And now one about passing through

[landmeister]

I think I read it correctly, but once again confirmation would appreciated.  Please look at diagram enclosed:



All elements are friendly troops looking upwards. The first element of f Pisloi column ends it max move as shown. If I am right, this first element wil be put between the first (head of the Bd column) and the second Bd elements. The head of Bd will be moved forward 2 cm to make room and all other Psiloi element will be in contact with the rear of last Bd column. Right?

Am I wrong or under 1.0 all Bd element should have moved to their rear?  If so, this is an important change because now you can move forward those elements making room for free, and this can be changing our way to play TZ.

Thank you in advance.

[arvnranger]

[it] You are correct IMO. I hadn't noted the "friends shift in the direction moved" stipulation in Para 5 "Moving through gaps or passing through friendly troops"on Pg 32. In the games I play it's usually the psiloi coming *back* through the heavy foot!

If the foremost Bd is pushed into, or further into, an enemy TZ I'd say the Bd could ignore the TZ if the shift were deemed an outcome move. Is it an outcome move? It's not specifically referred to in "Tactical, march, spontaneous and outcome moves and halts" on Pg 28. Moot point. The Ps move is voluntary but the ensuing, mandatory shift by the Bd is involuntary.

Pg 32 Para 5 makes reference to an element's state as "spontaneous". I can't find another reference to "spontaneous" elements in the body of the rules. In the context of this paragraph do you think it means (i) "advancing spontaneously" or (ii) "impetuous" ?

Cheers,
Ivan.

[landmeister]

[it] In the games I play it's usually the psiloi coming *back* through the heavy foot!

This is how I play since 1993! 

If the foremost Bd is pushed into, or further into, an enemy TZ I'd say the Bd could ignore the TZ if the shift were deemed an outcome move. Is it an outcome move? It's not specifically referred to in "Tactical, march, spontaneous and outcome moves and halts" on Pg 28. Moot point. The Ps move is voluntary but the ensuing, mandatory shift by the Bd is involuntary.

This is the key factor IMHO. It's simply not considered at all in the rules 

Pg 32 Para 5 makes reference to an element's state as "spontaneous". I can't find another reference to "spontaneous" elements in the body of the rules. In the context of this paragraph do you think it means (i) "advancing spontaneously" or (ii) "impetuous" ?

It says "advancing spontaneously" and that means that the rule is applicable to impetuous troops (because impetuous not halted advance spontaneously)...and routers (they also move spontaneously) . At least this is how I read it. Was this fully playtested? 

[Orcoteuthis]

Routers move spontaneously, but they don't advance spontaneously. They're going back!

[landmeister]

Routers move spontaneously, but they don't advance spontaneously. They're going back!

Yes, I know, but what I'm trying to say is that the same rules apply to them too. Routers passing through friends push them in the same direction. I understand this, what is weird IMHO is approaching friends due to advancing impetuous elements.  

[Orcoteuthis]

Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.

Your understanding the OP appears to be correct.

[landmeister]

Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.

Sorry, my English has to be improved, I know.  What I want to say is that I understand that a router trying to move out of the batlefield pushes backwards (i.e. towards the table rear) all friends passed through. What I find weird is that impetuous troops moving towards the enemy can make some troops (for example the first Bd in my diagram) ending closer to enemy. I think this can be a covert way to move closer to enemy without spending PIPs, especially when TZ are involved (for pinning enemy, for example). Do you agree?

Your understanding the OP appears to be correct.

Sorry, but what does "OP" mean? 

[Orcoteuthis]

Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.

Sorry, my English has to be improved, I know.  What I want to say is that I understand that a router trying to move out of the batlefield pushes backwards (i.e. towards the table rear) all friends passed through. What I find weird is that impetuous troops moving towards the enemy can make some troops (for example the first Bd in my diagram) ending closer to enemy. I think this can be a covert way to move closer to enemy without spending PIPs, especially when TZ are involved (for pinning enemy, for example). Do you agree?

In general it doesn't seem odd to me that advancing troops may cause friends to advance too. It may be possible to exploit it for unfair advantage somehow, tho I do not offhand see how. Breaking up a blade formation by putting psiloi in it doesn't seem like a good idea.

(Note tangentially that that Ps do not become impetuous from being on an enemy TZ if there's friends in between them and the enemy, so in your diagram the Ps probably wouldn't be impetuous.)

Your understanding the OP appears to be correct.

Sorry, but what does "OP" mean? 

Original or Opening Post, ie. the first post in the thread.

[landmeister]

Thank you very much for your help. 

