Moving friends out of the way

[landmeister]

One of the most substantial changes in 2.0 is the one about moving friends out of the way to line up. Could you please confirm that I'm right? If I read it correctly, under 1.0 you could NEVER move friends away to line up, and now the only real obsracles (other than seas or the end of te world) are elements in close combat or giving support, no mater they are friends or foes. Is this correct? If so, let me say that this is a major improvement in my humble opinion.  

Thank you very much in advance.

[foxgom]

Hi

am unsure where you read this.
P33 1st para

"A move is cancelled and it?s PIPs lost if a FRIENDLY element.....obstructs the moving element?s lining up..."

This does not sound to me like I can move all my friends out of the way for free so as to make contact.

If it was allowed I'm sure I could think up some really awful tricks.


neil

[landmeister]

The full sentence says: "...a friendly element at least partially in front of the moving element..." This is the key factor. If it is not in front at all, you can move it out of the way. Imagine an element contacting an enemy one without any friend in front. When using the 80 p of EMTLU then contacts a friend not in close combat nor giving rear support. According to it, you can move it sideways until you finalyy line up into contact legally. This is a major difference from 1.0. 

[Orcoteuthis]

Not a change I've paid attention to previously, but when you point it out I am worried. In particular, the fact it fails to say when "partially in front" is checked opens for argument and perhaps cheese.

[LAP1964]

landmeister,if you read P.33,then look on P.56,that should help to clear up your questions.
LES

[landmeister]

Hi Les,

Sorry, but I still can't see it  . This is how I see it, and please correct me.

Figure 10b. Ax X is not a friendly element, as is said in the text, so my interpretation is not applicable here. Additionally, the text itself says that as X is not a friend partly in front, it can be moved out of the way.

Figure 10c. This case would not be applicable either, as Spear C is partially in front. Here the text says that if C wasn't in close combat it could not be moved out of the way because of it. By the way, could someone tell Phil there's a mistake in this Figure? Pike V is NOT in close combat.

In summary what I read on page 33 is, taking this last Figure 10c, is that if the Ax U element wasn't there, Cavalry B could line up to V by moving Spears A sideways or behind B. In this situation Spear A is NOT partially in front of Cv B. What do you think?

[Orcoteuthis]

In summary what I read on page 33 is, taking this last Figure 10c, is that if the Ax U element wasn't there, Cavalry B could line up to V by moving Spears A sideways or behind B. In this situation Spear A is NOT partially in front of Cv B. What do you think?

I think you are right. (However, if U wasn't there and the elements start out as in 10c, it'd be better to move A and B into combat as a group, thereby gaining an overlap.)

[landmeister]

I think you are right. (However, if U wasn't there and the elements start out as in 10c, it'd be better to move A and B into combat as a group, thereby gaining an overlap.)

Yes, I know. But I'm just interested in confirming that what I read is correct. 

[foxgom]

Hi

Think I understand what you are getting at...

I have two Cavalry in front of the enemy line.
One is 10mm aways from thr enemy line and one is 20mm away.
Their sides touch.

I can move the "20mm element" forward into contact and, if necessary, push the "10mm element" to the side in order to line up.

Seems legal to me.

neil

[landmeister]

I can move the "20mm element" forward into contact and, if necessary, push the "10mm element" to the side in order to line up.

Seems legal to me.

Yes, this is exactly what I want to say.

[landmeister]

I found this situation playing yesterday. My two Cv elements are facing up and an enemy Bd is facing down.



None of my Cv have moved yet. Then I choose to move element B first. Its has to line up against the enemy Bd, so that A must be moved away. I decide to move it sideways. This puts element A into a situation of possible contact to the enemy flank if I move it second. I did it, by the way  . I found it a bit cheesy, but strictly legal according to the rules. Other opinions would be appreciated.

[lorenzomele]

I found this situation playing yesterday. My two Cv elements are facing up and an enemy Bd is facing down.



