WWg in Column

[Lorenzomele2001]

I don't see any problem for an EXP column to expand turning all elements 90?. Geometrically is impossible to expand that colum on the front of the leading element.

[andrew]

What about the instance I raised of having an element less than 80 paces from the lead element?  In such a situation Exp#2 in the column can enter a space insufficient for it's own frontage because it is leaving a column, and in so doing wheels through the back of Exp#1 (a legal move given I am leaving a column and entering a space insufficient for my frontage).  Where does it say that I cannot do that?  Given this particular move is an exemption, does the move actually have to be a wheel through the back of Exp#1 at all?

Andrew

[LawrenceG]

What about the instance I raised of having an element less than 80 paces from the lead element?  In such a situation Exp#2 in the column can enter a space insufficient for it's own frontage because it is leaving a column, and in so doing wheels through the back of Exp#1 (a legal move given I am leaving a column and entering a space insufficient for my frontage).  Where does it say that I cannot do that?  Given this particular move is an exemption, does the move actually have to be a wheel through the back of Exp#1 at all?

Andrew

Wheeling through another element is not "entering a space insufficient for its frontage".  There is not a space there. It is an interpenetration.

[andrew]

Hi Lawrence

Understood, except that leaving a column (from position #2) and entering a space insufficient for your frontage involves some sort of 'interpenetration' - leaving a column is an exemption for entering small spaces and as such means you don't have to worry about how you get into the space, hence my contrived example.  As I said it is drawing a long bow but I don't believe the intent (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) was to prevent the likes Exp (and Shp) from forming a line to the front from a column, especially given we do know Exp can do two other 'tricky' moves such as turn 180 and form a column to the side from a line.

Furthermore, a closer reading of the rules shows an Exp can only do a wheel of less than 90 degrees, yet an Exp is stated as being able to turn 90 degrees from a column into a line.  Do we look at the letter of the rules or the intent?  Per this contradiction, some might argue Exp cannot turn 90 degree from a column.

To me this raises the question of why wasn't there a wider audience for play testing???  Or as times move on, and based on (bad) rules experiences with 3.1, have we all come to explore the letter of the rules more intently?  I don't know, but I still believe that if someone wants to take a contrary interpretation, there is very little I can do about it, if I want to finish a game.  I'd rather play games than debate rules but (unfortunately) we have to go through this process if we want to have a more enjoyable game.

Regards
Andrew

[MikeCampbell]

the 90 degree limit for exp is for single element moves.

I don't see any limit if it is done as part of a group move.

[andrew]

Fair call.

[LawrenceG]

the 90 degree limit for exp is for single element moves.

I don't see any limit if it is done as part of a group move.

Would it apply to a group expanding from a column, in which elements "move as if by single element moves"?

Note that this form of words is not used for the other group formation changes, so expendables etc can do these without constraint.

[LawrenceG]

Hi Lawrence

Understood, except that leaving a column (from position #2) and entering a space insufficient for your frontage involves some sort of 'interpenetration' - leaving a column is an exemption for entering small spaces and as such means you don't have to worry about how you get into the space, hence my contrived example. 

To me this raises the question of why wasn't there a wider audience for play testing??? 
Regards
Andrew

Consider a column of 3 blades.
Now take out the second rank blade and put it beside the column.
Now slide it back in to its original position.

Consider a line of two blades. Now move one blade sideways half a base.
Now take a third blade behind the line but facing 45 degrees left.
Advance this blade so its front corner enters tha half-base wide gap.

IMO these are examples of what is meant by "entering a space insufficient for its own frontage."

No interpenetration is involved in either case.

I'm not sure why elements expanding from column need a specific permission to do this, but it might be to allow them to deploy into the second rank of a three deep formation.

As for play testing, I suspect it was because most of the potential play testers still played DBM and it is very difficult to play both DBM and DBMM without getting confused. So they mostly decided to avoid confusion and didn't play test it. This particularly applies to keen competition players who are the ones that read rules most closely, stretch wording to its limit of interpretation and like everything to be clear and consistent. 

[MikeCampbell]

the 90 degree limit for exp is for single element moves.

