Wheeling and interpenetrating again

[william]

  I know this subject has been covered alot recently but I have been thinking about it for a while.

Most people are stating that elements have to clear lines before they can wheel due to design philosophy and interpretations of the rules so why is an element moving between a element wide gap of enemy elements allowed to pivot 90 degrees to contact one of them in the following example


                             1111     2222
                             aaaabbbbcccc

Element b can contact 1 or 2 in the flank with a 90 degree pivot and this movement must involve interpenetration of either friendly or enemy elements.

Sorry but I am puzzled

also sorry if this is old news.

William

[MikeCampbell]

As far as I'm concerned you do not have to clear the line before wheeling, so the point is moot.

[Richa_Eire]

But any interpenetration caused by the wheeling is an illegal one - the rear corner
of the wheeling element passing through the adjacent elements(s). It is not covered
by allowable interpenetrations. Therefore any sub-group that wants to wheel out of
line must first step forward straight so that its rear clears the adjacent element
before beginning the wheel.

Of interest is that this was a potential issue in DBM. However this was always countered
by the section in Design Philosophy that stated that the elements base was not the amount
of area covered by the represented troops. In fact troops would be concnetrated towards
the front of said base. This argument has been removed as the words concerned are no longer
present in the Design Philosophy section of the DBMM rules.

Personally I have always moved my wheels in this way both under DBM and DBMM... In fact
the way people wheel wide groups under any set of rules is one of the most annoying things around.
Players always seem to be "fast and loose" on this and most of the time the ocrner that is meant
to remain stationary quite often goes backwards.....

Based on all the above I see Williams point as quite valid...

[MikeCampbell]

I hope not too many people read my initial reply.....

This is the type of argument that gives DBMM (or any other rules) a bad name - it is what has been not-very-fondly called "millimetric".

The section on passing gaps only applies to elements that "partly enter a space insufficient for its own frontage...."

ie if there is sufficient space for the element's frontage then it doesn't have to worry about interpenetrating at all.

this is confirmed by a large number of specific cases that are permitted where a "rear corner" or similar would have to "interpenetrate" friends "illegally" if it was a factor - eg:

1/ Leaving a column (specifically allowed at the top of page 32)
2/ Contracting or turning into a column (page 29)
3/ Expand from a column (page 29)
4/ 180 deg turns (page 29)
5/ pivoting 90 deg onto the flank of enemy while within a 1-element wide gap between 2 enemy elements.

In addition there's a common-sense argument - element bases are abstractions necessary for the playing of the game and in "real life" troops wheeling to NOT step sideways to impinge on any unit next to them! 

Failing anything else the "spirit of the rules" under "Umpiring" on page 55 would be sufficient for me to rule against this if I ever encounter it.

[Richa_Eire]

Mike, if you met me you would realise I am one of the least "millimetric" players of DBX rules you could meet.... Your initial response I did see, and I look forward to one day meeting you personally to discuss.

Now I will try to be reasoned in my answer.

1) Wheeling troops is something the majority of players do incorrectly in most rulesets - the one corner forward, one corner back wiggle being the most obvious example.
2) To me it seems totally intuitive that a subgroup wheeling out of line must step forward first so it can clear the adjacent friends.
3) When playing DBM and pointing this out, the answer that allowed your interpretation to happen came from the Design Philosophy section of the rules. This is gone from DBMM.
4) Your examples of when this interpenetration occurs at other times are all valid because the rules
specifically tell you what happens. The interpenetration that can occur when a sub group leaves a line is not specifically covered.
5) Apart from the exceptions you outline the only other allowable interpenetrations are:

No element can interpenetrate friends if these are blocking its march along a road, or in a river, or in contact with an enemy element?s front edge. Otherwise, troops that move straight forward or straight back while passing through and not in spontaneous advance are permitted the following interpenetrations of friends:
?Mounted (and elements double-based with them) that are not recoiling or being pushed back can pass through Light Horse or any foot except Pikes or Hordes, if facing the same or opposite direction.
?Regular Light Horse or regular Cavalry repulsed through regular Cavalry facing the same direction.
?Psiloi can pass through any land troops facing in the same or opposite direction; or recoil or be repulsed through any facing other directions to end directly to the rear of these and facing the same way.
?Regular Blades can pass through regular Blades facing in the same or opposite direction.
?Auxilia or Bows except (X) can pass through Blades facing in the same direction.
?Mounted or foot can pass through train that are at 90? to their own direction and only 1 element deep, or that are facing in the same or opposite direction but are not on the same road
?Boats can pass or be passed through by naval facing the same or opposite direction.

So therefore I contend my interpretation is valid. Unless there is a ruling from Phil or amendment than your interpretation would be only that, your interpretation. And imo it would be wrong.

For interest this very issue came up at the DBMM comp in Britcon in August and was ruled in the way I see it. The Umpire wanted to rule your way but could not find anything to support that interpretation.

Now can you manage a reasoned response or more insults ? If you give a reasoned response here will you still insult on other fora ? I find this very disappointing as in all the fora I am a member of that deal with DBMM, yours has usually been a voice of reason and advocacy for this ruleset. Your current intolerant attitude and insulting responses demean only yourself.

Regards

Richard

[foxgom]

But any interpenetration caused by the wheeling is an illegal one - the rear corner
of the wheeling element passing through the adjacent elements(s). It is not covered
by allowable interpenetrations. Therefore any sub-group that wants to wheel out of
line must first step forward straight so that its rear clears the adjacent element
before beginning the wheel.

