Turn 90? into column

[arvnranger]

[it] A group of 6 Bg(F), 3 elements wide, 2 deep turns 90? into column.

Does this diagram display correctly the before and after positions of the group? I'm uncertain regarding the "not further to the rear" phrase on P29, para 1, BP 2 and the attendant issues for groups deeper than 1 element width performing this manoeuvre.

Cheers,
Ivan.

[andrew]

Hi Ivan

That question looks very familiar!!

I presume the question boils down to the last elements of the new column : is that legal?

Given the moves are not measured individually, there doesn't seem to be anything that prevents the two elements popping out the back of the new column.  Unless I'm missing something?

Let's assume for the moment the final position of the last 2 elements is not legal, are there any other options available to the last 2 elements?

From the rules on p29:

Until a contracting group is entirely in column, each of its elements must end facing the same direction as and in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another element of the original group.

This sentence would suggest that even if the position of the last 2 elements is not correct, that they are actually facing the correct way, but just in the wrong position.  And maybe they should line up on the right flank of the new column (unsupportable - see below).

However, this rule:

Elements of the group not yet in the column can move only sideways

would suggest the 2 end elements could not simply line up on the flank of the column, given they could only slide sideways - which if they did then they are no longer part of the group.  How then do the last 2 elements get into the group?

Is there an option for a 'kinked' column and the 2 left-most elements of the group simply stay where they are?

Or is the final position actually ok?  Interesting question........

Cheers
Andrew

[landmeister]

I would say that the las two elements cannot be included into the column, but I can't find any rules to support it 

[LawrenceG]

For some reason I can't see the picture, but if I understand the question correctly then I see no reason why the group could not end in a kinked column.

^^^
^^^

becomes
>>>>
^<

or

>>>>
^
^

[andrew]

Not bad considering you couldn't see the picture - you even had your elements facing in the correct direction!

I'm not sure the elements can end in this position:
>>>>
^<

because of the rule I quoted earlier regarding sliding sideways.

Whereas I think your final image of a kinked column:

>>>>
^
^

can be supported by the rules.  Equally I can't see anything preventing the final position per the image you can't see, of:

>>>>>>

where the 2 left-most elements are to the left of the original group.

Andrew

[LawrenceG]

Not bad considering you couldn't see the picture - you even had your elements facing in the correct direction!

I'm not sure the elements can end in this position:
>>>>
^<

because of the rule I quoted earlier regarding sliding sideways.

This is a column with two kinks. As all elements have joined the column, the restriction to moving sideways does not apply.


I agree with you on >>>>>>. No element is behind the original position of its rear edge. Mind you, there are other interpretations of "No element can end further to the rear than it started". If you interpret it as distance behind the front edge of the lead element in its final position then it would not be allowed.

[foxgom]

Hi

we had exactly the same same question this weekend at an Event in Bad Homburg, Germany.

P29 "No element can end further to its rear than it started".
Which direction is "to the rear"?
To the rear of the elements final position or to the rear of the elements starting position?
In this case, the two directions are at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to each other.

I would say the move is illegal, but should be clarified.

The kinked column seems ok to me, but if you make it 8 blades instead of 6, then I think this is no longer an option. The blades would have to advance straight ahead. ("until a contracting group...of the original group")


neil

[arvnranger]

From the rules on p29:

Until a contracting group is entirely in column, each of its elements must end facing the same direction as and in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another element of the original group.

<snip>

Elements of the group not yet in the column can move only sideways

<snip>

[it] From p28 "Group Moves":

A group is defined as a number of contiguous elements of the same command which, except as made necessary
by wheeling or turning a column or passing through a gateway, are facing in the same direction with each in both
edge and corner-to-corner contact with another of the group's elements.

Although I'm suspicious of the permissibility of *forming* a kinked column (vis-a-vis the discontinuity originating from a march or tactical move by a group already in column) the permission might be implicit above inasmuch as the "not further to rear" constraint on p29 gives rise to the necessity referred above. (?)
Cheers,
Ivan.

[MikeCampbell]

I've always played it as the original example, and "further to the rear than it started" can only mean to the initial rear as there is no other rear at the start.

The prohibbits this:

^^^^
^^^^

Becomes:

^
^
^
^---< where this was the intial rear rank
^
^

So this prohibition is mostly on elements with shorter moves, stopping them moving instantly into a single element wide column that is much deeper than the original formation and extends past it's original rear rank.

[foxgom]

Hi

so if I have 32 warband, 4 deep and 8 wide, can I turn them 90 degrees into a column 32 elements deep?

See attachment.

neil

[LawrenceG]

Hi

so if I have 32 warband, 4 deep and 8 wide, can I turn them 90 degrees into a column 32 elements deep?


neil

Yes, although it costs 3 pips. Then 2 to deploy out of the column when you want to do that.

[william]

Hi

so if I have 32 warband, 4 deep and 8 wide, can I turn them 90 degrees into a column 32 elements deep?


neil

Yes, although it costs 3 pips. Then 2 to deploy out of the column when you want to do that.

  Sorry Lawrence, why does it cost 3 pips ?

William

[foxgom]

Hi

and then it is also possible to turn a block of warband 2 wide and 16 deep 90 degees into a column?

Have also not understood the 3 Pips. I reckon it?s only two.

See attached JPG.

neil

[andrew]

Costing 2 or 3 PIPs depends on the interpretation of "Both a group's front corners move less than maximum distance...".

Andrew

[william]

Costing 2 or 3 PIPs depends on the interpretation of "Both a group's front corners move less than maximum distance...".

Andrew

Oooerr, now I very worried, pass the popcorn this could go on for a while.

William