Turn 90? into column

[william]

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

Andrew

  Took a bit of time to consider this, is the starting element wheeling and IIRC the inner part of the wheel is considered as moving at the same speed as the outer?

  Confusing myself again

William

[andrew]

Hi William

There are so many ways to measure group moves and whether or not either corner (of the initial or final position) moves full distance is down to interpretation.  I'm not offering an opinion on this, but Lawrence stated it cost 3 PIPs and the only avenue of interpretation that I can see, rightly or wrongly, is the rule I quoted.  Unless I'm missing what Lawrence intended.......

Cheers
Andrew

[william]

Hi William

There are so many ways to measure group moves and whether or not either corner (of the initial or final position) moves full distance is down to interpretation.  I'm not offering an opinion on this, but Lawrence stated it cost 3 PIPs and the only avenue of interpretation that I can see, rightly or wrongly, is the rule I quoted.  Unless I'm missing what Lawrence intended.......

Cheers
Andrew

We shall have to wait, we bated breath.

William

[Valentinian Victor]

I thought Phil had ruled on this on the Yahoo site?

From my remembrance of this I believe that you move the first element, which becomes the head of the column, the maximum distance it can move, the other elements then falling in behind making their maximum move distance. Any element that cannot fall behind because the distance is too great then is moved sideways and placed by the side of the column. The next bound is the tricky one as if the column remains in a column when it moves, the elements on the side then either move sidewards and forwards as the column advances, probably leading to the rear most elements not moving, or waiting until the end of the column allows them to tag on behind.

Also Phil said that as long as the head of the column moves the full distance it can, including any wheels etc, then that counts for the 'both corners moving full distance' ruling.

[foxgom]

Hi

not quite...
P29, second bullet:
"
The future front element of the column...pivots 90 degrees...    It moves up to the full tactical distance of the slowest element....   The other elements move without measuring individually....   No element can end further to the rear than it started.  Until...entirely in column, each of its elements must end facing the same direction and in... contact with...the group. Elements of a group not yet in the column can only move sideways.
"

I do not think the manouvres I listed above are legal (Warband 8 x 4 or 2 x 16 turning 90 degrees to create  a 1 x 32 column) but would like to hear other opinions about why these turns should be (il)legal.

neil



 

[andrew]

@ VV : do you have a link to a post?

@ Neil : why do you think they are illegal?  I can see you are pushing the original example to the extreme, but I can't see any rules that state this cannot happen.

[foxgom]

"@ Neil : why do you think they are illegal?  I can see you are pushing the original example to the extreme, but I can't see any rules that state this cannot happen."

Hi

they look "silly" and "wrong" on the table.

I had understood the point about elements not being allowed to end their move further to the rear as being the limiting factor.

If I read it as "to their final rear" and not "to their initial rear", such "ridiculous" moves become impossible.

I could well imagine using such moves, especially for warband.
It becomes possible to deploy in a two wide group facing the opponent, pay two PIPs to end facing left in a column, then a further 2 Pips to become a wide group facing the enemy. This easily beats expanding by columns.  It would also impossible to do if the inital deployment was only one element wide. In this case there would simply be a kinked column.

neil

 

[MikeCampbell]

Way back in the early days of DBMM development Phil stated that turning into line from column was how he thought the ancients mostly did it.

So yes it is preferable to expanding from column, and is intended to be.

Just make sire you're far enough away from enemy to do it in march moves and you have enough PIPs....

Phil has commetned on the front corners issue in:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/49468

there was discussion about the issue on the list late last year - Phil didn't answer that at the time & IMO the message above covers it.

[foxgom]

Hi

have no problem with turning lines into column....

A Column of 24 warband (O) is 15 * 24 = 360mm = 720 p long.
It moves 160p /turn.
To turn from column to line it pays 2 Pips to turn the head of the column, moves 4 times straight ahead and then makes another 90 degree turn for 2 Pips.
Spreading this over a few moves, the least number of Pips needed is 8.
Fair enough.


However.
A group of 24 warband (O) two elements wide and twelve deep seems to be able to beam itself 90 degrees to the left as shown in the attached diagram and then takes another 90 degree turn for 2 Pips.
All done in one turn for only 4 Pips.
I do not like this method of turning at all.
There should be some limitation on it.


neil
 

[MikeCampbell]

AFAIK you cannot do that because "elements of the group not yet in the column can only move sideways" (last sentence of the bullet point).

[andrew]

Neil's extreme example is a logical extension of the original question of turning a 2x3 group of fast baggage elements into a column.  So does the original question still stand unanswered?  Surely a group more than one elements wide can turn 90 into a column - I suppose the question is how is this executed in such a way that all elements are still a contiguous group given a variety of base sizes and move distances......

[foxgom]

Hi

I know I?m harping on, but I do think that "no element may end further to the rear" is a sensible limiting factor which on the board gives reasonable results.

But you have to read it as "to their final rear" and not "to their initial rear".

neil

[Chang Noi]

Greetings
I take the words on Pg28 (1st para 'Group Moves) to define a column as one element wide only.  These precludes a two element wide 'column like' group from using the rules on page 29, unless they do so as two seperate columns.

I think the column rules have been written for a column going straight ahead, and the wording used fails to convey its meaning when it moves off at a 90deg angle.  I think that any element that can't join the column should turn 90deg then only move sideways.

So, Ivan, my opinion is that your last two elements should stay beside your column until next turn.  Unfortanately I haven't been able to get it into words yet and don't seem to have drawing options.

Will try again tomorrow.
Cheers
Wayne

[foxgom]

Hi

a block 2 elements wide is definitely not a column, which, as you say, has to be one element wide.

P29. top:

A  ... group...move can be used...to...

...turn 90 degrees into a column.....


Unfortunately there seems to be no limitation on how deep the group is, unless you take up my argument for elements not ending further to their rear, meaning to the rear of the final position, not to the rear of the initial position.

neil

[andrew]

Hi Wayne

Long time no see!

The original question arose in a game between Ivan and myself and my initial reaction was to first turn the elements who didn't make it into the column 90 degrees and, as you mentioned, then slide sideways.  However we took the "only" part of the rule as saying they couldn't turn 90 if not in the column (ie they can only slide sideways).  Whilst it is an elegant solution that "looks right" I don't think the rules support this method.  Maybe it should be pre-agreed with your opponent before any dice are rolled......like a few other things.

Andrew