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.
How could doubling them end in the same number of bases or in bases half the recommended size??? :-?
:-)
Alan: 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.
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.
Mike: 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?
James: 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...
Alan: 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?
John said
""Double THEM" - as in double up the NUMBER of bases... ;-)
How could doubling them end in the same number of bases or in bases half the recommended size??? :-?"
Because you are using DOUBLE the number of HALF size bases (as shown in the diagrams and quite clearly described), using each pair to represent a single LaSalle standard sized base...
And BTW - there is a :-) attached to that last post...
John said
"the above is due to the player/general's deployment and previous movement choices, the latter solely due to the scale distortion of the units footprint..."
How is having your units hard up against each other inadvertent and not due to your "deployment and previous movement choices"?
And it is just more noticeable due to scale distortion - the same effect applies if we were using an exact scaled unit footprint...just on a much smaller scale.
So back to my original point - how much "free" interpenetration is too much?
"So back to my original point - how much "free" interpenetration is too much?"
a good point this one:) I usually let people play pretty easy if its not a game breaker:) ...if its an obvious interpenetration then roll for the DiSR ....
when you are playing with somebody who really should know the rules then exasperate them if they want to line everything up tightly base to base so that they can squeeze everything together into the attack against the poor old line:( if they want to play it a bit cheesey then let them take the penalties for their gamesmanship! after wheeling and taking interpenetration tests a few times they will finally see the errors of their ways (that should stop the mass phalanxes appearing on the table as well:))
Alans right and sounds like he plays a good game when he says "give your units room to manouerve" then nobody can complain.
its a pity Alan, Dakiwimike and Mycenius aren't local lads as it would be good to have a few beers with the lot of you:)....you all seem up for a bit of banter and always put forward some good views:)
right its Sunny now in the UK so...I'm off for a bit of fun! (a few beers as well!)
cheers Paul
How is having your units hard up against each other inadvertent and not due to your "deployment and previous movement choices"?
Your example of 2 lines one behind the other with a slight overlap and presumably with no room to pass each other via an oblique move is a situation that could exist both IRL and on-table, so is not an anomaly caused solely by figures/basing nor a valid reason (IMO) to exclude interpenetration penalties (while the wheeling line or column adjacent to another unit is).
:-)
Nah - sorry, it's nothing to do with the basing size, it's the fact that we are talking about rigid square things butted up against each other, which when wheeled will by their physical nature interpenetrate, the size just makes a difference in how far they interpenetrate. It will be the same proportion of their depth that interpenetrates regardless.
And I'm sure in real life that two lines overlapping as I said (10mm = 1/16 of a battalion frontage = very roughly 20 files for a 640 man battalion in 2 deep line) would quite happily have the ability to contract, bend etc. to get past each other as well.
So my point is you can't claim the wheeling is a special case - there are loads of situations where our rigid toys are going to have marginal interpenetrations where in real life they would just squeeze past each other, and people just have to be reasonable about it because writing rules for when you have to test would be a nightmare.
Personally I'm quite flexible (pun completely intentional) about it because it drives me nuts to have pedantic details get in the way of a good game :-)
Although I'm also not completely happy about people throwing masses of columns about shoulder to shoulder - what is that, some sort of phalanx? :-)
Although having said that I will happily be completely hypocritical and use such masses on the table - because it's hard enough fitting my conscript hordes on as it is :-) :-)
And actually if you wanted to try an experiment using real unit footprints then when you form attack column take off all but 2 bases - because at 80mm x 25mm it's about the right ratio for a real column.
In fact to take it to extremes we could try having substitute bases for the different formations - 160mm x 5mm for lines say. That almost sounds like a fun exercise.... :-)
Well this has become quite a discussion. I for one will be putting this to my gaming club members for discussion.
1. When wheeling interpenetration is determined by the path of the FRONTAGE only, all depths and 'trailing' bases are ignored.
2. The unit MUST end up in a valid formation and not overlapping other units or impassable terrain or other similar objects.
Thoughts?
Hi adesant
Those both sound decent easily remembered solutions and basically how we played anyhow even if not strictly correct. Seems much more intuitive to use frontage rather than trailing edge/corner as determining factor in such wheels.
Cheers
And actually if you wanted to try an experiment using real unit footprints then when you form attack column take off all but 2 bases - because at 80mm x 25mm it's about the right ratio for a real column.
Because you are using DOUBLE the number of HALF size bases (as shown in the diagrams and quite clearly described), using each pair to represent a single LaSalle standard sized base...
Garbled? Harrumph - you mean the pearls I was casting were too lustrous for the gaze of the masses... :-)
Must get on with completing my Austrians so I can trounce you in a "proper" scale...though actually that's a good point - the depth problem is a lot worse with the 50mm square bases in 28mm - hadn't been thinking about that previously..
:-)
See - eye strain caused by small figures addles the mind and betwixts the senses...
You must log in to post.