Elements in threat zones.

[andrew]

I think this has been asked before but a quick search hasn't shown the thread, if any.

Element A moves such that it 'threatens' element B without entering the TZ of element B.  By 'threatens' it has moved such that it's TZ extends over enemy element B but it has not contacted element B.

Two questions:

1)  Can element B turn to line up per the 'extra movement' rules?
2)  Is such lining up compulsory?

Andrew

[landmeister]

1) Yes. TZed elements are elegible to use the extra movement rules.
2) Reading carefully, it seems so, but I don't think this is the intention of the rules.  . If it was compulsory, it would be too easy to break groups simply by TZing some of its elements from flanks or rears.

[william]

  This is a very tricky subject and one I can not yet understand. It is using the EMTLU again and there seem to have been wildly differing opinions.

' A contacting, contacted or TZ-ed element or group that is nit lined up moves up to an extra base witdh (80p) to do so if the extra movement is used only to line up with an enemy front, flank or rear edge' etc.

So Element A not being in a TZ is fine and since the move can be used in either bound then Element B can use the EMTLU to line up ( and it appears to me it does not have to line up to A's front ), the 2 questions then seem to come are

1 does element B have to line up ( or if it would take more than 80p can it line up )?
 
and 2 what actually is lining up?

and of course if element B is TZ-ed by two elements which would one line up to?

The lining up when TZ-ed would appear to allow ones opponent to pull formations apart and I think is open to huge amount of abuse, but I am waiting patiently for an answer on this probably in 2020.

William

[andrew]

Thanks for your comments.

I agree the concept of 'lining up' has not been adequately defined.  I proposed a nifty solution some time ago which, from memory, was dismissed / ignored etc.  Oh well - we can but try!

The rules are not clear as to whether lining up (in a TZ rather than as a result of contact) is compulsory or optional so, in the absence of a clarification, my opponents and I have chosen that such lining up is optional.

Exploring EMTLU scenario #2:
Let's say element A threatens the rear of element B (and element A is lined up with the rear of element B) and element B uses EMTLU by turning the element exactly 180 degrees such that the 2 front corners moved exactly 80 paces - in other words they swapped positions, and the space occupied by the front edge remains the same, except element B has now exactly turned around to face element A (see the image below).

Does anyone have any issues with that?  What if, as part of lining up, element B has now moved out of the TZ of element A?  Conceptually I have an issue with this but I cannot point to a specific rule that prevents this from happening other than EMTLU is up to 80 paces - some say this is inclusive of 80 paces whilst others say exclusive.  Ignoring the inclusive vs exclusive debate for the moment, can anyone point to a relevant rule to allow/disallow this?

Cheers
Andrew

Example:

[foxgom]

Exploring EMTLU scenario #2:
Let's say element A threatens the rear of element B (and element A is lined up with the rear of element B) and element B uses EMTLU by turning the element exactly 180 degrees such that the 2 front corners moved exactly 80 paces - in other words they swapped positions, and the space occupied by the front edge remains the same, except element B has now exactly turned around to face element A (see the image below).

Does anyone have any issues with that? 

unquote

I most certainly would !   
Turning 180 degrees to escape a TZ !   
Horrible !

I understand turning 180 degrees to mean that the element turns 180 degrees and stands on exactly the surface it was standing on before the turn and is thus still within the TZ.

 

neil fox

[william]

Exploring EMTLU scenario #2:
Let's say element A threatens the rear of element B (and element A is lined up with the rear of element B) and element B uses EMTLU by turning the element exactly 180 degrees such that the 2 front corners moved exactly 80 paces - in other words they swapped positions, and the space occupied by the front edge remains the same, except element B has now exactly turned around to face element A (see the image below).

Does anyone have any issues with that?  What if, as part of lining up, element B has now moved out of the TZ of element A?  Conceptually I have an issue with this but I cannot point to a specific rule that prevents this from happening other than EMTLU is up to 80 paces - some say this is inclusive of 80 paces whilst others say exclusive.  Ignoring the inclusive vs exclusive debate for the moment, can anyone point to a relevant rule to allow/disallow this?

