When a column is a column?

[landmeister]

Dear all,

I'm afraid this can be a new byzantine discussion (apologizes to all byzantines  ). The question raised in my last game. Columns don't pay +1 PIP when wheeling, but the question is...when a column is a column?
My opponent used 2 PIP to turn a line 90? into a column (all regulars). He said that 1 PIP was for moving and the second one for a group NOT in column wheeling. The question is that it WAS a column once the move was finished, so it was a column!! 

I've never played so. Am I wrong or was he?

[foxgom]

Hi

have never thought about it like that.
I understand the turn 90 degrees from line to be a "standard" drill that costs regulars only 1 PIP.

Relevant rules I found are..
Page 51, diagram 4.
Page 29 second bullet
Page 27 (d)

The rule on page 29:  "Until a contracting group ist in entirely in column, each of it?s elements must end facing the same direction...."

This effectively forbids the combination of wheeling and contracting simultaneously.
i.e. a group cannot wheel and contract thus incurring a PIP penalty.

The 90 degree turn is specifically allowed.


neil fox

neil fox
 

[Barritus]

Dear all,

I'm afraid this can be a new byzantine discussion (apologizes to all byzantines  ). The question raised in my last game. Columns don't pay +1 PIP when wheeling, but the question is...when a column is a column?
My opponent used 2 PIP to turn a line 90? into a column (all regulars). He said that 1 PIP was for moving and the second one for a group NOT in column wheeling. The question is that it WAS a column once the move was finished, so it was a column!! 

I've never played so. Am I wrong or was he?

He's wrong.

The action of turning a line 90 degrees into a column is defined separately from wheels. In fact, if you read the rule, you'll see it says that the group can wheel. This also suggests the action of turning into a column is not a wheel. Instead, the maneuver is a series of individual pivots, not a series of wheels. Therefore the move isn't a difficult evolution as defined by the first dot point for that rule.

[landmeister]

Ok. Thank you very much. I suspected that, but I needed some logic behind it.