None of my Cv have moved yet. Then I choose to move element B first. Its has to line up against the enemy Bd, so that A must be moved away. I decide to move it sideways. This puts element A into a situation of possible contact to the enemy flank if I move it second. I did it, by the way  . I found it a bit cheesy, but strictly legal according to the rules. Other opinions would be appreciated.

This is a possible move that I reported to PB in the 1.1 drafting process.
Looking at pag 33 Paragraph 1 line 4 rule, where it is explained how move the blocking element out of the way, it says "by moving it the minimum necessary distance either backwards and/or behind another, shifting sideways or pivoting."
A could then be moved backward and  be put behind B if this move is shorter than shifting right.
This whole rule is less cheesy of what appears by the way.
The situation that you report must be linked to TZ rule.
Normally A, if stop its move short of the enemy element, must completely line up with the enemy element (except if has moved its full move straight ahead).
The situation you report is much rarer than one with A lined up with grey opponent. In such a case the backward move is often the way to make room.
Furthermore opponent has its turn to remedy or react to this possible danger.
If instead is grey to put himself in jeopardy in its bound, well blame on him.

[landmeister]

Hi Lorenzo,

Thank you for your response. Just two additional questions 

1. The movement backward is different of behind another, isn't it? In this case moving A backward would suppose a 20 mm move and moving it behod B would suppose 20 mm backward first and then 30 mm leftwards. So A and B would become a group. Right? If I understand you correctly, the second move cannot be chosen as it is not the minimum.

2. According to p.33, elements within an enemy TZ MAY line up if they wish, so this situation will be more common than you foresee. Only elements contacting an enemy front must line up. I can imagine some tricky combos using Psiloi pinner elements just to be moved away by Kn or other QK'ing elements in order to avoid enemy shooting. 

[lorenzomele]

Hi Lorenzo,

Thank you for your response. Just two additional questions 

1. The movement backward is different of behind another, isn't it?

L- Yes they are different.

 In this case moving A backward would suppose a 20 mm move and moving it behod B would suppose 20 mm backward first and then 30 mm leftwards. So A and B would become a group
 Right? If I understand you correctly, the second move cannot be chosen as it is not the minimum.

L- In your drawing the right slide seems the shortest one. BTW assuming the 20mm back move is the shortest one, if it creates the required space, there is no need to go left. The goal is let contacting element have the room to execute a legal contact.


2. According to p.33, elements within an enemy TZ MAY line up if they wish, so this situation will be more common than you foresee.

L- Look at page 32 in the Threat zone paragraph, line 4. It says "Any move ............. must either:" ......... "line up as soon as possible  the opposite TZ........" or "Move straight forward either ...... c) moving directly towards the enemy exerting the TZ"
This means there is not so much freedom of actions, and your opponent in his bound can try to position himself to avoid dangers.

Only elements contacting an enemy front must line up. I can imagine some tricky combos using Psiloi pinner elements just to be moved away by Kn or other QK'ing elements in order to avoid enemy shooting. 

L- This is the reason for I warned PB, suggesting to count as moved the friendly element pushed out of the way. Anyway I see this issue as a minor one, imho. 

[landmeister]

Thank you very much for your responses, Lorenzo.

L- Look at page 32 in the Threat zone paragraph, line 4. It says "Any move ............. must either:" ......... "line up as soon as possible  the opposite TZ........" or "Move straight forward either ...... c) moving directly towards the enemy exerting the TZ"
This means there is not so much freedom of actions, and your opponent in his bound can try to position himself to avoid dangers.

This is very interesting. I find an apparent contradiction between pp. 32 and 33. When defining the EMTLU on p. 33 it is clearly said that it is voluntary if there is no contact with an enemy front, but according to the second point of possible actions when in a TZ, it seems it is compulsory ("Line up as soon as possible..."). Where's the freedom of election? Is it perhaps in "c)  moving directly towards the enemy..."? If so, I read that if an element is enetering into an enemy TZ at an angle, it can change direction to be parallel to that enemy, but without being compelled to end lined up. Am I right?