanship.

[david53]

If they used it for a 1/2 MU gain or it was the result of an unplanned position, I would let it slide. But if they seemed intent to plan to abuse it I would call the umpire and expect a ruling in favor of sportsmanship.

I think it went the other way IIRC at Britcon once again Hammy don't get mad if I got this wrong, not double guessing umpires just if its in rules. If its in the rules I am afried people will play it that way whatever the distence gained. TBH I agree with you but not sure if umpires judge on sportsmanship. Saying that the Game 650 point comps have sportsmanship written into the rules of the comp IIRC.

[marioslaz]

Well, this is normal. You can write all the rules you want, but there will be always a little hole and someone who finds it and abuse of this. What about a gentleman agreement by which if someone in tournament use a such cheesy system all boo at him?

Perhaps someone remember I found a way to improve chance of success when you fight spear/pike against impact foot. I never used it. I don't want to lose my respectability with friends with whom I play.

[Blathergut]

Well,
Perhaps someone remember I found a way to improve chance of success when you fight spear/pike against impact foot. I never used it. I don't want to lose my respectability with friends with whom I play.

What was it??

[dave_r]

If they used it for a 1/2 MU gain or it was the result of an unplanned position, I would let it slide. But if they seemed intent to plan to abuse it I would call the umpire and expect a ruling in favor of sportsmanship.

I raised this during Beta testing. Since no changes were decreed then, I don't regard this as Cheese at all. In fact it is written into the design

Unfortunately, there are no real ways around this - if you push the unit out of the way, then LF could be used to move HF "backwards" who could then turn around to get away from an enemy charge, which is worse.

It is also legislated for to a degree in that if you move 2" more than your normal move then you can't fire.

Incidentally, this was ruled at in Britcon and Hammy ruled in the interpenetrator's favour (as he should have)

[zeitoun]

A simple solution is , unless evading/routing if you interpenetrate another unit, you must be able to go the whole way trough it or you may not go trough

I think that is the best solution. No interpenetration if you cannot pass totally.

[philqw78]

You can get really abusive with this. Both the LH and the Cav can get a 9MU move. As they interpenetrate each other consecutively.

[mbsparta]

Let your opponent do whatever he wants. If you don't think he is playing within the spirt of the rules, don't play against him again; tournament or no tournament.

Mike B

[kal5056]

You can get really abusive with this. Both the LH and the Cav can get a 9MU move. As they interpenetrate each other consecutively.

I think this only works with troops that can interpenetrate each other normally. (examples used are all light foot) Can't do it with just anything.
Gino
SMAC

[hazelbark]

If its in the rules I am afried people will play it that way whatever the distence gained. TBH I agree with you but not sure if umpires judge on sportsmanship.

I was the IWF umpire and if it came up i would have ruled on sportsmanship. Don't recall if it did.

The issue is severe or minor.

[david53]

Seems agood way to move LF and Cavalry across the table an extra 4MU, but it does say LF can only move an extra 2MU for a total 7MU.

[marioslaz]

Well,
Perhaps someone remember I found a way to improve chance of success when you fight spear/pike against impact foot. I never used it. I don't want to lose my respectability with friends with whom I play.

What was it??

You can contract the front of a 6 bases' BG of spear drilled on 2 rows to a column when you are near enemy impact foot. If you do it when you move your BG within 6 MU from your enemy, it will be very difficult for him to use counter measure, like to bring shooting troops in fire range to your spear BG. Of course you cannot use this tactic if your opponent have a screen of skirmishers ahead of impact foot. Contracting to a column, you minimize the effect of impact, where impact foot are advantaged. Then you can expand in the following manoeuvre phase. In this way you get a light chance more to end impact phase steady (66% in column instead of 56% in line; chances have been calculated with a software which simulates 100000 impact melees). You pay for this the price to fight first melee with an enemy overlap unmatched, but in statistical terms it's worth it.

Anyway, this is just statistic. I never used it because I consider this tactic cheesy. There is a more historical way to play it. You can set up one of your spear in column, flanked by other spear in line. This works better if one of flanking BG is in 2 rows and the other in 3 rows (assuming all BGs are in 6s). This is something like Epaminonda tactic at Leuttra.