Contraction in Restricted Zone

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:04 am

This came up at SMACDOWN this weekend.

A BG of longbow is in the restricted zone of an enemy BG at around 1" deployed like so

BBBB
BB

facing the enemy with the left most base completely in front of the enemy BG.

I wanted to contract the right most base behind the left most base and wheel until I was parrallel to the enemy BG. My opponent yelled foul.

I stated that the prohibition against contraction was if I remained stationary and that I advanced towards the enemy which made the move legal. He argued that a contraction and advance was not an advance and before it became too heated the referee was asked to make a ruling. At the time the referee stated he could not find where my contraction and advance was legal and ruled against me. It did not change the outcome but I seem to recall this being discussed at length here on the forum.

Thanks,

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:32 am

IMO your opponent and the umpire were correct - but I agree that the rules could be clearer.

The first sub-bullet on P74 is - 'Advance directly....' An Advance is defined on Page 41 - it cannot include a contraction. But of course a Contraction may also include an advance - but the 2 are not the same thing in the context of a Restricted Area.

Re-read both sections and let me know what you think?

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:55 am

Read those sections in detail at the time.

I guess the issue is that contractions are specifically listed as not allowed if you remain stationary. The referee and my opponent both said I could contract and move away but not contract and advance. That seemed to be splitting hairs.

Like I said in the original post, it did not make a difference overall at the time, the referee was asked to make a call, he did and play continued.

Don't have time at the moment to troll back through the forum to look for it but it seemed that this has been discussed in the past.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:21 pm

You are right - it has been discussed several times.

The key for me is that you can only make a simple advance. So you can't expand and get closer either - you can only expand and stay stationary or move further away. If you're LH or LF in a restricted area with the enemy to your rear, you can't turn 180 degrees and get closer.

Expansions, Contractions and Turns are not Advances - but they can sometimes include an advance.

Sorry if I'm not explaining it in a way that helps.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:07 pm

Found my answer from this thread based on a question you asked Pete.

viewtopic.php?p=83887#83887

Thanks for the help, Pete.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:44 pm

Excellent - glad you were able to find it.

And it reminds me that it never made it to the FAQs - and what chance of V2?

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:19 pm

petedalby wrote:Excellent - glad you were able to find it.

And it reminds me that it never made it to the FAQs - and what chance of V2?

Clearly we need a new FAQ, but the authors are distracted.

jorneto · Post by **jorneto** » Fri May 06, 2011 6:05 pm

The following situations happened in a recent game.

In the first, the HF facing left gets pinned by one of my MF's, then responds by advancing 3 MU´s and contracting 2 bases
. . . <- . . . . . .<-<-
. . . <- . . . . . .<-<-
. . . <-
. . . <-
AAAA. . . . . . AAAA
AAAA. . . . . . AAAA

In the second, a BG of LF's is pinned by my LH, then responds by turning 180, followed by a 3 MU move with a minimal wheel away from the LH and finishes with another 180 turn
<-<- . . . . . . . .<-<-
<-<- . . . . . . . . . <-<-
<-<- . . . . . . . . . . .<-<-
AAAA . . . . . AAAA
AAAA . . . . . AAAA

After some arguing I conceded the legality of both moves. But still... isn't that too much fancy maneuvering under the enemy noses? That's the idea behind the 'restricted area' concept?
My own view would be more on the "straight towards to or straight away from the enemy" logic.

Any comments?

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat May 07, 2011 7:51 am

Pete, please post in the V2 area 'cos if simple moves as a concept disappears it is going to make this interesting unless some tidying up is done.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sat May 07, 2011 2:52 pm

timmy1 wrote:Pete, please post in the V2 area 'cos if simple moves as a concept disappears it is going to make this interesting unless some tidying up is done.

I believe the authors are on this point and plan to make the rules clearer and more restrictive.