Allowable contact?

[andrew]

Hi

We had a situation come up in a game yesterday - please see the attached image:



Can blue element #2 contact the front of the red enemy element?  Note the red element is exerting a TZ over elements 1 and 2.  Element #2 is the lead element of a column of 2 blue elements, and the gap between element #1 and that behind element #2 is less than 80 paces.

What rules would you quote to support the argument element #2 can or cannot contact the front of the red enemy element?

Thanks
Andrew

[landmeister]

It depends on what you want. I you just want that element 2 contacts it, you can do it just moving as necessary to "avoid" element 1. You can move trhough an enemy TZ as you want if you finally end in front close combat (page 32). A different matter is if you choose to move the column headed by element 2. Columns must pivot in order to move forward, and in this case, element 1 is in their path. So, you couldn't contact the red one.

Hope it helps.

[william]

Hello Again,

For element 2 to contact than on of the freindly obstucting elements would have to be moved out of the way, if the rear rank behind 2 is the one that moves then if there is room 2 contacts and slides into frontal combat.

William

[landmeister]

Friends cannot be moved out of the way, only enemy elements not in close combat as per page 33 (1st para.)

[william]

Friends cannot be moved out of the way, only enemy elements not in close combat as per page 33 (1st para.)

  Agree totally, so pips would have to be spent on the elements in the way first.

Willia,

[landmeister]

Sorry, I didn't understand your words correctly. You're right! 

[arvnranger]

It depends on what you want. I you just want that element 2 contacts it, you can do it just moving as necessary to "avoid" element 1.

[it] What about the rule regarding passing through gaps of less than an element width? (top of p32)

For Element 2 to contact the Red enemy element its movement must involve more than just sliding sideways. Would you consider the leading element of a column to be "within" the column?

Cheers,
Ivan.

[andrew]

I see a few options here but I was exploring moving #1 into frontal combat without moving element #2.  One option (thanks William) is that the 2nd element in the column first moves out of the way (maybe even wraps the flank of the red element) which means that there is now no issue with 'gaps' or blocking elements.  The other option is to claim that element #1 is in a column and according to the rules quoted by Ivan, element #1 can enter a gap insufficient for it's own frontage given it is 'exiting from within a column'.  Any thoughts on the 2nd option?

Andrew

[arvnranger]

I see a few options here but I was exploring moving #1 into frontal combat without moving element #2.  One option (thanks William) is that the 2nd element in the column first moves out of the way (maybe even wraps the flank of the red element) which means that there is now no issue with 'gaps' or blocking elements.  The other option is to claim that element #1 is in a column and according to the rules quoted by Ivan, element #1 can enter a gap insufficient for it's own frontage given it is 'exiting from within a column'.  Any thoughts on the 2nd option?

Andrew

[it] I suspect you've transposed #1 and #2 between the original diagram and this last post. Does "within" = "part of" in this instance? Cheers, Ivan.

[andrew]

Ah yes - you spotted my intentional error!   Quite right, I got my numbers the wrong way round!

Yes I suppose the crucial part (in the absence of any rules to the contrary) is whether element #2 leaving the column complies with the rule 'exiting from within a column'.  Does 'within' imply it is neither the leading or trailing element?  Or does 'within' mean 'in' or 'part of' a column?

The simpler wording would have been 'exiting a column' if Phil had intended to include all elements within a column.  However, he specifically used the word 'within' which leads me to believe it is not intended to include the leading or trailing element of a column.  This is 180 degrees from my interpretation last weekend as a result of giving this question due thought.

However, for the combat in question, had the last element in the column moved first then I don't think there is an issue with element #2 making frontal contact given the 2nd half of the 2nd bullet point at the top of page 32 allows an element to slide between others into mutual front edge combat.  Given there are no other elements exerting a TZ over element #2, I don't think any of the TZ rules prevent element #2 from making contact.  Further, "geometric ploys" cannot be used to prevent contact and element #1 is not preventing element #2 from lining up (per the top of page 33).

So, depending on the sequence, I don't think it is a problem - moving the element from the rear of the column first would, IMO, remove all doubt.

Any differing opinions?

Cheers
Andrew

[william]

Ah yes - you spotted my intentional error!   Quite right, I got my numbers the wrong way round!

Yes I suppose the crucial part (in the absence of any rules to the contrary) is whether element #2 leaving the column complies with the rule 'exiting from within a column'.  Does 'within' imply it is neither the leading or trailing element?  Or does 'within' mean 'in' or 'part of' a column?

The simpler wording would have been 'exiting a column' if Phil had intended to include all elements within a column.  However, he specifically used the word 'within' which leads me to believe it is not intended to include the leading or trailing element of a column.  This is 180 degrees from my interpretation last weekend as a result of giving this question due thought.

However, for the combat in question, had the last element in the column moved first then I don't think there is an issue with element #2 making frontal contact given the 2nd half of the 2nd bullet point at the top of page 32 allows an element to slide between others into mutual front edge combat.  Given there are no other elements exerting a TZ over element #2, I don't think any of the TZ rules prevent element #2 from making contact.  Further, "geometric ploys" cannot be used to prevent contact and element #1 is not preventing element #2 from lining up (per the top of page 33).

So, depending on the sequence, I don't think it is a problem - moving the element from the rear of the column first would, IMO, remove all doubt.

Any differing opinions?

Cheers
Andrew

  No

William