Can this BG Expand?

[philqw78]

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.

So that means green cannot expand here as it is in a formation that is normally illegal.


Taking it that Green would not be split by an expansion. The white borders make it hard to see.

[Polkovnik]

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

Yes but allowing the expansion encourages BGs to go around in a narrower formation that they want to fight in in order to minimise impact dice*, which is also undesirable. If the BG was in it's proper fighting formation to begin with, the "geometric ploy" of angling lines to prevent expansion would be irrelevant.

*Given that you know you can expand immediately, is often advantageous to be one file narrower than your normal fighting frontage to minimise the effect of the impact combat. Eg, Spears vs Impact foot, Mounted vs Spears.

[philqw78]

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.

So, in effect, the only rule stopping the expansion is 'illegal formation'. Therefore any BG that has stepped forward may not expand.

[iversonjm]

So, in effect, the only rule stopping the expansion is 'illegal formation'. Therefore any BG that has stepped forward may not expand.

Yes. That is what the rules say. And yes, that is a screwy result. But before you object, consider the screwy results of the alternative interpretation:

If units in illegal formations are free to adopt other illegal formations, then units in kinked columns or orbs (or that are stepped forward) are free to adopt any whacked formation that they want to.

or

If expansion is a 5th unwritten exception to the prohibition on illegal formations, then units could expand into a formation with files in 1 rank, 2 ranks, and 4 ranks (which often folks want to do to get an overlap on a side where an additional even file won't fit).

I understand why Nik wants to rule the way he does, but that is reading the rules to say what he thinks the authors meant to say (or should have said) rather than what they actually did say. And that's a slippery slope.

[philqw78]

I'm not objecting. Its just good to know in advance that BG who have stepped forward may never expand, even after the enemy have conformed to them as it will just make their illegal formation even worse.

[nikgaukroger]

If units in illegal formations are free to adopt other illegal formations, then units in kinked columns or orbs (or that are stepped forward) are free to adopt any whacked formation that they want to.

Not so, I believe, because of the bit about being in an illegal formation due to a compulsory move.

I understand why Nik wants to rule the way he does,

Not wants to rule that way, but does rule that way. I have yet to have a player object to the principle, possibly because there is a definite feeling that we want to leave geometry, etc. and DBx rule wrangling behind us. The slippery slope seems popular - well apart from Phil, but only because he likes a good argument

[philqw78]

I was saying they can expand, my opponent said they couldn't. And my opponent said it had been ruled that way for him numerous times, though I had never seen it.

I did enjoy the argument though.

But what are the original author's views? There's a tournament this weekend you know! I'll just get my non-shock BG* stepped so as to prevent any expansion by my opponents. Perhaps the historical justification is the Roman maniple/checkerboard thingy.

*This is the flaw in my plan as I tend not to have many of those

[iversonjm]

Not so, I believe, because of the bit about being in an illegal formation due to a compulsory move.

I agree that's why one can't do it. However expansion isn't compulsory either, ergo, one can't expand into an illegal formation.

[iversonjm]

Not wants to rule that way, but does rule that way. I have yet to have a player object to the principle, possibly because there is a definite feeling that we want to leave geometry, etc. and DBx rule wrangling behind us. The slippery slope seems popular - well apart from Phil, but only because he likes a good argument

To be clear, I don't object to the principle either. But then there are lots of things that the rules prohibit that I don't object to in principle. My point is that it is the rules, and not my principles, that should govern.

May well be a 2.0 issue if we can still raise those.

[nikgaukroger]

May well be a 2.0 issue if we can still raise those.

Of course, nobody has announced the end of that yet.

[dave_r]

Not wants to rule that way, but does rule that way. I have yet to have a player object to the principle, possibly because there is a definite feeling that we want to leave geometry, etc. and DBx rule wrangling behind us. The slippery slope seems popular - well apart from Phil, but only because he likes a good argument

To be clear, I don't object to the principle either. But then there are lots of things that the rules prohibit that I don't object to in principle. My point is that it is the rules, and not my principles, that should govern.

This all stems from the Battle Group Formations on page 23 which states that a battle group must be in edge and corner contact apart from four exceptions to this general case. Exception 3 is that

"A compulsory move specified by the rules can temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms".

Therefore the battle group is out of the general formation until it reforms and it can remain in this non-general formation until that happens. Because close combat prevents the BG reforming then it will always be an exception. I note that the rules do not distinguish between illegal and legal formations.

Because expansions are not part of normal movement (see page 167 - the full turn sequence) then they can freely expand out even if the battle group is in a non-general formation. Pg 70 confirms this by stating "A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)".

So therefore yes - the BG can expand out. This is similar to the question of whether you can contract to feed bases into melee if by removing these bases would take the BG out of the restricted zone.

[iversonjm]

This all stems from the Battle Group Formations on page 23 which states that a battle group must be in edge and corner contact apart from four exceptions to this general case. Exception 3 is that

"A compulsory move specified by the rules can temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms".

Therefore the battle group is out of the general formation until it reforms and it can remain in this non-general formation until that happens. Because close combat prevents the BG reforming then it will always be an exception. I note that the rules do not distinguish between illegal and legal formations.

Because expansions are not part of normal movement (see page 167 - the full turn sequence) then they can freely expand out even if the battle group is in a non-general formation. Pg 70 confirms this by stating "A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)".

So therefore yes - the BG can expand out. This is similar to the question of whether you can contract to feed bases into melee if by removing these bases would take the BG out of the restricted zone.

