Some problems while lining up

[MikeCampbell]

If it's prevented by a TZ then it's not possible - there's nothing in the wording that limits why it's not possible to only terrain.

[Marcel Bos]

Back to the first problem of Landmeister.

Firstly it seems like the move into contact in the first case was illegal - Wb D must have moved through the TZ of El 1 - which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.

The move was straight forward as far as possible through the TZ of El1.
In this case it was a group move, but the the TZ rules don't specify element or group move, just any move.

So does 'contact front edge to front edge' mean the contact before or after the free slide/pivot?

It must be after the free slide/pivot looking at figure 6b (p.52) of the rules.
In that example the Wb moves as far as possible straight forward (until its frontcorner reaches the Bd), then it slides/pivots in legal front edge to front edge contact with the Bd.

So the extra 80p movement can now be used to line up in front edge-to-front edge contact.

Sure, but i see sponos as the last resource once tactical moves are not possible, and IMHO an angled enemy line IS NOT the worse situation for a general to move his troops in a controlled way. I can't imagine any general losing control on his troops just because the enemy line is not exactly parallel.

 

I agree. Please take a look at my picture.
I would allow this move if Wb A,E,I,M,Q were not there.

[MikeCampbell]

Back to the first problem of Landmeister.

Firstly it seems like the move into contact in the first case was illegal - Wb D must have moved through the TZ of El 1 - which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.

The move was straight forward as far as possible through the TZ of El1.
In this case it was a group move, but the the TZ rules don't specify element or group move, just any move.

I don't see your point sorry......

[MikeCampbell]

For the 2nd part - I agree, but see also diagram 16 - you may be able to stagger some of the rear ranks backwwards to fit the gap and still get rear support

[Marcel Bos]

I don't see your point sorry......

I think that a group-move (not only an individual element-move), that is straight forward and as far as possible, through enemy TZ's is possible as long as:
a: the group doesn't make contact with any enemy or
b: the group ends in front edge-to-front edge contact with any enemy after the extra 80p line-up movement.

which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.

How I see it you forgot the extra 80p movement after the normal movement, with wich the group could come into front edge-to-front edge contact.

For the 2nd part - I agree, but see also diagram 16 - you may be able to stagger some of the rear ranks backwwards to fit the gap and still get rear support

Only a column could bent as in diagram 16, not a group I think?

[landmeister]

I agree. Please take a look at my picture.
I would allow this move if Wb A,E,I,M,Q were not there.

I agree. But they were there!!  So what to do then? 

[landmeister]

For the 2nd part - I agree, but see also diagram 16 - you may be able to stagger some of the rear ranks backwwards to fit the gap and still get rear support

I disagree. if you look at them carefully you will see that they are moved sideways and slightly forward, not backwards.

[landmeister]

I think that a group-move (not only an individual element-move), that is straight forward and as far as possible, through enemy TZ's is possible as long as:
a: the group doesn't make contact with any enemy or
b: the group ends in front edge-to-front edge contact with any enemy after the extra 80p line-up movement.

Good. This was the second case, so the move was legal. Phew!  . The question is still open: we had to move backwards the whole column to do that. Is it legal? 

[Marcel Bos]

My point is, see the new picture:
If this is a straight forward move as far as possible, ending after the 80p extra move, in front edge-to-front edge combat, my last example is so to.

Good. This was the second case, so the move was legal. Phew!  . The question is still open: we had to move backwards the whole column to do that. Is it legal? 

I think you had to move the whole group an extra 80p to come in front edge-to-front edge combat

I agree. But they were there!!  So what to do then? 

You just hadn't enough movement, just 80p, to wheel and slide the whole group in front edge-to-front edge combat, that's why you should have left the other (left column) WB behind, where they started.

[landmeister]

You just hadn't enough movement, just 80p, to wheel and slide the whole group in front edge-to-front edge combat, that's why you should have left the other (left column) WB behind, where they started.

I see. Unfortunately I'm not used to using the 80 p free move efficiently enough yet  . Better next time.

Thank you

[MikeCampbell]

For the 2nd part - I agree, but see also diagram 16 - you may be able to stagger some of the rear ranks backwwards to fit the gap and still get rear support

Only a column could bent as in diagram 16, not a group I think?

A column is a group - and the group in question is a series of columns side-by-side.

It's not clear to me whether you can or cannot treat each column as per fig 16 or not - so I raise it as something to be discussed.

[MikeCampbell]

I don't see your point sorry......

I think that a group-move (not only an individual element-move), that is straight forward and as far as possible, through enemy TZ's is possible as long as:
a: the group doesn't make contact with any enemy or
b: the group ends in front edge-to-front edge contact with any enemy after the extra 80p line-up movement.

Yep - sure.

which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.

How I see it you forgot the extra 80p movement after the normal movement, with wich the group could come into front edge-to-front edge contact.


[/quote]

I thought that had already been used?

[Marcel Bos]

A column is a group - and the group in question is a series of columns side-by-side.
It's not clear to me whether you can or cannot treat each column as per fig 16 or not - so I raise it as something to be discussed.

Thanks again for your reaktion Mike. I think if you start your move as a group, you have to end your move as a group. (An exception is to shorten group frontage by 1 element in the 80p extra movement)
If you see your group as a serie of columns then you will end up something like this (picture).
But in the first example there aren't any columns left (except the right one), and in the second example it don't ends up like anything I call a group. 

So, I think a bend is only possible by a single wide column move.

[landmeister]

So, I think a bend is only possible by a single wide column move.

I agree. What a strange situation! 

[MikeCampbell]

I'm glad you drew it - it makes it a lot easier to see!!

IMO the 2nd example is still a group by virtue of the fank contact of the front rank elements, and the rear elements being in bent columns which are specifically allowed.

sure it's not something we're used to.....but that's the case for much of DBMM if you came from DBM, and so it being new and unusual is not, IMO, relevant to whether it's allowed or not.

It might also allow contact where it might not happen otherwise, and so falls in the ambit of that bit on page 33 that syas that contact shall be allowed where it should be allowed.

i'm going to raise this on the yahoo list & see what reaction it gets......