The unbeatable formation

[landmeister]

Dear all,

Found the situation shown at diagram enclosed in my last game. Enemy column A-D was following the shore of a sea on its right side. My element 1 wants to contact it. I know that I can't contact the flank of A due to the TZ of B so I decide to frontally contact B (I cannot contact B's flank due to C's TZ, of course).

My opponent tells me that no element can enter into gap like that between A and B. Touch?. My response was that geometric ploys cannot be used to avoid contact and he apparently accepted. Then element A was blocking element 1 to line up aganinst B so I moved A forward the minimum needed to do that, so that my rear corner was in contact with A's rear. Then my opponent said that an enemy blocking element can only be moved out of the way by moving it behind other, shiftining sideways or pivoting, not by moving it forward. Then I thought I could move the column B-D rearwards without moving A, but it was not permitted either.

The question is easy. Are kinked columns untouchable? 

Thank you very much in advance.

[LawrenceG]

You could contact the front of A.

Alternatively:

You could enter the gap between A and B because you can enter a narrow gap by sliding sideways to line up in front edge to front edge combat. You would start by lining up corner to corner with opposite facing, then slide sideways into the gap.

Then you have contacted his front edge and can trigger the third bullet under "Front edge" on page 33.

THis means either

 A would have to move sideways, pivot or be placed behind another element to make room. This is limited to 80p of movement, so pivot is the most likely option, but the others may be possible. It looks (from your diagram) as though a pivot forward by A around its front left corner would make enough space.

 or  B can be made to do the 80p move to line up, being dragged out of the column. THis may invalidate the entry into the gap as it is now not you that is lining up, but I think it is within the spirit of the "geometric ploys cannot be used to avoid contact " rule.

[landmeister]

Hello Lawrence,

Your wisdom is allways appreciated, thank you.

You could contact the front of A.

Right, but this ould not be possible if A was behind another element in a longer column. This would still mean that kinked columns are untouchable.

Alternatively:

You could enter the gap between A and B because you can enter a narrow gap by sliding sideways to line up in front edge to front edge combat. You would start by lining up corner to corner with opposite facing, then slide sideways into the gap.

Well, this is open to debate, as IIRC the current consensus is that a corner to corner contact only does not trigger the 80 p free move (remember that overlapping elements would immediately be shifted after its companions were recoiled, destroyed, etc. And this is not the intention of the game.

Then you have contacted his front edge and can trigger the third bullet under "Front edge" on page 33.

THis means either

 A would have to move sideways, pivot or be placed behind another element to make room. This is limited to 80p of movement, so pivot is the most likely option, but the others may be possible. It looks (from your diagram) as though a pivot forward by A around its front left corner would make enough space.

Excellent! This was the answer I was looking for. Thank you.  But remember that The Phil must clarify the previous point in order to accept this 

or  B can be made to do the 80p move to line up, being dragged out of the column. THis may invalidate the entry into the gap as it is now not you that is lining up, but I think it is within the spirit of the "geometric ploys cannot be used to avoid contact " rule.

Same as before. Certainly it is a possible correct solution, but again conditioned to a previous corner to corner contact. Isn't there any other option avoiding this contact?

[andrew]

Page 29 states "Each element of a column wheels in succession on arrival at the place where the first wheeled. Until all have done so, the column will have a bend at that point, but each element is still treated as if lined up behind that in front."  So B is deemed to be directly behind A so you can contact the flank of A.

[LawrenceG]

Well, this is open to debate, as IIRC the current consensus is that a corner to corner contact only does not trigger the 80 p free move (remember that overlapping elements would immediately be shifted after its companions were recoiled, destroyed, etc. And this is not the intention of the game.

There is nothing to stop you using some of your normal movement to start the slide into the gap.

[LawrenceG]

By the way

IMO the width of a gap needs to be measured perpendicular to the direction of movement. Otherwise lots of sensible moves become impossible.


For example

consider a  line of Cv, Bd, Cv with their front edges lined up.

Now try to move another Bd in behind the first one.

The gap between the rear corner of the Cv and the centre of the rear edge of the front Bd is less than 80p.

[landmeister]

Page 29 states "Each element of a column wheels in succession on arrival at the place where the first wheeled. Until all have done so, the column will have a bend at that point, but each element is still treated as if lined up behind that in front."  So B is deemed to be directly behind A so you can contact the flank of A.

I'm afraid I disagree. I cannot ignore (never) an active enemy TZ. No matter thay are considered a column. All TZ are applicable.

[landmeister]

There is nothing to stop you using some of your normal movement to start the slide into the gap.

Yes, there is in this case. No element can enter into a gap less than 80 p unless moving in a way that you could pass through friends, etc. Sliding sideways is never a legal way to pass through (except for Train, of course). In this case I cannot enter into the gap unless sliding 

[landmeister]

By the way

IMO the width of a gap needs to be measured perpendicular to the direction of movement. Otherwise lots of sensible moves become impossible.

Another clarification request for the Oracle? 

For example

consider a  line of Cv, Bd, Cv with their front edges lined up.

Now try to move another Bd in behind the first one.

The gap between the rear corner of the Cv and the centre of the rear edge of the front Bd is less than 80p.

Yes, I agree. A clear definition of gap would be appreciated.

[Platypus]

I agree with Andrew. The column is contiguous and B is deemed to be behind A, so the TZ that B seems to have does not exist.

In fact, since if B would normally be directly behind A, so when your element contacts the flank of A, B will have to turn and get behind A.

If it is a waterway, then A can't recoil, so -1.

Don't let geometry get in the way. The very first rule on p33 is "Troops that would move into close combat in real life must do so in the game". This is the overriding rule.

Hope this helps,

G^is,
John

[LawrenceG]

Page 29 states "Each element of a column wheels in succession on arrival at the place where the first wheeled. Until all have done so, the column will have a bend at that point, but each element is still treated as if lined up behind that in front."  So B is deemed to be directly behind A so you can contact the flank of A.

IMO this rule wording does not mean that you treat the element as if it was physically lined up behind the other one, allowing you to notionally contact it in its "treated as" position, or pass through the space it occupies or ignore the TZ exerted in its "real" position. The element is where it is. The rule means it qualifies for benefits that apply to an element that is lined up behind another one (such as giving rear support).

[MikeCampbell]

I disagree - the wording is all-inclusive and has no exceptions - the elements are ".....treated as if lined up behind that in front." - period.

[LawrenceG]

I disagree - the wording is all-inclusive and has no exceptions - the elements are ".....treated as if lined up behind that in front." - period.

I don't necessarily agree with you, but...

Would you treat the third element in the column as lined up behind B's actual position, or its "treated as" position?

[landmeister]

IMO this rule wording does not mean that you treat the element as if it was physically lined up behind the other one, allowing you to notionally contact it in its "treated as" position, or pass through the space it occupies or ignore the TZ exerted in its "real" position. The element is where it is. The rule means it qualifies for benefits that apply to an element that is lined up behind another one (such as giving rear support).

This is my view too. The element is where it is and facing towards it is facing...

[MikeCampbell]

I disagree - the wording is all-inclusive and has no exceptions - the elements are ".....treated as if lined up behind that in front." - period.

I don't necessarily agree with you, but...

Would you treat the third element in the column as lined up behind B's actual position, or its "treated as" position?

IMO "that in front" is the front element of the formation that iw wheeling - so hte 3rd element is "reated as" being behind that front element - this is hte case for all the elements that have "partly wheeled".