Let's begin!. Sponnos.

[landmeister]

Now that so many interesting info is being poured into this thread, I would like to add another question  . Sponnos must move spontaneously as columns if they can, or as individuals if not. In my last game we saw a long column (8 Irr LH (S) elements) fighting frontally a single enemy element. Only the first two elements of the column were pinned by the enemy TZ. The question is, must all other rear elements be halted to avoid making individual sponno moves or the columns remains in combat so it is counting as in combat?

I considered it was still a column, so there was no need to halt anyone because it was in combat, but my opponet argued that it wasn't a column because only the first element was in actual close combat. I have to admit that it is not a bad reasoning 

[Barritus]

I said:

Option 1: go straight ahead, and Warband X contacts nothing. This activates the dot point options.
Option 2: change direction by the least angle and contact enemy. In the example you describe, it would be Bow C.

Landmeister said:

But in this case Warband X DOES END closer to C if moving straight ahead. Why dot points are applicable now?  Huh

That's true but it's not everything. Let's go through it again.

Option 1: Go straight ahead.

If going straight ahead means EITHER you don't contact anything OR you end further from the nearest enemy element at the start of the move, you can activate option 2.

Option 2: Change direction by the least angle and contact enemy.

There are two conditions which can activate option 2: A. the moving element doesn't contact anything, and B. the moving element ends its move further from the nearest enemy element at the start of the move. You only need to meet one of the conditions in order to activate Option 2.

In the case of the example you give, moving straight ahead doesn't meet condition B (as you point out, Warband X ends its move closer to Bow C). But it does meet condition A, in that the move didn't end in contact. As a result of meeting at least one of the two conditions, Option 2 (change direction...) is activated. Therefore Warband X is allowed to change direction to contact Bow C.

[LawrenceG]

I said:

Option 1: go straight ahead, and Warband X contacts nothing. This activates the dot point options.
Option 2: change direction by the least angle and contact enemy. In the example you describe, it would be Bow C.

Landmeister said:

But in this case Warband X DOES END closer to C if moving straight ahead. Why dot points are applicable now?  Huh

That's true but it's not everything. Let's go through it again.

Option 1: Go straight ahead.

If going straight ahead means EITHER you don't contact anything OR you end further from the nearest enemy element at the start of the move, you can activate option 2.

Option 2: Change direction by the least angle and contact enemy.

There are two conditions which can activate option 2: A. the moving element doesn't contact anything, and B. the moving element ends its move further from the nearest enemy element at the start of the move. You only need to meet one of the conditions in order to activate Option 2.

In the case of the example you give, moving straight ahead doesn't meet condition B (as you point out, Warband X ends its move closer to Bow C). But it does meet condition A, in that the move didn't end in contact. As a result of meeting at least one of the two conditions, Option 2 (change direction...) is activated. Therefore Warband X is allowed to change direction to contact Bow C.

I think that in paraphrasing the rules as written you have reversed the logic of the compounded negatives.

You might like to double-check this, but IMO the rule equates to:

If straight ahead contacts enemy then you must move straight ahead.

If straight ahead ends closer to the closest enemy then you must move straight ahead.

If NEITHER of the above then you may use one of the bullet points. 

[landmeister]

I think that in paraphrasing the rules as written you have reversed the logic of the compounded negatives.

You might like to double-check this, but IMO the rule equates to:

If straight ahead contacts enemy then you must move straight ahead.

If straight ahead ends closer to the closest enemy then you must move straight ahead.

If NEITHER of the above then you may use one of the bullet points. 

This is how I read it. And what do you think about spontanoeus columns in combat?

[Barritus]

I think that in paraphrasing the rules as written you have reversed the logic of the compounded negatives.

You might like to double-check this, but IMO the rule equates to:

If straight ahead contacts enemy then you must move straight ahead.

If straight ahead ends closer to the closest enemy then you must move straight ahead.

If NEITHER of the above then you may use one of the bullet points.  

Heh. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that I may have got it wrong. Here is the direct quote, leaving out the irrelevant bits:

A spontaneous advance's direction is straight ahead, except that if that move would neither contact an enemy element...directly in front nor end closer to the previously closest visible enemy it may...change direction by the least angle and then move the least distance possible to...contact...the closest enemy element in reach...

