Slitherine

Si wrote: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 ...

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
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"

philqw78 wrote: 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?

GHGAustin wrote:

philqw78 wrote: 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?

The only problem I see with disorder is that in all other circumstances (as far as I am aware) the cause of disorder is visually apparent. The causes are either terrain or proximity of elephants, both of which end when the condition ceases to apply. This would be a time based use of disorder. Remembering when it was inflicted and when it is removed adds a new and different mechanism.

I think I would rather see the more severe disruption apply. This seems as severe as being burst through.

Thanks,

The simple fix is if they can't make it that far, they don't. (Lights interpenetrating getting the 2 MU bonus)

"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 ...

shall wrote:

"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 ...

Views on this specifically as a considered amendment please.

shall wrote:I think better if it applies to all, but we could keep it to movement if there was a major issue. I can't see anything that would bother me too much on compulsory moves.

Si

Views on this specifically as a considered amendment please.

batesmotel wrote:I assume LF would still get the 2" bonus when figuring this

Chris

hammy wrote:

batesmotel wrote:I assume LF would still get the 2" bonus when figuring this

Chris

Why?

The 2" bonus is normally irrelevant anyway. The vast majority of interpenetrations fall into the "in all other cases" clause anyway including most of those by light foot.

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."

batesmotel wrote:

hammy wrote:

batesmotel wrote:I assume LF would still get the 2" bonus when figuring this

Why?

The 2" bonus is normally irrelevant anyway. The vast majority of interpenetrations fall into the "in all other cases" clause anyway including most of those by light foot.

I asked mostly just to clarify the intended amendment. If it is intended to supersede the 2 MU move for LF in the rules, it needs to explicitly include that. If it doesn't supersede it might also be worth explicitly noting that but that might be unnecessary "legalese" . Otherwise it is likely to just generate more arguments.