I don't see any limit if it is done as part of a group move.

Would it apply to a group expanding from a column, in which elements "move as if by single element moves"?

Note that this form of words is not used for the other group formation changes, so expendables etc can do these without constraint.

I think it would apply - but moves expanding from column do not involve wheels to get there - elements moving in this manner as single elements do not wheel/pivot to do it - they just move keeping their current facing & measure the distance in a straight line.

so as far as I can see it would have no effect there either?

[andrew]

This was an actual scenario I encountered of 'entering a gap insufficient for my frontage' which I have applied to the Expendables:



The point being in that in my actual example, if element 3 expanded to the left of element 2 then it had to involve actually moving through element 2 if it 'moves as if by single element moves' - this was an actual example I had on table.  My opponent claimed I couldn't expand but I could.  The concept should be able to be used for Expendables.

[LawrenceG]

Entering, or going through a gap means you are going through the gap, i.e. not interpenetrating the elements either side of the gap. If you were interpenetrating, the gap would be irrelevant. In fact the relevant rule on p 32 gives explicit pemission to enter the gap to
* elements that can interpenetrate
* elements expanding from column etc.

The second case clearly distinguishes them from elements able to interpenetrate.

Expanding from column etc does not give you the ability to interpenetrate. It gives you the ability to enter a gap without intepenetrating, when otherwise to enter that gap you must be able to interpenetrate.

The point which is at issue in your example using expendables is:

Can EXP2 change direction (from forward) to get to its final position?

If it was a single element move it can change direction only by a wheel or pivot of less than 90 degrees or a turn of 180, so there is no way it could do the move.

When expanding from a column, you must move "as if by single element moves".

Does the restriction for single element moves also count for moves that are "as if by single element moves", or does it apply only to actual single element moves?

IMO the restriction probably does apply, so you cannot expand from a column of expendables. But maybe Phil meant it not to apply.



 

[andrew]

Hi Lawrence

Assuming the gap is less than the base depth of the element trying to squeeze through the gap per my actual example, how does the element (of non-Exp) get there by single element move without passing through either of the elements on either side of the gap?  I don't accept that it is simply lifted into place because it has to get there as if by single element move.

So let's accept for the moment that a single element (of non-Exp) actually passes through one or more of the elements making the gap in making its single element move when leaving the column.  If so, the rules do not stipulate the way in which this achieved, so there is no requirement to actually contact both elements that make the gap in making this move.  So by deduction, if a foot element can do this then there is nothing preventing the Expendable from making the same move.

If we don't accept that a foot element actually passed through one of the 'gap' elements, then how did the foot element get to its final position if it moved 'by single element move'?

Andrew

[LawrenceG]

Hi Lawrence

Assuming the gap is less than the base depth of the element trying to squeeze through the gap per my actual example, how does the element (of non-Exp) get there by single element move without passing through either of the elements on either side of the gap?  I don't accept that it is simply lifted into place because it has to get there as if by single element move.

So let's accept for the moment that a single element (of non-Exp) actually passes through one or more of the elements making the gap in making its single element move when leaving the column.  If so, the rules do not stipulate the way in which this achieved, so there is no requirement to actually contact both elements that make the gap in making this move.  So by deduction, if a foot element can do this then there is nothing preventing the Expendable from making the same move.

If we don't accept that a foot element actually passed through one of the 'gap' elements, then how did the foot element get to its final position if it moved 'by single element move'?

Andrew

The individual men making up the element passed through in single file, or in threes or whatever and then fell-in to their original formation once through the gap.

The same process as moving through a gate in a permanent fortification.

[andrew]

The individual men making up the element passed through in single file, or in threes or whatever and then fell-in to their original formation once through the gap.

Unless you are having me on Lawrence this is the part I am stuck on.  If an element of foot can 'morph' its shape to squeeze through a gap, how is this moving 'as if by single element'?   I can't find the 'morphing' section in the rules - maybe you could help!

[LawrenceG]

All restrictions specific to single element moves are listed in the section entitled "SINGLE ELEMENT MOVES"

There is no mention there or anywhere else that elements are assumed to remain rigid bodies during movement.

How else do you think they move through gates?