Hi

Wow ....

Had never even considered there to be any interpenetration involved.
In real life there is none.

I thought we were attempting to simulate real life, albeit inadequately. 

As long as the elements do end up on top of each other, why invent an interpenetration that is only an artefact of basing figures ? 


neil

[Richa_Eire]

Hi Neil

At least your being civil about it 

But to be honest this is not real life it is a game.... actually in real life I have commanded a re-enactment regiment 160 strong. It was an ECW outfit with two wings of shot of 40 and a centre of 80 pike. The "real life" situation of extracting the centre of pike was to march forward and then either turn 90 degrees or begin a wheel. We could not do this straight from the line as the 15 foot pikes carried on the shoulder got in the way of the flanking musket. I believe the Barriffe or De Gomme drill books from the 17th century show sub units were moved in this way but I am prepared to be corrected.

Mr Campbell seems to think I am being difficult and his response is to insult - in other threads his response is condescension. I am not doing this just to hack him off. Again I say that I am not a "gamesmanship" or "rules lawyer" type of player.... I play for fun and want the believable result. What you and Mike say should happen is totally counter intuitive to what I think should/would happen either in "real life" or on a games table using this set of rules.

I also find it hard to believe this is new to people. I have been playing the DBX system prior to DBM V1.0 being published (we playtested in Plymouth) and this has been raised before. Under DBM it was resolved due to the Design Philosophy section. Are we now making the mistake of expecting DBM rules/interps to be in DBMM when they aren't ? I have already been the victim of that with Elephants and Foot moving together as an exception - under DBMM it isn't, as I found out in my first comp game at Britcon  So I now read what the rules actually say, rather than what I may want them to say  :'(

Regards

Richard

[foxgom]

But to be honest this is not real life it is a game....
..
Again I say that I am not a "gamesmanship" or "rules lawyer" type of player.... I play for fun and want the believable result. What you and Mike say should happen is totally counter intuitive to what I think should/would happen either in "real life" or on a games table using this set of rules.
..
Are we now making the mistake of expecting DBM rules/interps to be in DBMM when they aren't ?

Hi Richard,

If you?re the Richard I?m thinking of, we met at Grandson at the DBM Team Challenge many moons ago and I can confirm your above claim.
Your team were singing songs about killing Englishmen.  (
Nice to hear from you.
[before anyone gets uptight about Irish killing English, I?m English and you had to be there. Lots of countries got together, spent the whole weekend "killing" each other and in the evening singing songs and talking about the absurdity of war].
 
If you?re a different Richard, nice to hear from you too ! 

Ok, from a simplified game point of view:

DBMM is not DBM and I expect all of us have made mistakes playing things as they used to be and not how they now should be.
 
DBMM does have a few non-intuitive simplifications.
e.g. If you move around an obstacle, you still measure in a straight line, through the obstacle.
See commentries page 14. Very non-intuitive.

If the rules are perhaps at some points a bit unclear and need "comments" (surely not "clarifications"  ), I feel we should agree on interpretations which are as simple as possible and least likely to put off new players.
In this particular case, I would continue to play as we did in DBM, keep it simple, and allow the "artificial" interpenetration of the neighbouring element.

Another digression...
I remember playing a Frenchman in Paris a long time ago and expanding my Ottoman cavalry column, carefully putting the superior elements in front and sorting the ordinaries to rear supporting positions.
Turned out he also did re-enactments and was very familiar with Napoleonic drill.  He reckoned my move was perfectly legal but in reality the troops would have wound up with the ordinaries in front !


neil

[Richa_Eire]

If you?re the Richard I?m thinking of, we met at Grandson at the DBM Team Challenge many moons ago and I can confirm your above claim.

Nope, thats me alright....... I agree with needing to keep it simple. But this does need a comment... and not the insulting kind Mike is putting out there...

Regards

Richard

[toby]

It certainly needs to be Commented on. I suspect Phil will do his normal 'obviously its possible' reply at some point and ignore everyone pointing out that the rules don't specifically allow it. Hopefully it will be in the review that he has promised after Book 2 is finished.

In the meantime I would like to ask certain people to try and keep things civil on this forum please. Ad hominem attacks and insults should be traded on the DBMM List, not here. There are no stupid questions, only stupid responses, and not everyone has played for years.

Toby

[Valentinian Victor]

I have brought this up before on the yahoo site.
It is actually impossible to wheel individual units out from a line without interpenetrating other units unless you move the individual unit forward first. Anyone who has been in the armed services, such as myself, will confirm this. No modern military manual contains instructions for wheeling units bigger than company size, and even then those manuals only show instructions for wheeling units either in column of one or two companies.
However, considering that the ground scale used means that the base the figures are on are actually much larger than the ground taken up by the units they represent, then I think there is a case for perhaps allowing units wheeling out from a line to be able to do so as in 'real life' part of the movement would be forward within the base area itself.

[MikeCampbell]

I've been in a marching band and the armed services and I say yes you have to move forward - by about 1 foot.

To clear an adjacent man in the same rank the guy at the corner needs to move forward about 1 foot - in DBMM terms (or indeed any other rules where ground scale is millimetres representing feet, yards or metres) this is inconsequential.

Rear ranks have to march forward to wheel at the same position as the front rank.

The difficulty of wheeling large groups is why it takes 2 PIPs for regulars and 3 for irregulars in DBMM.