Now you are going to make me go lawyer on you. By its terms, Exception 3 allows "[a] compulsory move specified by the rules” to “temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms.” As you point out (correctly) this means that such a unit “can remain in this non-general formation” until it reforms. It does NOT mean that such a unit can adopt a new non-general formation. A unit can only do that under Exception 3 if forced to do so by a “compulsory move.” Otherwise, a stepped-forward unit could freely expand into a 1 rank/2 rank/4 rank formation (or, conceivably, expand so that a stand was facing at 90’ to the main body).

With regard to p. 70, the statement that "[a] battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)" indicates that expansion IS a voluntary move, not the opposite. Compare: “Smart people (other than Dave Ruddock) generally think Matt is right.” Even if that were not the case, stating that expansions aren’t movement only confirms Exception 3’s inapplicability, as it shows that expansion is neither “compulsory” NOR a “move.”

The statement on p. 70 appears to deal with the situation where a unit fighting in two directions wants to expand (which is allowed).

[kal5056]

I know I will be ridiculed for saying this but I think Dave has hit this one one the nose:

Pg 70 confirms this by stating "A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)".

Why would this statement exist if not for the fact that feeding bases into a melee IS allowed when not in a normal formation.

Good Job Dave

Gino
SMAC

[iversonjm]

I know I will be ridiculed for saying this but I think Dave has hit this one one the nose:

Pg 70 confirms this by stating "A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)".

Why would this statement exist if not for the fact that feeding bases into a melee IS allowed when not in a normal formation.

Good Job Dave

Gino
SMAC

Let me slightly modify the gramatical example in my prior post - "Smart people (other than Dave Ruddock and Gino Angelly) generally think Matt is right"...

[dave_r]

This all stems from the Battle Group Formations on page 23 which states that a battle group must be in edge and corner contact apart from four exceptions to this general case. Exception 3 is that

"A compulsory move specified by the rules can temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms".

Therefore the battle group is out of the general formation until it reforms and it can remain in this non-general formation until that happens. Because close combat prevents the BG reforming then it will always be an exception. I note that the rules do not distinguish between illegal and legal formations.

Because expansions are not part of normal movement (see page 167 - the full turn sequence) then they can freely expand out even if the battle group is in a non-general formation. Pg 70 confirms this by stating "A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)".

So therefore yes - the BG can expand out. This is similar to the question of whether you can contract to feed bases into melee if by removing these bases would take the BG out of the restricted zone.

Now you are going to make me go lawyer on you. By its terms, Exception 3 allows "[a] compulsory move specified by the rules” to “temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms.” As you point out (correctly) this means that such a unit “can remain in this non-general formation” until it reforms. It does NOT mean that such a unit can adopt a new non-general formation.

This is an assumption that you are making - where does it state this? The rules state you can't make a normal move (except for expanding) until you reform. Where does it state you can't expand? The rules state you can be in a non-general formation because of a compulsory move. Which you are. Until the unit reforms (which it can't do) then it will always be in a non-general formation. Which would mean it can't make a normal move, but it can expand out as per the statement on page 70.

With regard to p. 70, the statement that "[a] battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)" indicates that expansion IS a voluntary move, not the opposite. Compare: “Smart people (other than Dave Ruddock) generally think Matt is right.” Even if that were not the case, stating that expansions aren’t movement only confirms Exception 3’s inapplicability, as it shows that expansion is neither “compulsory” NOR a “move.”

The statement on p. 70 appears to deal with the situation where a unit fighting in two directions wants to expand (which is allowed).

Nope - that is covered by an additional exception on page 23.

[kal5056]

One can argue that there is no difference in a BG fighting in two direction and one that is stepped forward with regard to feeding in more bases (expanding). They are both in a non-normal formation and wish to expand thier fighting frontage.

Matt, You just made our argument for us. Thank You
Gino
SMAC

[iversonjm]

Therefore the battle group is out of the general formation until it reforms and it can remain in this non-general formation until that happens. . . .

I'm not assuming. You said it and I agreed with it. Besides, as I pointed out, absent that "assumption" a unit that has stepped forward could expand into a 1/2/4 rank structure or so that it had bases at right angles to its front, etc.

[iversonjm]

One can argue that there is no difference in a BG fighting in two direction and one that is stepped forward with regard to feeding in more bases (expanding). They are both in a non-normal formation and wish to expand thier fighting frontage.

Matt, You just made our argument for us. Thank You
Gino
SMAC

No, there is an exception that covers the forming of a "non-general" formation when fighting in two directions, so expansion into a new "non-general" formation in those circumstances is allowed, as per p. 70.

There is no comparable exception when one is NOT fighting in two directions, because expansion is a voluntary, and not a compulsory, move.

[kal5056]

I think the only thing we are getting out of this is (unless adressed in V2) this will be up to individual referees to decide when it occurs.

Gino
SMAC

[nikgaukroger]

Therefore the battle group is out of the general formation until it reforms and it can remain in this non-general formation until that happens. . . .

I'm not assuming. You said it and I agreed with it. Besides, as I pointed out, absent that "assumption" a unit that has stepped forward could expand into a 1/2/4 rank structure or so that it had bases at right angles to its front, etc.

You are not quite following through the logic of allowing the expansion as if the BG were not stepped forward. Any such expansion would also have to conform to the BG rules as if the BG had not stepped forward - so it would, for example, have to have all ranks with the same number of bases (other than the back one which can have less).

As mentioned above it all seems to work out quite nicely in my experience, with happy players (usual exceptions apply) - so for those who may wish to ask, I'm sticking with it when umpiring*








* until anyone comes up with something really cheesy during a game I'm umpiring at which point I reserve the right to change my mind