I threw this diagram together to check to make sure that i'm playing it right. When wheeling OR any other maneuvers the only 'thing' that need to fit through gaps and avoid other units is the 'frontage'. The depth of the front units and any other units trailing are irrelevant. They only become relevant at the end of the move to make sure no bases are sitting where they should not be, on units/impassable etc.
Hope this diagram shows..
No, the entire footprint of the bases/units matters. If you can't move, wheel, etc, without interpenetrating, then you have to abide by the rules for interpenetration. (Roll a DISC test to determine whether or not you can continue.)
Now, I realize that in the case of a March column, that raises some questions about how the remaining bases act, if the front one wheels. For instance, do they suddenly swing around behind the first one, or do they proceed like battleships in a line, each wheeling at the moment they move forward and reach the turning point?
To be honest, I don't really have an answer for that, other than to say that the unit must end in a legal formation and not "sitting on" any friends. In the above example at least, it's simple: roll a DISC test and then either wheel and move... or not, depending upon the roll.
In the above example at least, it's simple: roll a DISC test and then either wheel and move... or not, depending upon the roll.
I agree that is what the rules say. You get the same thing with rough. If the left hand unit was instead rough going you would count as moving through rough. With non-bending columns the left hand unit/rough going can be quite a LONG way away and still get moved through, which can get pretty annoying with large units.
Personally I don't play it that way. I would just make the move and ignore the interpenetration as long as I ended clear.
If a pedant made me test for that interpenetration because it is what the rules say (or quoted Sam from the forum), I would then happily know I can now freely use legal moves like a reaction formation changes to halve the attacker as reward for wanting to stick exactly to the rules as written.
Cam
Its also something where there can be a significant difference in the game depending on whether your bases are square or rectangular... The latter (e.g. the common 15mm basing) get a big benefit from being shallower and having much shorter march columns (i.e. the base depth is less than the standard move distance of a BW)...
On a side note - I'd be curious how much play-testing was in 15mm vs. say 28mm assuming the standard sized bases - not because of any gripe about this specific subject above - but just because it's easy for unforeseen consequences to be overlooked inadvertently, and if 15mm was the predominant scale it would have "under-played" the issues with bendy march columns, wheeling in tight places (as above) and so on... :-)
It was pretty heavily playtested with both square and rectangular bases. We have both.
So Sam, have you ever picked up on any subtle differences the base sizes make - i.e. bases that have a a 3:2 or similar ratio versus 1:1 footprint. It seems to me there would be a some benefit to the former with the shallow depths?
Incidentally - Do many people do the 'recommended' 40mm wide by 50mm deep 15mm-scale bases (with 2+ ranks of figs)? That'd be even worse - short BW for movement but bases deeper than wide?!
My 15mm are all on 40x30mm in 2 ranks and my 25/28mm are 50x50mm in 2 ranks for infantry.
My 15mm are all on 40x30mm...
One recent games where base sizes mattered was a 15mm game (40x25 for one side and 40x30 on the other). We did notice one situation when one side was able to change formation to square in a tight position where the other side would not have been able to do it.
As always simply agreeing to treat both armies the same would fix most problems.
Cam
Having different base sizes can have significant consequences in some circumstances. Both larger and smaller bases can have advantages in different circumstances.
If I am playing a game where both sides have different sizes that can lead to anomalies I suggest to my opponent that we use virtual base sizes (i.e. the ones recommended in the rules), if there is an issue, to ensure no one gets an advantage.
I remember being spectacularly disadvantaged in a game of Fire & Fury due to different base depths. All my bases were 1" deep and my opponents were 3/4" deep. We each had two corps of infantry. None were on the table at start and for each side there were two parallel access roads on to the board. Every unit had to come on in march column one behind the other. Due to his shallower bases my opponent was able to get all his army onto the table some 5 or 6 turns before me and I didn't stand a chance!
:) ...I must admit, when we play Fire and Fury Alan, we would have certainly allowed you to get your troops on at the same time as everybody else, and not penalize you for different base sizes.
It does help if everybody plays with the same base sizes though, but a little bit of understanding makes for a better game even with differing base sizes:)
Paul
I remember being spectacularly disadvantaged in a game of Fire & Fury due to different base depths. All my bases were 1" deep and my opponents were 3/4" deep.
:that's a reaalllllyyyy big wink:
"Do many people do the 'recommended' 40mm wide by 50mm deep 15mm-scale bases (with 2+ ranks of figs)?" - do you mean the cavalry John? Because the 15mm Infantry recommended size is 40mm x 25mm for both examples.
I assume those doubled examples are using normal bases sizes from other rulesets - anyone know which set the 1" wide by 2" deep cavalry come from? Strangest basing I've seen.
Mike - Ive assumed the "recommended" one is that 2 of 40 x 25 = 1 Lasalle Base - so the base is 40mm x 50mm - i.e. you would have 8 40 x 25mm stands for a 4-Bases unit...
anyone know which set the 1" wide by 2" deep cavalry come from? Strangest basing I've seen.
most common bases for both infantry and cav are 40 x 30 at 15mm. either 4 or 6 of this size for one unit.
a quick search will throw up a few threads on this subject :)
Cam,
"If a pedant made me test for that interpenetration because it is what the rules say (or quoted Sam from the forum), I would then happily know I can now freely use legal moves like a reaction formation changes to halve the attacker as reward for wanting to stick exactly to the rules as written."
I apologize for my denseness but do you think it's unrealistic, or gamey to require the interpenetration test? I use the interpenetration rule but am very much of the 'let's play to have fun' variety of player? Of course I also feel that rule changes are fine as long as both players use the same changes and agree to them before hand. I only ask because if I ever have the pleasure of gaming with you I would hate to be thought of as a pendant, not that I know what one is. :)
I play using the unbent column technique and to prevent the whipping-effect, the unbending must be done off of the front stand.
