Spontaneous Advance in Column

[Marcel Bos]

http://www.acdseeonline.com/shared-photo/M.%20Bos/Eykq2XQTcUVxTaNBpcN3/18703052/#18703052

Wb W,X,Y,Z must make a Spontaneous Advance towards Bd A, B.
Position A is the startposition.
Position B is the position after Spontaneous Advance
Now Wb X must immediatly conform to the front of Bd A using the 80p extra movement to line up in Close Combat, see Position C.
So far so good. What happens next?
Will only Wb X and Y conform, see Position D or.....
will all WB conform, see Position E or........ something else?

[LawrenceG1]

Tricky.

Both C and D are allowable end positions.

E may be allowable, but one could dispute it on the basis that X, Y and Z do not end lined up with A. However, there is no requirement for all elements to end lined up when a group uses EMTLU, so I would be inclined to allow this one as well. The group remains as a valid column so I think this is in the spirit of the rules, which is IMO to get things into combat with the minimum of disruption. A real stickler might ask you to demonstrate that each element can reach its final position by "(a) a sideways shift and/or (b) wheel or pivot;" but I've never seen that enforced. Other than that, it seems in accordance with the Rules As Written.

[LawrenceG1]

A useful tip for dealing with difficult "lining up in combat" situations is to use the option to line up as soon as possible while moving in the TZ. That often avoids problematic contacts, though I'm not sure it would have made much difference in this case.

[Marcel Bos]

Both C and D are allowable end positions.

E may be allowable, but one could dispute it on the basis that X, Y and Z do not end lined up with A. However, there is no requirement for all elements to end lined up when a group uses EMTLU, so I would be inclined to allow this one as well. The group remains as a valid column so I think this is in the spirit of the rules, which is IMO to get things into combat with the minimum of disruption. A real stickler might ask you to demonstrate that each element can reach its final position by "(a) a sideways shift and/or (b) wheel or pivot;" but I've never seen that enforced. Other than that, it seems in accordance with the Rules As Written.

Thank you very much. It is good to know that, in this case, there are more end-positions allowed. I wasn't sure about that.

A useful tip for dealing with difficult "lining up in combat" situations is to use the option to line up as soon as possible while moving in the TZ. That often avoids problematic contacts, though I'm not sure it would have made much difference in this case.

If end-position E is chosen this turn, I expact that in the next turn the Wb X, Y, Z moves all behind Wb W in a straight line without bends.

[LawrenceG1]

If end-position E is chosen this turn, I expact that in the next turn the Wb X, Y, Z moves all behind Wb W in a straight line without bends.

No. Their impetuous move would be straight ahead, but they can't move straight ahead, therefore they don't move.

[Marcel Bos]

No. Their impetuous move would be straight ahead, but they can't move straight ahead, therefore they don't move.

You are right of course 

A useful tip for dealing with difficult "lining up in combat" situations is to use the option to line up as soon as possible while moving in the TZ. That often avoids problematic contacts, though I'm not sure it would have made much difference in this case.

So because Wb X,Y,Z don't 'move' they don't line up in the TZ either 

What if Wb W was destroyed in de Bd turn........?
Wb X moves his next turn into contact with Bd A.
Wb Y, Z should follow up behind in column.
According to the TZ-rules, while moving in a TZ, Wb Y,Z should line up as soon as possible  opposite the TZ-ing element most directly in front.

So are Wb X,Y,Z then in a straight line without bends?

Or do I again miss something? Thanx for all your help.

[LawrenceG1]

What if Wb W was destroyed in de Bd turn........?
Wb X moves his next turn into contact with Bd A.
Wb Y, Z should follow up behind in column.
According to the TZ-rules, while moving in a TZ, Wb Y,Z should line up as soon as possible  opposite the TZ-ing element most directly in front.

So are Wb X,Y,Z then in a straight line without bends?

Yes. However, the option to line up while moving in a TZ is an option, it is not compulsory. Only lining up in close combat is compulsory. Therefore the moving player has the choice of remaining as a bendy column, or forming a straight column.

Note: it is a possible interpretation that when the spontaneous move direction must be "straight ahead", this disallows the option to EMTLU while moving in a TZ, but it seems to me that players in general do not interpret it this way.

Lawrence Greaves

[foxgom]

Hi

I do not think they make any contact whatsoever.
They can only deviate from straight ahead it they do not end closer to the nearest enemy.

By moving straight ahead they end their move closer to the blades and therefore cannot deviate to contact the blades.

This rule can lead to some strange situations and its important to keep your impetuous troops pointing at the enemy.

Neil

[Marcel Bos]

I do not think they make any contact whatsoever.
They can only deviate from straight ahead it they do not end closer to the nearest enemy.

