Voluntary Partial Interpenetration Legal?

pbrandon · Post by **pbrandon** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:52 pm

LFLFLFLFLFLFLFLF
KNKNKNKNKNKNKNKN
LFLFLFLFLFLFLFLF

Can, as above LF voluntarily partially intercept a friendly BG, (i.e. they had plenty of move distance to get through) because they want to? In this case the reason they wanted to do so was enemy troops blocked a complete interpenetration.

Paul

mbsparta · Post by **mbsparta** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:22 pm

Voluntary Partial Interpenetration Legal?

................ It's illegal in Ohio (USA)!

Officer Mike

TERRYFROMSPOKANE · Post by **TERRYFROMSPOKANE** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:01 am

The page 48 bullet that covers partial interpenetrations begins, "If a battle group does not have sufficient move distance to pass fully through another battle group:"

There is no text beginning, "If a battle group has sufficient move distance but chooses not to pass fully through."

Terry G.

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:36 am

Wouldn't that result in voluntarily ending in an illegal formation?

pbrandon · Post by **pbrandon** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:30 am

Those were the reasons I ruled against it at the Challenge. Just curious if there were other views.

Paul

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:20 am

FWIW I think you called it right Paul.

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:55 am

Isn't there a bit in the "in all other cases" bullet point about if enemy troops block the interpenetration, it's not allowed?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:34 pm

There is - yes.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:44 pm

kevinj wrote:Wouldn't that result in voluntarily ending in an illegal formation?

On the other hand Paul ruled in favour of a voluntary illegal formation in another case

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:50 pm

I chose to disregard that.

pbrandon · Post by **pbrandon** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:00 am

It's all a blur. I can't even remember that one.

Paul

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:07 am

pbrandon wrote:It's all a blur. I can't even remember that one.

Paul

My game against Pete - can you form an (otherwise) illegal formation whilst feeding bases into combat? (a voluntary move)

You ruled this was OK (and I have to say I think it is probably desirable), however, I was unsure that the rules on BG formations actually allow it.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:38 am

Hammy ruled against this at the club on Monday. And looking at the rules it seems the exception to this is when fighting in 2 directions as the BG is already in an illegal formation.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:58 pm

Well I have to say that I don't think the exceptions to the normal BG formation as detailed on page 23 allow you to feed in more bases if it would result in an illegal formation. Fighting in 2 directions is specifically allowed to be an illegal formation by page 23.