WWg in Column

[additz]

Hi,

another question regarding WWg.

Can WWg in Column expand into line ?

Elements in column expand as they were single elements ...
But if I look at Single element moves there are exceptions for WWg, Exp & Shp stating that they have to wheel unlike other single elements ...

Does that mean that Exp cannot expand, cause they would have to wheel, but cannot because the first element in the column remains stationary ?
(though they would have enough movement allowance ...)

And accordingly: WWg can neither expand for the same reason as the Exp can't nor because 160p are not enough to line up with the first WWg ?

Thanks

Axel

[Marcel Bos]

Does that mean that Exp cannot expand

Probably your are right and I have played it wrong until now.
So a column shouldn't include WWg or Exp (if not in first or last position).

Greetings,

Marcel

[landmeister]

Yes, I agree. They can't expand.

[andrew]

I'm not 100% convinced ... yet.

Page 29, the section titled 'turn 90 degrees from a straight column into a line' mentions Expendables.

Further, page 27 : an expendable element can do a 180 degree turn.

[Marcel Bos]

Page 29, the section titled 'turn 90 degrees from a straight column into a line' mentions Expendables.

Indeed, it is still possible to 'turn 90o from a straight column into a line', all the Exp just have to pivot 90o.
(See the .gif).
But 'expand from a column' to the front couldn't be done.

[andrew]

That's a nice move isn't it?    If the bases are longer than the width then you lose a lot more frontage (relative to the column length) on the turn.  Maybe that's the way to keep the Exp under control - march them back and forth in front of the enemy and turn to the side when you have found your target.

However, is there an exemption on passing through a gap not sufficient for your frontage?  This may be drawing a long bow but leaving a column is one of two instances where you can enter a gap insufficient for your own frontage : Exp#2 leaves the column by initially wheeling through the back corner of Exp#1 (he is allowed to do this given he is leaving a column and provided there is another element nearby with <80 pace gap to Exp#1?) and the way is then clear for all other Exp in the column.  Any issues with that approach?

Andrew

[Marcel Bos]

That's a nice move isn't it?    If the bases are longer than the width then you lose a lot more frontage (relative to the column length) on the turn.  Maybe that's the way to keep the Exp under control - march them back and forth in front of the enemy and turn to the side when you have found your target.

My opponent has used its Exp's that way already, it is a nice move. 

However, is there an exemption on passing through a gap not sufficient for your frontage?  This may be drawing a long bow but leaving a column is one of two instances where you can enter a gap insufficient for your own frontage : Exp#2 leaves the column by initially wheeling through the back corner of Exp#1 (he is allowed to do this given he is leaving a column and provided there is another element nearby with <80 pace gap to Exp#1?) and the way is then clear for all other Exp in the column.  Any issues with that approach?

I am not sure about this approach, somebody else....?

[honk16]

Hi,

I  agree totaly with the wwg, as they do not have enough movement to expand in the first place.

I do not agree with the "single Element move" argument at all.

The rules go like this:

Under Movement Section there is
1. a chapter on single element moves. There some Wheeled thingies (wwg and exp) and ships are forbidden to turn to flank but may turn 180 degrees only or by pivot or wheel.
 ok.

2. a chapter on group moves. There there is no exception on who can do group moves. Group moves have a specific move patern, i.e. move the same speed or through the same angles EXCEPT as detailed in some special rules on formation changes.
ok.

3. Now, under the said formation change rules there is the provision, how to expand. There the sentence reads "the other elements move as by single element moves".

As I see it:
The "move as single elements" is NOT meant to preclude the exp and shp to leave the column. The Rules on Formation change etc. do NOT exclude Expendable. The "move as single elements" does mean, they need not conform to the normal group move restrictions, i.e. moving same speed, same angle etc.
If this was not so, the sentence "but not exp, wwg, shp" would have been much easieer, than "move as single elements". It is NOT intended here to exempt exp from the posibility to expand from column into line, but to free all Elements of the group move restrictions.

I see, that the wording is open to debate, but the simple conclusion that the sentence "move as single Elements" does IN EFFECT only mean "exp and shp may not expand" (wwg can not for want of speed) is contrary to the aim of the rule.

This would in effect mean, that ships could not go from column into line, also this was a comon manouver in reality for what I know.
Ships invariabl marched in columns but before they fought in lines with broadside to broadside, they formed in Lines bow to bow to fight each other, galleys and ships indifferently.
I do not know about exp, but would thinks they too came to the field of battle in column and expanded into line.
In the end, to expand from a "moving" (last move) column into a line IS different than to leave a (standing) column.

As the rules are meant to simulate somehow the reality, this -for me- can not be the conclusion.