Mycenius your banter is fully appreciated :)
By way of explanation - a lot of my armies are on bases that are deeper than suggested by rule authors. My reasoning is simple - the aesthetics are what matter to me or I would play with wooden blocks or counters. So I want my toys to look pretty. A lot of rule writers suggest base sizes that are impractical for todays figures. Old rules such as Fire and Fury were written over 20 years ago when figures were smaller. A lot of modern rules authors are frightened to change the basing conventions that were established in the 70's and 80's because they assume that everyone has existing armies based on the old sizes that worked with smaller figures, and so perpetuate the old sizes. Ever noticed how many chariots and elephants have their derrieres hanging over the back of their bases in ancients?
For my 15mm Lasalle I put all cavalry on 40mm square bases not 40mm x 30mm. The smaller bases with modern figures mean that the bases will not mesh together. The tail of the preceding horse interferes with the nose of the following horse which ends up damaging the figures apart from looking like the one horse is sniffing the others arse.
I really like Sam's base withs approach because you can do what you like in respect of base sizes and the number of figures you use per base and the rules still work without changing move distances or ranges.
" one horse is sniffing the others arse."
Hi Alan ...you must stop attacking in waves....try it line abreast instead:) ....thinking about it, I cannot remember the last time I charged my cav line abreast?....i have done it a few times in the reaction phase to get a few extra dice.....but I cannot remember the last time I saw or used a large cavalry unit attacking line abreast.(could be a useful post:)
....and by the way good luck at the tourney, I have'nt a clue what army you might use....hopefully Spanish:)
cheers Paul
but do you think it's unrealistic, or gamey to require the interpenetration test? I use the interpenetration rule but am very much of the 'let's play to have fun' variety of player?
I think interpentration is a rule where playing strictly as written leads to bad and unrealistic outcomes.
Take a really common situation, two battalions (A and B) in line side by side touching.
AAAABBBB
Most players would happily wheel AAAA off to the left. But technically AAAA's back corner would interpenetrate BBBB and so require a test. Does anyone do this?
Making a test in this sort of situation means there is some magic gap you should leave between A and B (say 12.3456mm if you bases at 40x30 but 10.3475mm if 40x25) so you can wheel. Do we really want players to have to learn this?
From a simulation point of view it also makes no sense since lines should actually be only a few mm deep, there actually isn't any interpenetration.
The same happens with march columns. If you don't have bendy columns, then march columns (particularly large units) generally can't wheel without interpentrating lots of friends around them. Moving in attack column across the table would probably be faster since march columns would often gets stopped by failed interpenetration tests if they make even slight course corrections. This does not seem desirable nor realistic.
My view is that interpenetration and bendy columns is a situation where most people play it intuitively (aka incorrectly) and get the right results. I have yet to have a argument over either.
Cam
Hi John
But there isn't a 15mm cavalry example with 40 x 25mm requiring double ups - it's either four bases of 40 x 25mm to make a unit or 8 bases of the NB size which each pair is 50mm square, in which case I assume you would use a 50mm BW.
The infantry recommended basing is either doubling ranks or files but both ways end up as 40mm x 25 for a base.
Mike
But there isn't a 15mm cavalry example with 40 x 25mm requiring double ups...
The infantry recommended basing is either doubling ranks or files but both ways end up as 40mm x 25 for a base.
Mycenius your banter is fully appreciated :)
The tail of the preceding horse interferes with the nose of the following horse which ends up damaging the figures apart from looking like the one horse is sniffing the others arse.
Cam: But technically AAAA's back corner would interpenetrate BBBB and so require a test. Does anyone do this?
Michael: I play using the unbent column technique and to prevent the whipping-effect, the unbending must be done off of the front stand.
Mycenius - are you serious - you mount your cavalry at an angle relative to the sides of the base to make them fit? Wouldn't look proper at all old boy. Are they performing an equestrian display? Can't see the point of that at all.
"Umm - not how I read it ..."
Yes - you have 8 _real_ bases, but each is half the size of a recommended base, either horizontally or vertically, so with each pair you end up with exactly the same footprint as the recommended base size of 40mm X 25mm.
I'd always assumed that the blue dotted line around the pair of bases and the fact that the text refers to "or double them to make a more attractive base" (i.e. base singular) means you are supposed to treat each pair as a virtual base when manoeuvring, and so they behave exactly the same as a unit based on four 40mm x 25mm bases.
cheers
Mike
Alan I must say after sitting through a couple of hours looking at John's cavalry figures last weekend I never noticed the diagonal positioning - so the effect is quite subtle.
I think the interpenetration rule is going to end up as ask your opponent - if there is technical overlap and he wants you to test then you have to test (and of course apply the same in reverse, so best sought it out ahead of time).
Because i can't see how you can ever make a rule for this without a heck of a lot of complication. I mean where do you draw the limit?
If I have two units in line , one to the rear of the other but with their ends overlapping by say 10mm - would you make me test to bring the rearward one forward past the other? How about if it was 5mm? or 1mm?
DaKiwiMike said "... If I have two units in line , one to the rear of the other but with their ends overlapping by say 10mm - would you make me test to bring the rearward one forward past the other? How about if it was 5mm? or 1mm?"
To answer your Q's in order - Yes, Yes & No [grin]
Columns charging side by side but wanting to make a slight wheel [which would interpenertrate] ... i'd probably make the point to my opponent that, by the rules that would require a DISC test, see which way they want to play it & then stick to that throughout the game
James
With regards to all this interpenetration nonsense. Have you ever thought that that is why in real life there were intervals between formations and that they didn't deploy 'touching' one another?
You must log in to post.