By moving straight ahead they end their move closer to the blades and therefore cannot deviate to contact the blades.

This rule can lead to some strange situations and its important to keep your impetuous troops pointing at the enemy.

Looking at the written rules you seem to be right, but that is contradictory to example Fig. 5A-Spontanious priorities in the rulebook, its says:
"Assuming A&B are not there, Bow C is the next priority"

[LawrenceG1]

I do not think they make any contact whatsoever.
They can only deviate from straight ahead it they do not end closer to the nearest enemy.

By moving straight ahead they end their move closer to the blades and therefore cannot deviate to contact the blades.

This rule can lead to some strange situations and its important to keep your impetuous troops pointing at the enemy.

Looking at the written rules you seem to be right, but that is contradictory to example Fig. 5A-Spontanious priorities in the rulebook, its says:
"Assuming A&B are not there, Bow C is the next priority"

In fig 5a the "previously closest visible enemy" is E. A straight ahead move would take XY further from E, therefore they can deviate from straight ahead.

However, Fig 5a is not entirely consistent with the text on page 30 and page 30 takes precedence. In the absence of A and B the target is E as this is the" closest enemy element in reach".

Marcel's original question is really about what happens when the column hits the target group, i.e. the TZ and EMTLU rules, not about the sponno rules. There certainly are situations in which this sort of thing can happen as a sponno move, for example if there was a closer enemy element not shown in the diagram that was out of reach for some reason, or if the sponno elements' move distance was far enough that they would end further from the enemy if they went past it.

[Marcel Bos]

Marcel's original question is really about what happens when the column hits the target group, i.e. the TZ and EMTLU rules, not about the sponno rules.

That's right, and you were very helpful.

They can only deviate from straight ahead it they do not end closer to the nearest enemy.

Yesterday I played my first game with v. 2 (I played often with v. 1)
This what happend:

see http://www.acdseeonline.com/shared-photo/M.%20Bos/J7kGQGxDLQd1PfVPLExH/18708508/#18708508
My opponents (blue) Ps got Impetious while in a river.
My (red) Ax was out of reach and the Ps made a Spontanious Move straight ahead until he reached impossible terrain (a river 180o to its flow) (postion A)
The rules don't say that the Spontanious move ends reaching impossible terrain so we allowed the PS to move along the bank of the river (position B).
Is this OK?

see http://www.acdseeonline.com/shared-photo/M.%20Bos/J7kGQGxDLQd1PfVPLExH/18708507/#18708507
But what happend if Ax was a littlebit closer to Ps.
I think it doesn't matter at all, Ps makes the same movement, even as it could reach Ax (position C).

Even if the river wasn't curved Ps couldn't make any contact with Ax (position D).
This worries me a lot, what happend with 'it is an absolute requirement that troops that would move into close combat in real life must do so in the game'? (p. 33)

I'll be grateful to hear your comments.

[LawrenceG1]

1. If you MUST move straight ahead, then you must move straight ahead and if you can't move any further straight ahead you have to stop even if the rules don't specify impassable terrain as a reason to stop. You can't deviate from straight ahead, you simply move up to the edge of the terrain and stop.

In the situations where you MAY use a bullet point (i.e. not ending closer to own rear table edge and not ending closer to previously closest enemy) you can use the third bullet (move straight ahead until you reach the terrain, then move along the edge of the terrain).

2. Sponno elements must still obey the TZ restrictions. A spontaneous move straight ahead does not automatically allow you to enter or move in a TZ. In this case the sponno element does enter the TZ. There rules are not entirely clear on what to do in such a situation, but I think most people would play it like this:

Move straight ahead until you reach a position in the TZ where an 80p pivot and sideways shift would be enough to line up with the TZing enemy. Note how far you have moved at this point. Use the EMTLU (this is not added to the distance you have moved). Carry on straight ahead on the new facing to use up any remaining movement.

In some cases it may be that an 80p extra move is not enough to line up, or is not possible for some reason (e.g. it can't be made up of a pivot and sideways shift).  In these cases a straight ahead move is not permitted, which is treated as not ending closer to the previously closest enemy. This allows you to use a bullet point, which in this case could be to go into combat with the auxilia if it is within reach.


Lawrence Greaves

[Marcel Bos]

I still can't understand why Phil Barker has allowed an Impetuous element in some cases to pass an enemy element, which is almost, but not quite, in front of it.
Doing so the Impetious element not only ignores a good opportunity to attack but also leaves his back unprotected to that same enemy.
Probably Phil had a good reason, I just can't see 

But the rules are clear to me now, thank you very much Lawrence!

[LawrenceG1]

It's because the written rule is so hard to understand that he didn't understand it himself.