Is lining up compulsory?

[foxgom]

Hi

Page 33 , third last paragraph "EXTRA MOVEMENT TO LINE UP..."

A... element or group....moves up to 80p....if the extra movement is used only to line up...."

Is this lining up compulsory or an option?


neil fox

[landmeister]

Yes. Otherwise you would be making an illegal contact.

[william]

  Sorry Landmeister lining up is not always compulsory because it is not always done in contact ( but in a TZ ) and there is that only contacted on the outside corner exception.

William

[landmeister]

You're right, William. You must line up if TZed, so contact in not necessary. Nevertheless, it is always compulsory, never optional.

 

[Marcel Bos]

You're right, William. You must line up if TZed, so contact in not necessary. Nevertheless, it is always compulsory, never optional.

I am not sure about that. I have read somewhere that it was not compulsory. 
If it is compulsory then you can disorder a solid group without fighting by just moving an element (for example LH) at an angle close to the group. The elements in its TZ then have to turn. It could be a mess. 

Marcel

[foxgom]

"
If it is compulsory then you can disorder a solid group without fighting by just moving an element (for example LH) at an angle close to the group. The elements in its TZ then have to turn. It could be a mess. 
"

Thanks, I see it exactly this way.  The consequences of making it compulsory completely mess up the game,  but I do think the wording could be improved.

It would do to add a "may" or "can" the the current phrasing.

neil

[Marcel Bos]

It would do to add a "may" or "can" the the current phrasing.

In some cases an element has to line up (moving into close combat) but can't, for example being obstructed by impassable terrain, so the enemy has to conform instead. So "may","can" or "must" are all not appropriate for the moving element, maybe that the reason it is left out, it is depending on the circumstances.

[andrew]

IMO you can't break a group by simply exerting a TZ over an element on the end of the group.  You can exert the TZ but you cannot force them to line up.  Where there is no contact there is no compulsion to line up given that there is no illegal contact - you can exert a TZ and elect to not line up.  If either party wishes to make contact and the elements are not correctly lined up then the rules kick in as per normal.  That is the way we have always played this.  Consider for example figure 6b on page 52, when the Bd moved up to the Wb in the previous bound, the Wb was not required to line up because there was no contact.  You can also move through other elements TZ's (page 32), which implies that someone didn't conform in the previous bound.  Consider also figure 6a (the Kn in the Sp TZ), figure 9c, 9e, 10b and so on - there are plenty of diagrams to support this.

IMO, and to change the subject slightly, in a situation involving front corner to front corner contact you cannot use the 'up to 80 paces' of free slide because the elements are lined up.

Andrew

[Marcel Bos]

IMO you can't break a group by simply exerting a TZ over an element on the end of the group.  You can exert the TZ but you cannot force them to line up.  Where there is no contact there is no compulsion to line up given that there is no illegal contact - you can exert a TZ and elect to not line up.  If either party wishes to make contact and the elements are not correctly lined up then the rules kick in as per normal.  That is the way we have always played this.  Consider for example figure 6b on page 52, when the Bd moved up to the Wb in the previous bound, the Wb was not required to line up because there was no contact.  You can also move through other elements TZ's (page 32), which implies that someone didn't conform in the previous bound.  Consider also figure 6a (the Kn in the Sp TZ), figure 9c, 9e, 10b and so on - there are plenty of diagrams to support this.

I agree, fig. 9C says enough. The TZ-ed element can remain stationary.
(I knew I had read it somewhere   )

Marcel

[landmeister]

IMO, and to change the subject slightly, in a situation involving front corner to front corner contact you cannot use the 'up to 80 paces' of free slide because the elements are lined up.

I must admit that I like this argument. I know this is not  the corner-to-corner contact thread, but I think this should be included there.

[andrew]

I agree.  When I saw the debate about corner to corner contact and the compulsory slide, I intuitively knew it was wrong but couldn't put my finger on why.  When you re-read the rules you only slide to line up if you are not lined up.  Elements with their edges on the same line (i.e. in front corner to front corner contact) are lined up.

[Marcel Bos]

I agree.  When I saw the debate about corner to corner contact and the compulsory slide, I intuitively knew it was wrong but couldn't put my finger on why.  When you re-read the rules you only slide to line up if you are not lined up.  Elements with their edges on the same line (i.e. in front corner to front corner contact) are lined up.

A perfect way to say it. I agree. 

Theoretical the only way elements get in corner-to-corner contact without being in each others TZ when they/there groups already had lined up before.

Marcel