Latest topics
» Help in making a errata/FAQ
Yesterday at 7:56 am by wombatdazzler

» find Notes of Schermagliatori
Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:51 pm by dadiepiombo

» Impetus at Derby?
Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:43 am by Cyrus The Adequate

» Will the Army list be changed by Impetus 2
Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:14 am by dadiepiombo

» Opportunity Charge clarification
Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:11 am by dadiepiombo

» Different base size
Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:07 am by dadiepiombo

» Main unit and Support unit in second combat
Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:02 am by dadiepiombo

» Toughening Up CP
Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:46 pm by Cyrus The Adequate

» An Ancient Campaign using Sabin's Empire as a basis and Basic Impetus (augmented) to fight the battles
Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:53 pm by 1ngram

Impetus at Derby?

Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:29 am by Cyrus The Adequate

Anyone interested ? 7th & 8th October at a new venue - Bruntingthorpe …

Comments: 11

Wintercon '17 July 15-16th

Sat May 06, 2017 11:44 pm by Tarty

Canberra July 15th-16th

Basic Impetus 2
28mm
Game days are Saturday and Sunday


Comments: 0

BI2 tournament - 25 March 2017

Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:08 am by RogerC

Would anyone be interested in a 28mm Basic Impetus 2 tournament on 25 March …

Comments: 24

28mm Impetus Competition York Sunday 5th February 2017

Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:44 am by Cyrus The Adequate

The traditional start to the Impetus Competition calendar in the UK is York in …

Comments: 80

1° BASIC IMPETUS tournament

Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:19 am by PAPERO

in Castegnato , near Brescia, Sunday, 08.01.2017 Cool

1st tournament BASIC …

Comments: 3

Cancon '17 Canberra, Aus

Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:15 am by Tarty

Cancon '17
Canberra, ACT

28mm  400pts
Friday 27th and Saturday 28th of …

Comments: 0

June 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Calendar Calendar


Interpenetration from the front

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Interpenetration from the front

Post by RogerC on Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:26 pm

The first bullet point of rule 5.7.1 says that an interpenetrated unit may be forced to move forward when interpenetrated from the front and the interpenetrating unit doesn't have enough movement to pass completely through. At first sight, this seems sensible, but has some odd effects when multiple interpenetration are involved.

Suppose there are CL(A), a CM and CL(B), one behind the other. CL(B) moves forward, interpenetrating and passing through the CM and stops on CL(A). CL (B) is now in front of the CM and using the second bullet point of 5.7.1, CL(A) must move back. By wording earlier in the rule, it is placed behind CL(B) once CL(B) has completed its movement. But in doing so, it moves onto the CM. Since the CM is interpenetrated from the front, it moves forward. That takes it onto CL(B) which is forced back, interpenetrating CL(A) from the front, which is forced forward.... An impossible loop of actions occurs.

We played it that, when CL(A) moves back, it moves far enough to get behind the CM, as that at least stops the loop, even if it isn't really in line with 5.7.1 and is closer to what would happen in 'full' Impetus. Can anyone see an alternative?

There is then another oddity. After CL(B) has moved to the front, it can use its second move to move back onto the CM, which clearly is frontal interpenetration and so moves the CM forward. Thus the CM may be advanced for virtually the entire base depth of CL(B) without the CM being activated. The CM could, for example, be advanced so it moves to within shooting or charge range of an enemy unit to its front.

This latter advancing of a unit without activation caused a bit of surprise at the tournament on Saturday, but I can't see that it is wrong. Have I missed something?

RogerC

RogerC
VBU 3
VBU 3

Posts : 138
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by Zippee on Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:27 pm

I disagree that CL(A) interpenetrates the CM - I think CL(B) interpenetrates both CL(A) and the CM going forward and then displaces both CL(A) and CM.

CL(A) pushed the CM back, it is not moving it does not interpenetrate.

As for CL(B) moving forward and then back through the CM, I think that is fine - I'm only really interested in the final positions after the manoeuvre and can justify the CL moving through and around in all kinds of ways. mechanistically it might look odd but holistically it's fine.
avatar
Zippee
VBU 5
VBU 5

Posts : 539
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-05-19
Age : 54
Location : London, UK

View user profile https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/sets/

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by RogerC on Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:00 pm

Thanks Zippee. I welcome any solution but I'm not sure I understand your suggestion.