Tilman

[honk16]

That's a nice move isn't it?    If the bases are longer than the width then you lose a lot more frontage (relative to the column length) on the turn.  Maybe that's the way to keep the Exp under control - march them back and forth in front of the enemy and turn to the side when you have found your target.

However, is there an exemption on passing through a gap not sufficient for your frontage?  This may be drawing a long bow but leaving a column is one of two instances where you can enter a gap insufficient for your own frontage : Exp#2 leaves the column by initially wheeling through the back corner of Exp#1 (he is allowed to do this given he is leaving a column and provided there is another element nearby with <80 pace gap to Exp#1?) and the way is then clear for all other Exp in the column.  Any issues with that approach?

Andrew

if that would be a problem, it would allways be a problem, not only for exp and shp, so the 90 degree wheel from column into line is valid imo.
Tilman

[Marcel Bos]

This would in effect mean, that ships could not go from column into line, also this was a comon manouver in reality for what I know.
...
As the rules are meant to simulate somehow the reality, this -for me- can not be the conclusion.

So you can read the rules in two ways (what's new  ), but you prefer reality, which would make it possible. I can't argue with that. 

[andrew]

if that would be a problem, it would allways be a problem, not only for exp and shp, so the 90 degree wheel from column into line is valid imo.
Tilman

Hi

I'm not sure what you are referring to there.  There are instances where there are exceptions to the rule (like leaving a column is a valid instance for entering a gap insufficient for your own frontage) so I'm not sure if I agree with 'once a problem, always a problem' in general.  As for how this relates to Exp leaving column - I can't say because I'm not sure if I have understood you 100%.

Andrew

P.S.  Regarding your previous analysis : unfortunately I have come across many instances where someone will say "I know that's what the rules say, but it doesn't seem right".  I don't subscribe to that theory and that wasn't the full thrust of your argument.  But I do agree with your assessment that, in the absence of a rebuttal from the author, the intention was not what has been interpreted in the original post.  Participating on this forum and the Yahoo group has taught me that if someone wants to take a contrary interpretation then there is nought we can do about it.

[honk16]

if that would be a problem, it would allways be a problem, not only for exp and shp, so the 90 degree wheel from column into line is valid imo.
Tilman

Hi

I'm not sure what you are referring to there.  There are instances where there are exceptions to the rule (like leaving a column is a valid instance for entering a gap insufficient for your own frontage) so I'm not sure if I agree with 'once a problem, always a problem' in general.  As for how this relates to Exp leaving column - I can't say because I'm not sure if I have understood you 100%.

Andrew

I missunderstood you, I thought you where refering to the posibility of a coloumn facing to flank 90 degreees (as here too the corners would scratch through the Element in front when wheeling, which is allways so, when performing that manouver with whichever Elements). On Rereading I see, that you probably presented an alternative solution to the "exp. leave Column" problem, i.e. you say the exp could Wheel Through the Element in Front, because he may leave the coloumn by special exeption. Nice Idea.

Tilman

[honk16]

P.S.  Regarding your previous analysis : unfortunately I have come across many instances where someone will say "I know that's what the rules say, but it doesn't seem right".  I don't subscribe to that theory and that wasn't the full thrust of your argument.  But I do agree with your assessment that, in the absence of a rebuttal from the author, the intention was not what has been interpreted in the original post.  Participating on this forum and the Yahoo group has taught me that if someone wants to take a contrary interpretation then there is nought we can do about it.

Yes, saying "this can't be meant" would not be enough, it is simply another argument, when you have found an argument in the rules to solve a problem arising with a contradiction.
Else, my Lists of Things to clarify with the refereee before a tournament grows longer (I say attacking TF ....) and hope for version 1.1

Tilman

[andrew]

In my opinion most things don't need a clarification because the rules pretty much stand on their own.  But there are a couple of contradictions / inconsistencies / definition that could be addressed.  What is the concern with the TF?
Andrew

[andrew]

I missunderstood you, I thought you where refering to the posibility of a coloumn facing to flank 90 degreees (as here too the corners would scratch through the Element in front when wheeling, which is allways so, when performing that manouver with whichever Elements).

And it appears I misunderstood you!   I think that potential problem was discarded because it is an issue with the basing which is not necessarily representative of the area occupied by the actual troops.  (Again, not what the rules say but discarded for being impractical - much like your suggestion).

On Rereading I see, that you probably presented an alternative solution to the "exp. leave Column" problem, i.e. you say the exp could Wheel Through the Element in Front, because he may leave the coloumn by special exeption. Nice Idea.

It's just a thought.  I don't know how it would stand up to a rigorous analysis, but if someone tried to stop me from expanding a column of Exp then I would claim this exemption.