Can this BG Expand?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:33 am

The green BG charged to contact. It looked a lot like this

Can it expand in the melee?

My opponent said no, as there was no room. I said there clearly was. As in:

He said this was not legal contact so there was no room as I could not conform. So we rolled a dice, I lost and I had to be outnumbered 2:1 for a turn until he conformed to me. It didn't really matter as I broke both BG of sheep worriers anyway.

Whats your opinion, even better if you own some rules.

Robert241167 · Post by **Robert241167** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:28 am

Hi Phil

Without looking at the rules we have played it as you can expand providing your bases don't break contact with each other.

The BG's fight as if conformed, so if conformed they would have expanded.

Rob

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:47 am

I believe you can expand:

- your compulsory step forward in impact took you out of normal formation. And you're then out of formation until you reform.

- you can feed in while in a funny formation as the Reform rules at the beginning of Manouvre say: "A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move. (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)."

- none of the various feeding in rules say you need to be in a normal formation.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:04 pm

You can expand for the reasons stated by the others. This was specifically allowed to prevent gamey geometric ploys that are not historical.

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:18 pm

hazelbark wrote:You can expand for the reasons stated by the others. This was specifically allowed to prevent gamey geometric ploys that are not historical.

Hmph. I would have said of the top of my head that one could not expand due to the illegal formation problem, but I don't have rules handy.

Let me ask a follow up question then. Assume for the sake of argument that the charging BG struck the two units at an angle where no step forward was allowed, or alternatively that it stuck both units while in a column. In those cases, could the BG then expand? It is currently in legal formation, and expansion would create an illegal formation.

Follow up question that came up in a recent game. If a unit in column strikes two angled units (much like ones in the diagram) and it can't conform to one without breaking contact with the other, does it conform?

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:43 pm

"Battle groups which cannot conform fight as though they are conformed."
I would say this general principle covers the expansion as well.
Gino
SMAC

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:24 pm

kal5056 wrote:"Battle groups which cannot conform fight as though they are conformed."
I would say this general principle covers the expansion as well.
Gino
SMAC

"Fight" is not the same as "expand." For example, expansion is optional. Fighting is not.

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:10 pm

iversonjm wrote:
kal5056 wrote:"Battle groups which cannot conform fight as though they are conformed."
I would say this general principle covers the expansion as well.
Gino
SMAC
"Fight" is not the same as "expand." For example, expansion is optional. Fighting is not.

In this case I would think "fight" covers all aspects of combat, other wise it would say "melee" which is distinct in the rules and specifically defined.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:20 pm

ethan wrote:
iversonjm wrote:
kal5056 wrote:"Battle groups which cannot conform fight as though they are conformed."
I would say this general principle covers the expansion as well.
Gino
SMAC
"Fight" is not the same as "expand." For example, expansion is optional. Fighting is not.
In this case I would think "fight" covers all aspects of combat, other wise it would say "melee" which is distinct in the rules and specifically defined.

I concur, and it is how I have ruled it. The other way encourages "geometric ploys" which is undesirable.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:09 pm

What they said.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:39 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
ethan wrote:
iversonjm wrote: "Fight" is not the same as "expand." For example, expansion is optional. Fighting is not.
In this case I would think "fight" covers all aspects of combat, other wise it would say "melee" which is distinct in the rules and specifically defined.

I concur, and it is how I have ruled it. The other way encourages "geometric ploys" which is undesirable.

Which bit are you concurring with Nik?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:41 pm

iversonjm wrote:Follow up question that came up in a recent game. If a unit in column strikes two angled units (much like ones in the diagram) and it can't conform to one without breaking contact with the other, does it conform?

Yes. It conforms by the shortest possible as if it can conform to that.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:36 pm

philqw78 wrote:
iversonjm wrote:Follow up question that came up in a recent game. If a unit in column strikes two angled units (much like ones in the diagram) and it can't conform to one without breaking contact with the other, does it conform?
Yes. It conforms by the shortest possible as if it can conform to that.

