Lining up question

[landmeister]

Question raised in my last game Please look at the diagram:



White elements are a long line of Blades fighting against grey Pikes and a lonely Ax. Column 5-8 has to move sponno against element C. Columns 9-12 and 13-16 are disheartened, so they don't move. How should lining up be done in this case? I found these problems.

1. Column 9-12 cannot be moved sideways due to the presence of column 13-16.
2. Column 9-12 cannot me moved behind column 5-8 because of the presence of that single Ax element.
3. Pivoting is pointless in this situation.

Any suggestions? 

Thank you in advance.

[LAP1964]

What was column 1-4 doing?
LES

[Tim Child]

p.33:  "It is an absolute requirement that troops that would move into close combat in real life must do so in the game.  Geometric ploys cannot be used to prevent enemy contact."

The question is not, therefore, whether column 5-8 can contact the Bd, but only how best to rearrange the other Pk and Ax bases to do so.

As umpire, I would allow all of 9-16 to be moved sideways (i.e. to EMTLU to Bd D).  Column 13-16, if it obstructs 9-12 from getting out of 5-8's way, are themselves obstructing elements and can therefore be moved the minimum distance necessary (in this case a bit sideways) to get them out of the way.  In practice, it's just the same effect as a huge line of troops EMTLUing sideways when just the end one makes contact.

Likewise, if the problem were not column 13-16 but only the Ax (e.g. if column 13-16 were already in combat and therefore couldn't be moved), the Ax could be shifted out of the way as an obstructing element.

[landmeister]

What was column 1-4 doing?
LES

Sorry. I forgot to tell they were disheartened too (Please, don't ask  )

[landmeister]

As umpire, I would allow all of 9-16 to be moved sideways (i.e. to EMTLU to Bd D).  Column 13-16, if it obstructs 9-12 from getting out of 5-8's way, are themselves obstructing elements and can therefore be moved the minimum distance necessary (in this case a bit sideways) to get them out of the way.  In practice, it's just the same effect as a huge line of troops EMTLUing sideways when just the end one makes contact.

This is what I was looking for. How many obstructing elements can we find in this case? All on the right of 5-8. Is this what the rules truly say? Can we move an infinite number of elements that are NOT obstructing the moving column but just obstructing those who are obstructing them? If Ax element was not there, wouldn't we put 9-12 behind 5-8 after contact?

Even better, assuming there's enough space, wouldn't we put element 5 in contact with C so that the column 5-8 would be broken?

Likewise, if the problem were not column 13-16 but only the Ax (e.g. if column 13-16 were already in combat and therefore couldn't be moved), the Ax could be shifted out of the way as an obstructing element.

Same situation as before. Can the obstruction of an obstruction be moved out of the way?

Thank you for your response

[Valentinian Victor]

If  the Blade column numbered 1 to 4 is within 80p of the pikes in front of them then surely they should line up with Pikes B as they are the most to the front, pushing column 5 to 8 further to the right, and similarly column 9 to 12 should line up with Pikes D, presumably pushing column 13 to 16 to the right?

[landmeister]

In my example only column 5-8 can move into contact, this is why I would like to know how to deal with this situation.

[Valentinian Victor]

In my example only column 5-8 can move into contact, this is why I would like to know how to deal with this situation.

Yes, but if the other columns are within 80p of the pikes in front of them they must line up as soon as they can i.e. before column 5-8 moves.

[landmeister]

Yes, but if the other columns are within 80p of the pikes in front of them they must line up as soon as they can i.e. before column 5-8 moves.

But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.

[arvnranger]

But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.

[it] Would this be deemed an outcome move (indirectly an outcome of Column 5-8's compulsory spontaneous advance) and permitted per the last bullet point on p32?

Cheers,
Ivan.

[Valentinian Victor]

Yes, but if the other columns are within 80p of the pikes in front of them they must line up as soon as they can i.e. before column 5-8 moves.

But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.

Under this circumstance I would have consulted my opponent first and come to a gentleman's agreement about where the whole group shifts (column 5-8 is still part of the group because it is both in side edge to side edge and front edge to rear edge contact with other elements of the group). The move that does not give either an advantage or disadvantage to either player is to move the group to the left so that column 1-4 is facing Pikes A etc. However, this does go against the rules as technically the group should shift right as they overhang more of the right side pike elements than they do the left. I'm sure that under this scenario I would have agreed to the left shift, as I suspect would 99% of most other players.

[landmeister]

Under this circumstance I would have consulted my opponent first and come to a gentleman's agreement about where the whole group shifts (column 5-8 is still part of the group because it is both in side edge to side edge and front edge to rear edge contact with other elements of the group). The move that does not give either an advantage or disadvantage to either player is to move the group to the left so that column 1-4 is facing Pikes A etc. However, this does go against the rules as technically the group should shift right as they overhang more of the right side pike elements than they do the left. I'm sure that under this scenario I would have agreed to the left shift, as I suspect would 99% of most other players.

I think this would be the best option, but I'm a bit disppointed with it.  I would prefer a "global" solution for it instead of a particular players agreement, but I guess nothing is perfect, including DBMM. 

[landmeister]

But then column 13-16 moves out of an enemy TZ in an illegal way.

[it] Would this be deemed an outcome move (indirectly an outcome of Column 5-8's compulsory spontaneous advance) and permitted per the last bullet point on p32?

Cheers,
Ivan.

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand your question. 

[Valentinian Victor]

Under this circumstance I would have consulted my opponent first and come to a gentleman's agreement about where the whole group shifts (column 5-8 is still part of the group because it is both in side edge to side edge and front edge to rear edge contact with other elements of the group). The move that does not give either an advantage or disadvantage to either player is to move the group to the left so that column 1-4 is facing Pikes A etc. However, this does go against the rules as technically the group should shift right as they overhang more of the right side pike elements than they do the left. I'm sure that under this scenario I would have agreed to the left shift, as I suspect would 99% of most other players.

I think this would be the best option, but I'm a bit disppointed with it.  I would prefer a "global" solution for it instead of a particular players agreement, but I guess nothing is perfect, including DBMM. 

The 'global solution' as you put it is already there, the whole group shifts to the right, which is allowed even if it takes column 13-16 out of TZ. However, as this does give an advantage to the Bd group as the first combat will no doubt be fought on Pike D due to the overlap created when column 13-16 is shunted to the right, I would say that the best overall solution would be for the blade group to shift left so that the line up leads to no advantage on either side. It all does rest on the Blades player being a 'gentleman' though...!

[landmeister]

The problem is that only column 5-8 can move into contact. All other columns are disheartened because they belong to a different command. But thank to all for their responses.