Moving friends out of the way

[lorenzomele]

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?

Right. The rule let you choose if conform to enemy (first dot) or keep going straight ahead toward him keeping your original front position (5th dot, c option).
The fifth dot a) option is instead used when you don't go toward the enemy projecting the TZ on you (like happens when the opponent is on your side or behind you). In such a case the straigh ahead move must be at full speed.

[landmeister]

I think I finally got it  . Just a last question as a final clarification.  Let's take figure 6a and imagine that element A begins its move completely outside X's TZ just 80 p backwards. If I understand you correctly, I can move A in such a way that I would put it parallel (just parallel, not lined up) to X before enterint into X's TZ and then make the remainder move straight ahead but without contact, just moving short. As A has entered into X's TZ already parallel, I can choose NOT to line up and then apply the fiffht dot c) option, because it's moving directly towards the enemy exerting the TZ since it entered into X's TZ. Right?

And thank you in advance for your infinite patience. 

[lorenzomele]

The rule says that "Any move that will enter ............. an enemy TZ must ............. move straight forward ................. c) moving directly towards the enemy exerting the TZ". I read it that the entire move must be straight forward so in your example is possible to change direction entering in the TZ just by lining with enemy (second dot).
This is tricky, but let's examine how single elements move:
page 28, Single element move section, first paragraph line 4 we read "The element if it deviates from a straight line to avoid any of these (referred to obey interpenetration, terrain and TZ restriction) the extra distance must be added to the measurement.
This means that you can move as showed in figure 1b to avoid TZ restriction (and you avoid it staying out), not to enter in the TZ manouvering at will outside of it and finishing the move with a straight ahead motion.
This is confirmed by figure 6b and by the example text.                                                                     

[landmeister]

I see. I understand your position, but I read a bit different interpretation. In my opinion you must respect either restriction once you have touched the enemy TZ, not before. I have to admit the the verb "will enter" seems to apply to the movement before, but the full sentence says: "...will enter, or stars in, an enemy TZ must be completed once started". This means than either option included after must be completed. Certainly the 5th dot c) option is telling that the element must move directly towards the exerting TZ. I read that from that point on you respect it.

If I understand you correctly, you defend that figure 1b is not possible because element A did not move straight ahead its whole move before touching the enemy TZ. Is this correct?

[lorenzomele]

I say that move showed by figure 1b is correct (it doesn't enter enemy TZ), but the same move would not have been possible if used to enter another element TZ beside the one showed.

[landmeister]

Ok. Thank you very much. 

[Tim Child]

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.

I wonder whether the answer to this may lie in an interpretation of the Flank Edge contact paragraph on p.33, which says that in order to make front edge-to-flank edge contact an element must "start" in certain positions.  If this is interpreted to mean that its starting position at the beginning of the bound must be in one of those positions, the problem goes away.  Effectively, then, you are regarding the shift sideways as the beginning of its move that bound, which is IMHO the most common-sense approach.

Tim Child

[landmeister]

Just curious. After one year of changes and news rules for v2.0...absolutely no one foresaw this situation?  How can we know which one is the correct one?

[lorenzomele]

Just curious. After one year of changes and news rules for v2.0...absolutely no one foresaw this situation?  How can we know which one is the correct one?

As already said, I did 

[landmeister]

I wanted to say no one relevant for Phil.  Please Lorenzo, don't get me wrong, but it is evident that he simpy ignored your warnings 

[lorenzomele]

I'm not sure about it. We must look at the wider picture, and the line up as I see it is a sort of limitation.