I think the bit in italics could be replaced by the following words: "...except that if that move both fails to contact enemy and ends further away from the previously closest visible enemy..."

Yes, I was wrong, and in the example Landmeister gives (no A, B and E) Warband X would have to go straight ahead. My apologies for the confusion.

Man, that was hard to parse. And I'm studying Professional Writing at uni at the moment...

[lorenzomele]

Same trouble here. You need to read it slowly 

[LawrenceG]

Man, that was hard to parse. And I'm studying Professional Writing at uni at the moment...

Learning to write easily parsed sentences will not necessarily help you to parse difficult ones.

If only Phil had studied the same course...

[LawrenceG]

And what do you think about spontanoeus columns in combat?

Not all that clear in the rules but IMO the whole column can do the "If none of the above is possible, remain in place but count as having moved" therefore they will do that as a column rather than split off as individuals.

[landmeister]

Not all that clear in the rules but IMO the whole column can do the "If none of the above is possible, remain in place but count as having moved" therefore they will do that as a column rather than split off as individuals.

I agree, but I think that the key sentence is that sponnos must move as columns "...if they can". The question would be, can a column in close combate be considered still a column? I know the definition of column is a group one element wide, but when defining how sponnos must move it seems to imply that it is only for columns not in combat. I will change the question. Does the sentence "...moves as a column if they can, otherwise as single elements" mean that the ONLY possibility of moving as a single sponno is being a single element at the beginning of the spontaneous move?

Thank you

[LawrenceG]

If you have a column and the front element is in close combat then the front element does not do a sponno move. The second element would have to do a sponno move, but it will be in the enemy TZ, which will normally mean none of the directions is possible, so it stays in place but counts as having moved.

The next bit is open to interpretation.

One interpretation is as I gave before, the column stands still as a column. This is the easiest to apply, although probably a bending of the exact rule wording. (added later) Phil has clarified on the Yahoo group that this is how he interprets it.

Depending on base depths, the next element may be out of the TZ. It can't wheel so it can't move as a column with the element behind, so maybe it could move as a single element and use one of the bullet points to leave the column. Usually the element in front blocks its move so it stands still as none of the directions is possible, and so on as each element tries to move. So usually the net result is the same as the simple interpretation above.

OK, now suppose the column has no element in close combat. Depending on the situation, the front element may not be able to wheel (hence move as a column), nor move straight ahead, but it may be able to move by a shift or dog-leg as a single element to achieve one of the allowed directions.

The rules are intentionally framed so that if sponno elements are in a column they normally stay as a column, and do not split apart. They could be better worded, but they are as good as we managed to get in the time available.

[landmeister]

Thank you for your detailed explanation Lawrence. 

[landmeister]

Once Phil himself has clarified the previous situation, I enclose the next one raised in my last game. Please look at the diagram included.



All elements are Wb (O). It's grey's bound. Column 2-3 is moving spontaneously. It can contact element A on its flank, but it cannot line up due to the presence of B's TZ. What would happen now? At first sight, it could put into an overlapping position, but then we'd be ignoring the previous priority of ending closer to enemy in front, so the column MUST move forward until contact.

Any suggestions?

[LawrenceG]

Once Phil himself has clarified the previous situation, I enclose the next one raised in my last game. Please look at the diagram included.



All elements are Wb (O). It's grey's bound. Column 2-3 is moving spontaneously. It can contact element A on its flank, but it cannot line up due to the presence of B's TZ. What would happen now? At first sight, it could put into an overlapping position, but then we'd be ignoring the previous priority of ending closer to enemy in front, so the column MUST move forward until contact.

Any suggestions?

A move straight ahead would contact enemy and would end closer to the previously nearest enemy, so you can't use any of the bullet points. Such a move would, however, not be legal. So I think that leaves you with "None of the directions below is possible... remain in place but count as moved".

The move to overlap would have been possible if the wording was "(a) would be legal and neither..." but it isn't. Something to consider for the next version.