A column of 2 x LH can make an extra move for 1 PIP (in good going & 1 BW from the enemy). A column of 2 x Ps can make an extra move for 1 PIP (in the 1st bound & 1 BW from the enemy).
But what about a column with a front rank of LH and rear rank of Ps? Could this type of column also make an extra move for just a single extra PIP? (providing of course it moves at the speed of the Ps, it is the 1st bound, is entirely in good going, and keeps 1 BW from the enemy)
Note that this IS “entirely by Light Horse/Psiloi” (see Subsequent Moves on page 9). If so, then the same can be done with LH/Mtd-Inf/Ps mixed columns as well.
I cannot see any reason why not, but I thought I’d throw it open to discussion just to make sure.
I would certainly hope so. I've always thought the intent of the rule was to allow more mobile troops the chance for some semi-independent strategic movement with the first turn bonus reflecting pre-battle orders. If so, then a flying column of mobile troops would be completely appropriate.
It is quite limited, as it can only happen in the 1st bound, but it does have some practical uses:- * it can be useful when making a ‘Pursuit Trap’ against enemy El and SCh (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/19822/ ), * with the Ps in front it could help protect LH making extra moves from shooting Bows, * and it could even help to simulate Hannibal’s hidden 1,000 Numidian horsemen and 1,000 skirmishers make a surprise ambush at the Battle of the River Trebia in 218 BC. ...plus it saves a PIP, thus making light nimble troops...well...light and nimble!
(It’s just me trying to squeeze every tiny advantage I can out of weak troops and weak armies)
I disagree with the consensus. (I would, wouldn't I, stevie.)
The rules say the second or subsequent move must be entirely by (a) LH or mounted infantry (b) Psiloi (c)...So entirely LH or Mtd Inf or entirely Ps. But not a mixture of the two.
Welcome to my world Menacussecudus!
I do understand what you (and Snowcat) are saying, but...wearing my ‘rule lawyer’s hat’... ...it does not say “entirely by (a) LH or mounted infantry (b) or by Psiloi.”
If that little word ‘or’ had been there in front of “Psiloi”, then I would have to agree with you, meaning ‘entirely by LH’, or ‘entirely by Mtd-Inf’, or ‘enrirely by Ps’. (Although you could argue that LH and Mtd-Inf cannot be mixed, because it doesn’t say “and/or”, it just says “or”, meaning either all of one/the other)
Soooo...it could be read as:- “Some elements or groups that have already moved this bound can make a second or subsequent tactical move if there are enough PIPs and only if this does not start or go within 1 BW of enemy (unless while moving along a road) and is entirely by the following troops:- (a) either Light Horse or Mounted Infantry (then it explains the conditions) (b) Psiloi making a second move (then it explains the conditions)”
Now I fully understand that some will find this a bit tenuous and stretching the point, but I don’t think it’s good for the game to hamstring weak LH and Ps any further than they currently already are by segregating these and making them pay individually for extra moves in the first bound.
(By the way, Duncan Head in his excellent “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” makes several references to mounted troops historically being supported by light infantry skirmishers, something that DBMM takes roughly takes into account but is entirely missing in DBA 3.0. Even during the Napoleonic Wars there are some instances of skirmishers clutching at the horsemen’s saddles so they could move faster to keep up with the mounted troops)
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 29, 2019 19:18:28 GMT
It doesn't say "or by" after little (b). It doesn't say "or by" after little (c) either, come to that. And the reason it doesn't is - almost certainly - that, grammatically, it doesn't need to. The word "by" placed before little (a) governs all three sub-heads and renders need to add the word "or" otiose.