Slitherine

Taken form end of cheesy move strand to start a new discussion on this .. comments please.

Si

Indeed it would Karsten, but you get the gist.

Perhaps:

"If a base as enough move to even partially enter the last interpenetrated base it would pass through it is placed all the way through the interpenetrated BG."


Discuss ...

... by the way I am getting married on Sat and off on honeymoon for 2 1/2 weeks so if I don't repsond it is only that.


Si

_________________
Simon Hall

If I have a column of 6 bases of cavalry of which the first stand can reach the head of a BG column of 4 light infantry, then I will be able to move the cavalry something like 11 inches. The cavalry column is about 7" deep, so the 4 - 5" move to get the lead stand past the infantry column, then the additional 6" to finish moving the rest of the unit through.

Why not just prohibit any move that will cause a unit to move more than its base movement +2 MU? After all, the maximum move in a charge or break movement is normal move +2. In what instances should units be allowed to move more quickly than those?

I think the proposal would require the last stand of Cv to reach the front rank of LF. So the final stand of a column of 6 Cv would have to move 150mm (to cover the five stands ahead) plus the rear ranks of the LF. Not possible under the proposal.

Spike

The rude one.

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. Probably would reward correct positioning of skirmishers/interpenetrators in the first place rather than rewarding the use of LF to increase your movement

spikemesq wrote:I think the proposal would require the last stand of Cv to reach the front rank of LF. So the final stand of a column of 6 Cv would have to move 150mm (to cover the five stands ahead) plus the rear ranks of the LF. Not possible under the proposal.

Spike

The rude one.

Ah, in that case, never mind.

nikgaukroger wrote: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. Probably would reward correct positioning of skirmishers/interpenetrators in the first place rather than rewarding the use of LF to increase your movement

I must admit this is the most common sense and easiest approach to take, so would get my vote.

Lets be honest, interpenetrating other troops should if anything slow troops down not speed them up.

I also don't think this breaks any other rules or is really open to abuse.

nikgaukroger wrote: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. Probably would reward correct positioning of skirmishers/interpenetrators in the first place rather than rewarding the use of LF to increase your movement

An all-or-nothing rule makes sense for voluntary passage, but there should be some leeway for evades/routs. Otherwise, we'll end up with something like the "room to recoil" issue in DBM. Since evades/routs have a 4 inch swing in distance, it seems pretty harsh to burden placement of LF with anticipating all possible evades/routs.

I actually like the proposed rule (as I understand it above) because it keeps some of the flexibility of the RAW but addresses the absurdity of the "Bridge to Nowhere" LF exploits.

Spike

Not the nice one.

spikemesq wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: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. Probably would reward correct positioning of skirmishers/interpenetrators in the first place rather than rewarding the use of LF to increase your movement

An all-or-nothing rule makes sense for voluntary passage, but there should be some leeway for evades/routs. Otherwise, we'll end up with something like the "room to recoil" issue in DBM. Since evades/routs have a 4 inch swing in distance, it seems pretty harsh to burden placement of LF with anticipating all possible evades/routs.

I actually like the proposed rule (as I understand it above) because it keeps some of the flexibility of the RAW but addresses the absurdity of the "Bridge to Nowhere" LF exploits.

Spike

Not the nice one.

or, evading/routing mounted sweep LF with them instead of interpenetrating.

OT wrote:evading/routing mounted sweep LF with them instead of interpenetrating.

I like the idea of routing battle troops pushing LF in front, don't know if there is any justification for it though.

OldenTired wrote:or, evading/routing mounted sweep LF with them instead of interpenetrating.

I like that.

spikemesq wrote: An all-or-nothing rule makes sense for voluntary passage, but there should be some leeway for evades/routs. Otherwise, we'll end up with something like the "room to recoil" issue in DBM. Since evades/routs have a 4 inch swing in distance, it seems pretty harsh to burden placement of LF with anticipating all possible evades/routs.

No leeway means you are more likely to get them out of the way in good time - i.e. before you evade. IMO this would be far more historical than waiting to be charged and then evade - historically LF types on the whole contributed nothing to battles and are over represented in their effect in FoG IMO.

A couple of difficult angles could play havoc with this. Organising the LF positioning could be quite difficult. I would not like to see games decided by a mistake with LF positioning or a low or high VMD roll for LF.

I have not noticed a problem with this rule, and I am playing a lot of games. Just because some interpenetrators can get a move bonus doesn't necessarily mean the game is broken. If you know the cavalry are going to leap forward through the LF, then it isn't really a problem. I would rather have the current rules that mean getting through skirmishers is easy than change to something that makes attacking harder.

