A question about Psiloi: tactical move v recoiling

Oh I have been asking the very same question for quite some time Derek.
See the last item at the bottom of this: fanaticus.boards.net/post/8552/

…and yet fleeing Psiloi in DBA can pass through other Psiloi behind them without ’spooking’ them.

Interestingly, HoTT 2.1 has a rule that says “(Fleeing troops meeting) Friends it cannot pass through,
under or over, nor avoid, are burst through, then flee behind it until it stops”.
(HoTT 2.1, page 25, second paragraph from the bottom)

…we didn’t write the rules.

The only time this used to make a difference was when a Ps general was allowed (Dog Peoples and Pueblo Culture, perhaps [??])....also, I suppose, in Big Battle DBA a Ps from one command recoiling through a Ps from another command might have made a difference (but it’s getting a bit vague, tenuous and one in a million chance-y now).

My own personal belief is that it’s nothing more than a ‘fossil rule’,
that has accidentally been left in the final published edition.

Perhaps Phil Barker had originally intended to have some sort of difference
between the various types of Psiloi, but this was never implemented.

The are other ‘fossil rules’ of this type still lurking in the Great Purple Book.
The very first sentence at the top of page 7 says “If a BUA is chosen, it will
belong to the defender”…giving the impression that invaders can’t deploy
in a Hamlet or Edifice, just as an invader cannot deploy in a City or Fort.

Another example is “Interpenetration” on page 9, which says that a Pike
can recoil through a Blade. Why would anybody want to weaken their Pk
by backing it up with a Bd? An all Pk column has a higher combat factor
against both foot AND heavy mounted!
Mr Barker has been know to say “we shouldn’t make rules that prevent
players from making mistakes”…well here is a rule who’s soul purpose
appears to be to lure players into making a mistake!

Ah…well Bluestone28…this is a controversial point I’m afraid.

If playing by the rules ‘as written’, then the top of page 7 does indeed say:-
  “If a BUA is chosen, it must be a City, Fort, Hamlet or Edifice, and will belong to the defender.
   At the start of the game a City can and a Fort must be garrisoned by 1 (non-allied) foot element”

Deployment on page 8 goes on to say:-
  “The defender deploys its troop elements, one of which (if eligible) may be used to garrison a City or Fort.
   Then the invader deploys its elements.”

If the defender chooses NOT to garrison their City or Fort (and a Fort could be left empty,
think of a defending all mounted army that decides to place a Fort but has no foot elements),
then the invader still cannot deploy in them because “they belong to the defender”…
…but this “belonging to the defender” also applies to Hamlets and Edifices, so logically
the invader shouldn’t be allowed to deploy in them either.

However, the convention amongst most of the DBA community is to ignore this “belonging
to the defender” stipulation, and allow the invader to deploy in any Hamlets and Edifices
that happen to be in the invaders initial Deployment Zone.
(So much for ‘playing-by-the-rules-as-written’!)

I don't see where you get that from in the rules Stevie?

Just because a Hamlet or Edifice 'belongs' to the defender because they've placed it and it's their terrain I don't see why an invader can't deploy in it, if it ends up  in their deployment zone.

I don't think that "belonging" has anything to do with not being able to deploy in an enemy city or fort, but it's to do with the specific rule in the following sentence on page 8 after the one you quoted:
"All non-garrison troops must deploy at least 3BW from the battlefield centre line and 1 BW from any enemy city or fort." 

It doesn't say 'any enemy BUA', or 'any BUA belonging to the enemy'.

Hamlets and Edifices are specifically not mentioned, so, as far as I can see, the rules don't have any limitation on deployment regarding an enemy Hamlet or Edifice.


I like your example that the only time you can't garrison a fort is if you don't have any foot troops, (but then why would you want to deploy a fort that only the enemy can use???!!)

Otherwise, just to be clear, if you have foot troops and a fort, it has to be garrisoned.