Cheers
Andrew

Hello Andrew,
                 I like the example you have given if only because it sparks debate in this area. On first thought the TZ-ed element B may not move because it may already lined up with A, the elements to start with have all sides parallel to sides on the opposing element ( this may also apply if A was TZ-eding B exactly to the side ), but this of course depends on an authorised definition of lining up or being lined up.

                 Secondly if the elements are not officially lined up would a move taking B out of the TZ of A be an allowed EMTLU, so again if B is not officially lined up with A would B not about face as you have stated in your example but move backwards ( before the turn ) or forwards to remain in the TZ of A.

                  I think overall that it will eventually be considered that A and B were lined up to start with so I would like people to consider a slightly expanded version of the same example. What if B was part of group of elements in line and A moved so that it at a slight ( or even not so slight ) angle, ( IE no sides of element A parallel to element B ) and TZeding B alone, would element B be required to some how 'line up' with B thereby disrupting the group, would it's move (EMTLU) be the minimum necessary to 'line up' ( having A still facing B's rear ) or does player B have the option to turn B around.

               Would the same thing apply to TZeding to flanks, is this how single elements of skirmishers could be used to break up formations from the front.

              Yes there is a huge area open to abuse here that can only be reconciled by some clarifications.

               Keep up the good work.

William

[andrew]

Hi William

Thanks for your comments.  My sparring partner is a bit of a rules lawyer so he should get the credit for a lot of these sorts of questions that I raise.  He keeps me on my toes, but I think we end up better players for it!  Well hopefully!    It's worth exploring these sorts of issues away from the table so that by the time the question arises at the table we all know how to handle it.

In the main I agree with what you say - I too would like to see a definition of lined up that brings into account the element edges and corners - IMO at least one edge and one corner must be completely on the same plane to qualify for being 'lined up'.  So per my 2nd scenario above, the element above would be lined up (by our definition) and so does not get to turn around.

Consider that EMTLU is limited to 80 paces - the only way the element can turn around and the corners not move >80 paces is per my example, so unfortunately it ends out of the TZ (which I agree doesn't seem right Neil, because it can then move any which way in it's next bound).

In threatening a rear edge or corner, more often that not a move to 'line up' would result in one (or both) of the corners moving more than 80 paces so we must be vigilant with our opponents!!

I'm not sure that such lining up (in a non-contact situation) is mandatory so, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we will see too many groups broken up as a result of a threatened TZ.  Looking at your expanded example: if the threatened element was in a group, I don't think there will be sufficient room to place the element without moving one of the front corners more than 80 paces, because the rear of the element that is trying to turn around cannot end up overhanging his mate - so I don't think it is possible to legally turn around using EMTLU.  Unless the blocking element invokes paragraph d of EMTLU on page 33 to get out of the way.....

Cheers
Andrew

[LawrenceG]

Exploring EMTLU scenario #2:
Let's say element A threatens the rear of element B (and element A is lined up with the rear of element B) and element B uses EMTLU by turning the element exactly 180 degrees such that the 2 front corners moved exactly 80 paces - in other words they swapped positions, and the space occupied by the front edge remains the same, except element B has now exactly turned around to face element A (see the image below).

Does anyone have any issues with that?  What if, as part of lining up, element B has now moved out of the TZ of element A?  Conceptually I have an issue with this but I cannot point to a specific rule that prevents this from happening other than EMTLU is up to 80 paces - some say this is inclusive of 80 paces whilst others say exclusive.  Ignoring the inclusive vs exclusive debate for the moment, can anyone point to a relevant rule to allow/disallow this?

Cheers
Andrew

Example:

THe proposed move is not legal.

EMTLU must be a sideways shift and/or wheel or pivot, shorten a group frontage, or move a blocking element.