I disagree. The rules specifically say that you must conform to the enemy bases in contact. Therefore you cannot break contact with one base to conform to the other. You would remain unconformed, but fight the base requiring the least adjustment to conform. Then in the enemy's next maneuver phase he would need to conform both BGs to you, with the one base needing the least adjustment in full frontal contact and the other conforming to an overlap position.
Your interpretation would have the BG conform to one enemy BG, breaking contact with the other and setting itself up for a flank charge by the BG no longer in contact. Not acceptable.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:23 pm

gozerius wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
iversonjm wrote:Follow up question that came up in a recent game. If a unit in column strikes two angled units (much like ones in the diagram) and it can't conform to one without breaking contact with the other, does it conform?
Yes. It conforms by the shortest possible as if it can conform to that.
I disagree. The rules specifically say that you must conform to the enemy bases in contact. Therefore you cannot break contact with one base to conform to the other. You would remain unconformed, but fight the base requiring the least adjustment to conform. Then in the enemy's next maneuver phase he would need to conform both BGs to you, with the one base needing the least adjustment in full frontal contact and the other conforming to an overlap position.
Your interpretation would have the BG conform to one enemy BG, breaking contact with the other and setting itself up for a flank charge by the BG no longer in contact. Not acceptable.

Yup, Phil is wrong.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:11 pm

Well not having a set of rules I can't argue the other point from memory other than saying forcing the receiver to conform can very much open the opportunity for the receiver to be flank charged.

This I can argue

Gonzo wrote:You would remain unconformed, but fight the base requiring the least adjustment to conform.

Surely the player with most bases in contact chooses who fights.

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:42 pm

philqw78 wrote:Well not having a set of rules I can't argue the other point from memory other than saying forcing the receiver to conform can very much open the opportunity for the receiver to be flank charged.

This I can argue
Gonzo wrote:You would remain unconformed, but fight the base requiring the least adjustment to conform.
Surely the player with most bases in contact chooses who fights.

We played it that the column did not conform, but the defending player chose who fought.

Now, next question (which did not arise in our game due to placement of adjacent units). Can the column expand? Wouldn't THAT result in the creation of an illegal formation?

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:39 am

philqw78 wrote:Well not having a set of rules I can't argue the other point from memory other than saying forcing the receiver to conform can very much open the opportunity for the receiver to be flank charged.

This I can argue
Gonzo wrote:You would remain unconformed, but fight the base requiring the least adjustment to conform.
Surely the player with most bases in contact chooses who fights.

In the impact phase, yes. In melee you must abide by the fighting when unable to conform rules, which state that when a base would be required to conform to more than one base, it fights the base which requires the shortest move. Pretty clear, if you ask me.

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:00 am

gozerius wrote:
philqw78 wrote:Well not having a set of rules I can't argue the other point from memory other than saying forcing the receiver to conform can very much open the opportunity for the receiver to be flank charged.

This I can argue
Gonzo wrote:You would remain unconformed, but fight the base requiring the least adjustment to conform.
Surely the player with most bases in contact chooses who fights.
In the impact phase, yes. In melee you must abide by the fighting when unable to conform rules, which state that when a base would be required to conform to more than one base, it fights the base which requires the shortest move. Pretty clear, if you ask me.

That seems right. The other base would fight as an overlap.

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:12 am

nikgaukroger wrote:

I concur, and it is how I have ruled it. The other way encourages "geometric ploys" which is undesirable.

Undesirable outcome or not, now that I've reread p. 23, it seems pretty clear that the expansion Phil wanted to do is barred by the rules. Expansion isn't one of the four exceptions by which you can enter an illegal formation. Nor does it say that if you start in an one illegal formation you can adopt another one.

Especially since one can still fight as if conformed without expanding, I don't see how that clause can override p. 23.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:37 am

iversonjm wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:

I concur, and it is how I have ruled it. The other way encourages "geometric ploys" which is undesirable.
Undesirable outcome or not, now that I've reread p. 23, it seems pretty clear that the expansion Phil wanted to do is barred by the rules. Expansion isn't one of the four exceptions by which you can enter an illegal formation. Nor does it say that if you start in an one illegal formation you can adopt another one.

Especially since one can still fight as if conformed without expanding, I don't see how that clause can override p. 23.

Page 23, 2nd column, 3. states, "A compulsory move specified by the rules can temporarily force a BG out of formation until it reforms." A 'step forward' in a charge is compulsory. And, expansions don't require you to start from a rectangular formation. So Phil's expansion is legal.

As to changing his attack to a column. Now we have a conundrum. An expansion out of block would violate page 23, technically. On the other hand, as Nik said, the rules really want to discourage 'geometric ploys'. The rules are written to get more and more non-fighting units into the melee. This is really a judgment call situation in the absence of specific wording in the RAW. Why not rule in accordance with 'intent' and allow the expansion? We aren't trying to find loop holes. We are trying to play a fun game.