Played a competition game on Sunday where LF were running forward and backward through angled pike blocks when evading from LH. It was nice not to have to spend a lot of time on positioning issues. The tactical issue was about the LF retreating behnd the pikes when threatened, returning to shoot when safer. The actual move distance was somewhat irrelevant. It meant we concentrated on the more interesting parts of the game.

rogerg wrote: I have not noticed a problem with this rule, and I am playing a lot of games. Just because some interpenetrators can get a move bonus doesn't necessarily mean the game is broken. If you know the cavalry are going to leap forward through the LF, then it isn't really a problem.

I would suggest that if they can leap through a LF BG and clear, say, a wood then there is a problem - yes you can plan for it, etc. but is it credible?

It can also be used as a way of getting away from trouble - as Phil Powell did playing Graham Evans in the last round of Britcon - as it bounces you quite a way if you meet a LF BG on its side edge IMO this is also not credible.

nikgaukroger wrote:

spikemesq wrote: An all-or-nothing rule makes sense for voluntary passage, but there should be some leeway for evades/routs. Otherwise, we'll end up with something like the "room to recoil" issue in DBM. Since evades/routs have a 4 inch swing in distance, it seems pretty harsh to burden placement of LF with anticipating all possible evades/routs.

No leeway means you are more likely to get them out of the way in good time - i.e. before you evade. IMO this would be far more historical than waiting to be charged and then evade - historically LF types on the whole contributed nothing to battles and are over represented in their effect in FoG IMO.

Maybe the correct solution is to remove LF as a troop class. Allow armies that brought scads of disreputable underlings to battles to buy them as one BG of mob to sit at the back of the table and add one BG for army size and have no other effect. If contacted, they would disperse like an unfortified camp. Let the manly types get on with real fighting.

Chris

p.s. Maybe the authors should remove disreputable underlings on horses as well. Make Scythians and their ilk fight with unprotected cavalry if they want to try to make life miserable for manly troops.

rogerg wrote:A couple of difficult angles could play havoc with this. Organising the LF positioning could be quite difficult. I would not like to see games decided by a mistake with LF positioning or a low or high VMD roll for LF.

LF count as BG's and their use is as important as any other BG. The should not be immune to the risks of getting too close to opponents who can catch them, or able to duck and hide behind other BG's without any impact to either of them.

However, LF have the limitation of an additional 2 MU to their normal move for all interpenetrations, so I would not think they are the major concern here.

It's the Lh and Cv etc. which do not have this limit that are the problem and can jump though other groups without such a limit that seem to be the problem.

batesmotel wrote:
Maybe the correct solution is to remove LF as a troop class. Allow armies that brought scads of disreputable underlings to battles to buy them as one BG of mob to sit at the back of the table and add one BG for army size and have no other effect. If contacted, they would disperse like an unfortified camp. Let the manly types get on with real fighting.

Chris

p.s. Maybe the authors should remove disreputable underlings on horses as well. Make Scythians and their ilk fight with unprotected cavalry if they want to try to make life miserable for manly troops.

There are merits in both of these suggestions

Most LF types had no impact on battles so need not be represented from a simulation point of view and any LH who are Bow, Swordsmen should really be Cv not LH. However, the reality of players figure collections means it would be a brave, to say the least, rules writer(s) that dropped them suddenly

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. [...]

nikgaukroger wrote: It can also be used as a way of getting away from trouble - as Phil Powell did playing Graham Evans in the last round of Britcon - as it bounces you quite a way if you meet a LF BG on its side edge IMO this is also not credible.

Get away from trouble????????????????? Like some sort of pooof.

Actually Nick I did not use it as a means to get away from trouble, I used it to put my Cav into a charging postition.

philqw78 wrote:
Actually Nick I did not use it as a means to get away from trouble, I used it to put my Cav into a charging postition.

A useful coincidence of getting away

nikgaukroger wrote:
No leeway means you are more likely to get them out of the way in good time - i.e. before you evade. IMO this would be far more historical than waiting to be charged and then evade - historically LF types on the whole contributed nothing to battles and are over represented in their effect in FoG IMO.

Well, if you are just going to hate on LF as a concept, I cannot fix you.

But with or without LF, a hard-line interpenetration rule will create other problems and substantially discourage reserves. If you have to keep huge areas to your rear open for evades, then FoG will favor the long thin battle lines that many disliked in DBM.

OTOH, retaining some burst through ability for evades and routs maintains the utility of reserve lines. By all means, get rid of the teleportation aspects of the RAW, but leave some margins for burst-through evades and routs (e.g., BG is split until it reforms; +2 MU to complete the interpenetration, etc.).