We are agreed that CL(B) interpenetrates the CM and CL(A). If it stops on the footprint of CL(A), as I think it is allowed to do, it has cleared the CM so the CM is not pushed back by CL(B). On the other hand, CL(A) must move back, which it does only when CL(B) has completed its move, following the sentence of 5.7.1 immediately before the first bullet point. CL(A) moves back into the CM as it must move behind CL(B).

I think that means CL(A) interpenetrates the CM from the front. The backwards action of CL(A) is described as a move, and I believe the only move available is for it to be placed behind CL(B). By the first bullet point, I think the CM must then move forwards.

I don't understand why you say CL(A) pushes the CM back. CL(A) can interpenetrate the CM (as it can any mounted except elephants), and the push back of the second bullet point only applies when the interpenetration is from the side/rear. In this case, CL(A) is moving into the CM from the front of the CM, so I think the first bullet point applies. There isn't anything I can see which requires CL(A) to move behind the CM, as it would in 'full' Impetus. 5.7.2 only applies if the movement is a retreat or pursuit.

Neither 'full' Impetus nor Baroque have the 'push forward' of the second bullet point of 5.7.1. It seems new to BI2.

I expect this is just an unintended result of multiple interpenetrations, which individually make sense. As I said, we resolved it by making CL(A) move back till it cleared the CM, as in full Impetus. But if there is something I've missed that causes the CM to be pushed back, so I can keep within BI2, I'd welcome it.

It is good that you are happy with CL moving CM (or even CP) forward, when the CL moves back into the front of the CM. I'm still getting used to the consequences of 'push forwards'.

RogerC



RogerC
VBU 3
VBU 3

Posts : 138
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by Zippee on Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:43 pm

But CL(A) isn't the moving / activated unit, CL(B) is - all CL(A) is doing is making way for CL(B). It does so by the minimum necessary and any knock-on is also minimal. I don't believe it 'interpenetrates' as a mechanic because it is not moving, we're just shuffling the bases of CL(A) and the CM for CL(B) to complete its move.

Just because the translation describes it as a move doesn't make it an activation - lord how I wish the terminology used was more dependable! A move isn't an activation, an activation can be a move . . . Smile
avatar
Zippee
VBU 5
VBU 5

Posts : 539
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-05-19
Age : 54
Location : London, UK

View user profile https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/sets/

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by RogerC on Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:55 pm

Thanks Zippee. If I've understood correctly, you are saying that the interpenetrating or 'moving' unit in 5.7.1 must be an activated unit. A unit which changes position due to being interpenetrated is not 'moving' for the purposes of this rule, and so does not trigger interpenetration responses from other units it encounters when changing position. An interpenetrated unit is repositioned sufficiently to get it to a position clear of other units, but no more. I can see that gets me out of my difficulty, even if it means giving a special meaning to 'moving' in this rule.

A small difficulty is that the interpenetrating unit in 5.7.2 need not be an activated unit. A pursuing or retreating unit could even belong to the Inactive player. I suppose we just say that 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 are separate. In favour if this is that 5.7.2 doesn't use the term 'moving' at all.

I would be interested to see if others, particularly Lorenzo, are happy with this way of interpreting 'moving'. As you say Zippee, we may be getting troubled by a translation issue.

RogerC

RogerC
VBU 3
VBU 3

Posts : 138
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by jeztodd on Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:34 pm

Hi I might be slightly deviating from the exact example you are both discussing ....

BUT just picking up on the 5.7.1 Voluntary Interpenetration page 9 first col / first bullet point reference to "move forward".

I believe a few players reading this, understand this to only apply to the S,T.FL (not impetuous), CL troop categories referred to in the sentence above.

In my rules I have therefore put a pencil line under the third bullet point as these then apply to the S, T, FL and CL categories only.

You can then read the fourth bullet point sentence starting "other units or large units can be interpenetrated if the interpenetrating unit has enough movement to pass entirely through the unit it is interpenetrating ....." as a complete new paragraph. For me using this logic a CM unit can never be "moved forward" as a result of interpenetration.

Looking at the example you specifically refer to - getting a bit lost as don't really use cavalry based armies. Personally it is clear CL (a) moves backwards and it just has to find a space to fit - I would have stuck it behind the CM unit.

