PDA

View Full Version : Zero PIP road move


larryessick
12-19-2011, 12:53 PM
In middle of play test today. My son is Medieval German, I am Later Hungarian.

My son has a dismountable knight on the road. His question, since full allowable move to a knight that dismounts is nothing, can he use the zero PIP move to dismount?

:)

My instinct is no but we are not entirely sure.

Martyn
12-19-2011, 02:10 PM
In middle of play test today. My son is Medieval German, I am Later Hungarian.

My son has a dismountable knight on the road. His question, since full allowable move to a knight that dismounts is nothing, can he use the zero PIP move to dismount?

:)

My instinct is no but we are not entirely sure.

Cunning little chap :up

Interesting question, my feeling is that it is not what the rule intended but it is not specifically excluded. The nearest I can see is

“An element whose move is replaced by dismounting is exchanged for the foot type, then moves in subsequent bounds as that type.”

The 0 pip move allows “The first tactical move etc” so if the tactical move is replaced it does not happen and therefore the 0 pip does not apply?

Also the dismounting clause identifies movement in subsequent bounds, note not moves, to be that of the dismounted type. So I think you are not allowed the additional move but not sure how strong the argument is.

larryessick
12-19-2011, 04:24 PM
My instincts say it isn't what the rule intended but that it is perfectly legal.

Pertinent portions of the rules are:

A few army lists permit some of their mounted elements to “dismount” i.e. be exchanged for a related foot element during the game by using a complete single element tactical move to dismount, but cannot remount. (p3)

The first tactical move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if it is by a single element or by a column the leading element of which moves the full distance possible and entirely by road without reversing direction. (p8)

An element whose move is replaced by dismounting is exchanged for the foot type, then moves in subsequent bounds as that type. (p8)

The rules call dismounting a tactical move in one place and say that dismounting is a replacement for a move in another. But, the requirement to spend PIPs only applies to tactical moves: Each other tactical move uses up 1 PIP. (The "other" refers to the previous sentence which had to do with 0 PIP moves.)

If dismounting replaces a tactical move then it costs no PIPs because it isn't a tactical move and only tactical moves cost PIPs. The rules read, The player uses these PIPs to make tactical moves. The only other way to spend PIPs is:

Except in the side’s 1st bound, a move uses up an extra PIP for each of the 3 cases following that apply:
(a) If the element or group to be moved includes any Elephants, Hordes, War Wagons, Artillery, BUA denizens or camp
followers, or moves into, out-of or through a BUA.
(b) If its general’s element has been lost or is in a BUA, camp, Wood, Oasis or Marsh; or if the element or group to be
moved is not entirely Light Horse and does not start within (that is, at or closer than) 800 paces (8 BW) of its general’s
element (reduced to 400 paces (4 BW) if entirely either beyond the crest of a Hill, beyond a BUA or a camp, or in or
beyond a Wood, Oasis or Dunes).
(c) If the element or group to be moved is entirely Light Horse and does not start within 2,000p of its general.

None of that references dismounting.

It seems that dismounting is a tactical move that goes zero distance (hence, replacing a move -- which is different from a tactical move). So dismounting as a tactical move while on the road as the first move of a bound and moving the full distance allowed (zero) seems to be permitted.

Now, I know I'm splitting hairs on the move v tactical move distinction. But, it isn't like it is the first time that such subtle differences mattered in a PB game.

Again, I don't think it is the intent of the rule. But, unless seriously reworded I think it is probably allowed.

larryessick
12-19-2011, 04:27 PM
One more thing.

I am having trouble finding where every dismount costs its own PIP. It is possible that I am overlooking things.

IF a tactical move costs 1 PIP (and dismounting is a tactical move) AND if the elements to be dismounted are part of a group THEN what is preventing using 1 PIP on a group move to dismount all elements?

What did I miss, because I had thought that dismounting now required separate PIPs for each dismounter.

Doug
12-19-2011, 05:35 PM
Ok, so first of all, it will be clarified that the only 0 pip move for a single element will be to make a full distance move entirely along a road.

The dismounting rules say:

A few army lists permit some of their mounted elements to “dismount” i.e. be exchanged for a related foot element during the game by using a complete single element tactical move to dismount, but cannot remount.

Note.. a complete 'single element' tactical move.

larryessick
12-19-2011, 05:53 PM
A few army lists permit some of their mounted elements to “dismount” i.e. be exchanged for a related foot element during the game by using a complete single element tactical move to dismount, but cannot remount.

Note.. a complete 'single element' tactical move.

I'm blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. I think I even quoted that in my posts above. Duh.... :rotfl

I'm so stupid.... :eek

Pillager
12-25-2011, 06:36 PM
Larry - Do you REALLY expect that level of exactitude in a set of short, simple rules?

??? REEAAALLY ???

OTOH you would be welcome on the DBMM lists... ;)

Doug
12-25-2011, 09:03 PM
Larry - Do you REALLY expect that level of exactitude in a set of short, simple rules?

??? REEAAALLY ???

OTOH you would be welcome on the DBMM lists... ;)

Yes - he does, and he's entitled to, and no, he wouldn't be welcome.. (and as Larry has pointed out - he wouldn't play DBMM if you paid him to) :D

larryessick
12-25-2011, 09:36 PM
Yes - he does, and he's entitled to, and no, he wouldn't be welcome.. :D

Other than the fact that I wouldn't play DBMM if it were the only rules in existence for our period, which Doug failed to mention in his response, he has it exactly right. :up

Doug
12-25-2011, 10:13 PM
Other than the fact that I wouldn't play DBMM if it were the only rules in existence for our period, which Doug failed to mention in his response, he has it exactly right. :up

Now corrected ;)