[LawrenceG]

Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.

Sorry, my English has to be improved, I know.  What I want to say is that I understand that a router trying to move out of the batlefield pushes backwards (i.e. towards the table rear) all friends passed through. What I find weird is that impetuous troops moving towards the enemy can make some troops (for example the first Bd in my diagram) ending closer to enemy. I think this can be a covert way to move closer to enemy without spending PIPs, especially when TZ are involved (for pinning enemy, for example). Do you agree?

Check the rules on what happens when toops in spontaneous advance pass through other troops.

[LawrenceG]

[it] You are correct IMO. I hadn't noted the "friends shift in the direction moved" stipulation in Para 5 "Moving through gaps or passing through friendly troops"on Pg 32. In the games I play it's usually the psiloi coming *back* through the heavy foot!

If the foremost Bd is pushed into, or further into, an enemy TZ I'd say the Bd could ignore the TZ if the shift were deemed an outcome move. Is it an outcome move? It's not specifically referred to in "Tactical, march, spontaneous and outcome moves and halts" on Pg 28. Moot point. The Ps move is voluntary but the ensuing, mandatory shift by the Bd is involuntary.

Pg 32 Para 5 makes reference to an element's state as "spontaneous". I can't find another reference to "spontaneous" elements in the body of the rules. In the context of this paragraph do you think it means (i) "advancing spontaneously" or (ii) "impetuous" ?

Cheers,
Ivan.

Re TZ's one way of looking at it would be to treat the shift as an outcome move if the interpenetraton was an outcome move, otherwise not.

Another possibility is to treat the interpenetration as illegal if it results in another element moving in or into a TZ in a way that is not permitted.

[landmeister]

Another possibility is to treat the interpenetration as illegal if it results in another element moving in or into a TZ in a way that is not permitted.

This is a very interesting option. I will have to study it in detail.

[landmeister]

Check the rules on what happens when toops in spontaneous advance pass through other troops.

Troops passed through by impetuous troops are mostly recoiled (excluding knights and other stuff like that). I'm not worried about that, but on elements pushed forward by non impetuous troops passing through them. In my example the first element of the passed through coulmn will be moved 2 cm forward, and this can mean that they can pin an enemy element that in other circunstances wouldn't be pinned. 

[arvnranger]

Check the rules on what happens when toops in spontaneous advance pass through other troops.

Troops passed through by impetuous troops are mostly recoiled (excluding knights and other stuff like that). I'm not worried about that, but on elements pushed forward by non impetuous troops passing through them. In my example the first element of the passed through coulmn will be moved 2 cm forward, and this can mean that they can pin an enemy element that in other circunstances wouldn't be pinned. 

[it] Having read more closely I see that "spontaneous" refers to interpenetrating elements that would *end in contact with enemy* so I surmise it means "advancing spontaneously". Fleeing and routing elements *can* contact enemy albeit in a very select set of circumstances.

If a passed-through element is required to recoil the element passing through will not usually displace the element further to its front because the recoiling, passed-through element has vacated the space required by the advancing element. I say "not usually" because differing base depths can upset the "space making" intention. In reference to your original diagram the 2nd rank Bd could recoil and still require the 1st rank Bd to move forward, just a bit, to leave room for the Ps.

Elements in an enemy TZ are permitted to move "directly towards the enemy exerting the TZ" [Pg32 Threat Zone Para 1 BP 5(c)]. If the opposing elements were lined up then the 1st rank Bd, displaced forward into or further into an enemy TZ, would not be doing anything that couldn't be done with PIPs**. "Directly toward" implies, to me, the requirement to pivot and/or shift to line up, ie not end oblique to the enemy element's front - otherwise why not simply state "towards". I presume EMTLU could be used to achieve this insofar as the displaced 1st rank Bd would be "moving in an enemy TZ"[Pg33].

** I suppose there could be a PIP saved if an irreg element is is at the front, oblique to the enemy front - it would be an extra PIP for the "not-straight-ahead" tactical move whereas the EMTLU would be PIP free. I suspect one would have to be fairly desperate for PIPs though to addle their formation for such a slight benefit.

Cheers,
Ivan.

[landmeister]

An interesting interpretation, but as I previously said I'm more interested on the consequences of non impetuous pass through moves (as the one of my example). In the game in wich this situation araised, the first Bd moved forward pinned an enemy element on its flank, so my opponent couldn't charge a third element that would have been contacted otherwise. 

Both of us needed up to 15 minutes reading the rules until we agreed this is a new situation in DBMM.