Phew this is a difficult thread to follow with too many "rear penetrations" going on ....!

Cheers Jez
avatar
jeztodd
VBU 3
VBU 3

Posts : 164
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by RogerC on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:29 pm

Thanks Jes. Yes, the terminology we are using is a bit unfortunate.

So, using your interpretation, CL can only interpenetrate CM or CP if the CL can pas completely through, using its second move if necessary. CM and CP never change position when being interpenetrated. Similarly, if FL want to interpenetrate FP, the FL must either have enough movement to pass completely through, or must start in contact as per the last bullet point. The push forward and push back of the first two bullet points only applies to S, T, FL or CL being interpenetrated.

That is consistent, at least, although it is slightly strange to look at five bullet points and say that the first three explain further the interpenetration in the preceding sentence and then last two are about something different. But I mustn't get hung up over punctuation.

That certainly makes 'push forward' less revolutionary than I'd thought. Maybe I've made this more complicated than it should be.

RogerC

RogerC
VBU 3
VBU 3

Posts : 138
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by grenadiergrandson on Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:54 pm

After the tournament last Saturday and the (very reasonable) discussions that followed I think a line should be drawn between interpenetration for S, CL and T etc and 'Others' that follows several points below. Never mind the CL/CM confusion if you apply the rules as they appear to read a Phalanx will make way for interpenetrating S, that is obviously not right.



Last edited by grenadiergrandson on Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:13 am; edited 1 time in total

grenadiergrandson
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 61
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by Zippee on Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:32 am

RogerC wrote:A small difficulty is that the interpenetrating unit in 5.7.2 need not be an activated unit. A pursuing or retreating unit could even belong to the Inactive player. I suppose we just say that 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 are separate. In favour if this is that 5.7.2 doesn't use the term 'moving' at all.

I think that a pursuing or retreating unit is still being caused to 'move' - ie it's making an actual, defined movement. They are not being 'displaced' to make way. But, true they may not technically be the 'activating' unit, so that terminology doesn't distinguish them adequately enough - they may perhaps be considered to be 'reacting'?

To my mind the important distinction is between a unit that is being moved in accordance with movement rules, either as defined by activation or caused by combat results and the act of displacing or making way of bases in order for other units to complete their required movement.
avatar
Zippee
VBU 5
VBU 5

Posts : 539
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-05-19
Age : 54
Location : London, UK

View user profile https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/sets/

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by dadiepiombo on Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:44 am

can you please post a diagram?
avatar
dadiepiombo
Admin
Admin

Posts : 848
Reputation : 33
Join date : 2014-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by jeztodd on Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:50 pm

Hi Lorenzo - can you please comment on the query that the "move forward"just applies to S,T, FL (non impetuous) and CL?

On this thread I think the query was CL (a) , CM , and CL (b) are in a column. CL (b) moves through the CM and lands on top of the CL (a) unit. As this is interpenetration from behind the CL (a) moves back BUT does it end up behind the CM unit or does it push back the CM unit.

Cheers Jez
avatar
jeztodd
VBU 3
VBU 3

Posts : 164
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by dadiepiombo on Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:08 am

it doesn't push the CM.
Only S, CL, FL and T can be pushed back.
avatar
dadiepiombo
Admin
Admin

Posts : 848
Reputation : 33
Join date : 2014-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by Zippee on Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:39 am

So if it doesn't push the CM back or forwards - is the intent that it is just placed behind the CM - I'm happy that that be the case but it's not what the rules appear to say.
avatar
Zippee
VBU 5
VBU 5

Posts : 539
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-05-19
Age : 54
Location : London, UK

View user profile https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/sets/

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by dadiepiombo on Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:21 pm

rules says:

"4) Light Cavalry can interpenetrate and be interpenetrated by any Mounted with exception of Elephants.
The Army Lists may allow other sorts of interpenetration.
When S, T, FL and CL are interpenetrated, these automatically allow the interpenetration, moving behind the interpenetrating Unit after the movement is completed. "

So it is only S, T, FL and CL to leave space to interpenetrating Units.

avatar
dadiepiombo
Admin
Admin

Posts : 848
Reputation : 33
Join date : 2014-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Interpenetration from the front

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum