A question about Psiloi: tactical move v recoiling

As Phil Barker once stated: “we shouldn’t make rules that prevents players from making mistakes.”

Perhaps an all mounted Arable army wants to guarantee there’ll be no hindering terrain?
And invaders picking a base edge with an unoccupied Fort in the Deployment Zone, which
they can’t deploy in, will cramp the said invader’s deployment, as well draw away one of
their elements and some of their PIPs when they occupy it? (especially true if this Fort’s
one-and-only gate is facing a table corner, making it hard to leave and move out of it).

Come-on people…use your imaginations.

As for this “belonging to the defender”, why-oh-why did Mr Barker include it,
if it doesn’t have any meaning?
He could have just said “a City or Fort BUA will belong to the defender”…but he didn’t.
He could have just left out the words ”and will belong to the defender"…but he didn’t.

I assume that the rules are written the way they are to convey meaning, and not be a
collection of cryptic crossword puzzle clues, that allows players to ignore them whenever
they find them to be inconvenient.

Anyway, the consensus of the majority of the DBA community is to simply ignore this
“Hamlets and Edifices also belong to the defender” wording.
And if we can ignore this inconvenient and pointless rule, then why can’t we also do the
same with the equally inconvenient and pointless “Psiloi can’t recoil through Psiloi” rule?
In fact, what other inconvenient and pointless rules can we ignore when we feel like it?
(Answer ---► see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index
Ha, ha, ha! )

I suspect the first is a game mechanism.  It forces the player to choose between having the camp followers in the camp and defending it - although surely, if they are followers, the ought to be behind it - and bringing them out to act as a 13th element which doesn't count as lost for the purposes of winning/losing the game if it is destroyed, but risking the camp being sacked if contacted (which does count). c.f. // elements

As for the second, I don't usually apply it - and quite often it is academic anyway, as the game is decided elsewhere on the pitch.  However, I have played in competitions where it has been enforced.  So the answer to your question as set is "Yes.  Some people certainly do."

PS  And an all mounted Arable army choosing a fort doesn't guarantee that there won't be any hindering terrain.  It will still have to choose one piece of Rough or Bad Going unless it also chooses a Waterway.

Except that "Waterways must be placed first, then compulsory features, then others."

I wonder if it may be that historically the only battles where camp followers played an active part were where they committed to the battle until it finished.

Thus maybe Phil thought that in order for the rules to be historically accurate once your camp followers come out they can't return?

Just a thought. 

Some good imaginative thoughts there people…I like ‘em.
And Timurilank’s thought is the best so far.
(Mind you, why don't sallying City Denizens go plundering?
They can return...so why can't Camp Follower's do the same?)

But there is one more thing we should also take into consideration…
…when a Camp Follower element sallies, who is it representing exactly?
Is it every single person in the Camp?

Do they also take their sick, their wounded, their women and kids with them?
Should we model our Camp Follower elements with the sick and wounded
being carried on stretchers, surrounded by little children, as they bravely
sally forth to join the fight? (It would certainly explain their low combat factor!).

Or would only the menfolk take up arms, leaving the sick, the wounded,
and the women and children behind as a skeleton crew to hold the place?
(A skeleton crew of negligible fighting value it is true…
…but enough to open a ruddy gate when the menfolk returned!)

And speaking of gates…who closed it so they couldn’t return?
If nobody was inside, then it must have been left open.
If it was closed from the inside, someone left behind must have closed it.
Ether way, I can’t see why they can’t return to it.

And what about Medieval style tented encampments.
They don’t even have a gate!
What mysterious force-field surrounds these to prevent re-occupation?

Having Camp Followers costing 2 PIPs to move, and their slow speed,
is enough reason not to bother bringing them home, without the need
for some artificial, unrealistic, gamey, and cartoonish special rule.

Oh this is a very old thread Chris,
but since you’ve asked me a question, it’s only polite of me to answer.

Choosing And Placing (terrain) Features, page 6, first paragraph, third sentence:-
       “Those chosen must include Bad or Rough Going or a River or a Waterway…”
So Arable having just a BUA Fort, a Waterway, and a Road is perfectly legal.

As for the recoiling/interpenetrating Psiloi…
…what is the difference between picking up a Ps and placing it behind another Ps,
or shuffling the rear Ps back 2 cm and then doing the same to the Ps in front of them?
One of these two Ps elements is still gonna be in the enemy TZ.
To an outside observer the effect is the same.

(“So why whinge about it Stevie, if the effect is the same!”
  Well, why have a rule that is pointless and serves no purpose?)

Still, it’s in the rules, and we should be following the rules, ALL of them…
…although there are other rules that some players want to ignore…