Can this BG Expand?

[philqw78]

You are opening a can of worms here.

What if the BG that is overlapping is overlapping with the 5th or 6th rank - can you expand out and move to the front of the column and thereby create a gap in the unit?

No

What if the unit overlapping is facing the same way as the enemy BG?

Yes, expand and make him turn

do you expand out to the rear of the column?

Yes

What happens if the column is kinked after the bases that are providing rear support?

makes no diference.

All IMO

[zoltan]

So what's the verdict?

Do I prevent my opponent expanding to match me if I overlap him side edge to side edge, or not?

[bbotus]

I'm sorry bbotus nbut I think you are confused. There are two things discussed in this thread:

1. The OP question of whether a BG which has already broken formation can feed in an extra file to the melee, even if the bases fed in aren't in a proper formation. Nik's agreement was to the contention that it can, and I agree.

2. The question of whether a BG that IS in proper formation can feed in and break formation while so doing. I believe the rules say it can't, which caused Kal's reaction.

Confused? Yes.

Point 1: I think we all agree.

Point 2: This is where the difficulty is. You state a clear argument that says page 23 takes precedent. Since an expansion in melee is not compulsory, it is not allowed if you will break up a formed block. This argument has a lot of merit. If you literally read the rules, this is probably the argument that would win.

The problem is that this makes for a gimmick that is not consistent with the rest of the rules. There is a strong feeling that the rules shouldn't allow gimmicks. In fact the rules were written pretty clearly (mostly) to disallow people from making gimmick moves. Allowing expansions in melee that break a block formation makes common sense and is consistent with the rest of the rules and ?probably? (my opinion in the absence of any interest from the authors) intended by the authors but overlooked.

Why else would peterrjohnston say:

Cue loads of arguments where someones BG is 3.999999 MUs away, thus can arrive 0.000001 further forward along the flank, preventing expansions.

What a load of bollocks.

As for:

So what's the verdict?

Sadly, each umpire will decide for him or herself based on personal preferences.

[iversonjm]

So what's the verdict?

Do I prevent my opponent expanding to match me if I overlap him side edge to side edge, or not?

Yes, if your umpire follows the rules as written.

Maybe, if your umpire disregards rules when he disagrees with them.

[dave_r]

Point 2: This is where the difficulty is. You state a clear argument that says page 23 takes precedent. Since an expansion in melee is not compulsory, it is not allowed if you will break up a formed block. This argument has a lot of merit. If you literally read the rules, this is probably the argument that would win.

And what other way is there to read rules? We have been playing for about four years now and I don't see that this has been a game breaking issue?

So what's the verdict?
Sadly, each umpire will decide for him or herself based on personal preferences.

Each umpire should decide based on the rules.

[berthier]

p. 23 Covers General Situations so I am not convinced it would apply in this case since we are specifically talking about feeding more bases into close combat.

p. 46 Expansions does not apply because it specifically says for BGs not in close combat.

p. 72-73 Does not say anything about legal formations. It is a mechanism for gradually feeding more bases into a protracted combat and as long as the mechanisms that follow are applied it would be legal.

[dave_r]

Look at the above image - if the Orange and Blue BG's are fighting each other and the Green BG is providing an overlap.

If the Green BG is an enemy of the Orange BG and facing up can the Orange BG expand? If the Green BG is an enemy of the Blue BG and is facing down can it expand?

Not so easy anymore is it?

[kal5056]

Blue can expand to cover Green as it does not break BG contact.
Yellow cannot expand to cover Green as to do so would break BG contact.

Seems simple to me.

Gino
SMAC

[kal5056]

Orange not Yellow

[peterrjohnston]

When I'm umpiring, this is what you'd get

If the Green BG is an enemy of the Orange BG and facing up can the Orange BG expand?

If orange can maintain a contiguous formation, yes. Green will conform in it's turn.

If the Green BG is an enemy of the Blue BG and is facing down can it expand?

I assume do you mean, can blue expand? Again, if blue can maintain a contiguous formation, yes.

Not so easy anymore is it?

Seems fine to me.

If there's a problem with the rules, or an unusual situation not covered, players are entitled to an umpire applying common sense, not a search for some literal "truth".

[berthier]

When I'm umpiring, this is what you'd get

If the Green BG is an enemy of the Orange BG and facing up can the Orange BG expand?

If orange can maintain a contiguous formation, yes. Green will conform in it's turn.

If the Green BG is an enemy of the Blue BG and is facing down can it expand?

I assume do you mean, can blue expand? Again, if blue can maintain a contiguous formation, yes.

Not so easy anymore is it?

Seems fine to me.

If there's a problem with the rules, or an unusual situation not covered, players are entitled to an umpire applying common sense, not a search for some literal "truth".

Exactly. There is way too much rules lawyering creeping into this AND that is a bigger turn off to mid-field players than anything else.

[gozerius]

p. 23 Covers General Situations so I am not convinced it would apply in this case since we are specifically talking about feeding more bases into close combat.

p. 46 Expansions does not apply because it specifically says for BGs not in close combat.

p. 72-73 Does not say anything about legal formations. It is a mechanism for gradually feeding more bases into a protracted combat and as long as the mechanisms that follow are applied it would be legal.

Precisely. We are talking apples (expansion as an act of maneuver) and oranges (feeding bases into an existing melee). The feeding bases use of expansion and contraction are not synonymous with the use of expansion and contraction in normal movement. In close combat the BG is permitted to respond to the enemy in ways that a BG not in close combat cannot. For example: when feeding bases into a melee it is permissible to remove a file of bases from one side of a BG (contract) and insert them at the other side of the BG (expand). A BG is permitted to voluntarily turn a base to face an enemy in front edge to side edge contact even when that violates the requirement to maintain equal # of bases in all ranks except the last. Base losses sometime force a BG to maintain a formation in contact with the enemy that would otherwise be illegal. It doesn't matter because it's in combat and cannot do anything else but fight until one side or the other is defeated. At which point it will have to reform before doing any other voluntary action.

[hazelbark]

Well as a ref I'd just just be tempted to allow the expansion.....

You mean like every other tournament in the known multi-verse?

[hazelbark]

There is way too much rules lawyering creeping into this AND that is a bigger turn off to mid-field players than anything else.

This i believe is the fundamental point. In my view there is a load of difference between did a player engineer with malice the situation or did it arise by accident. Accidents can be resolved with the umpire's best intentions. Malice...well stadnign loudly and telling everyone within 750 KM what an absolute _____ your opponent is would be an opening gambit.

[philqw78]

So are we all agreed on what should be able to happen?

Something like

An BG may expand providing

1 The Bases making up the BG do not become separated
2 None of the bases moved could add dice or alter POA to a combat from their current position
3 The number of bases in each rank of the BG remains legal (only the rear rank may have a different number of bases) even though files in the BG may be offset
4 There is physical space for the bases to fit.
5 The front of their base does not come into contact with enemy not already in combat with them or already in a position to overlap them.
and the other rules about where they come from, but the above are really the ones that affect this thread.

[grahambriggs]

There is way too much rules lawyering creeping into this AND that is a bigger turn off to mid-field players than anything else.

This i believe is the fundamental point. In my view there is a load of difference between did a player engineer with malice the situation or did it arise by accident. Accidents can be resolved with the umpire's best intentions. Malice...well stadnign loudly and telling everyone within 750 KM what an absolute _____ your opponent is would be an opening gambit.

Indeed. The simple way to resolve this is "play nicely". Don't sneak your overlap forward a bit, do it corner to corner.

Of course there'll be cases where the overlap pursued into an overlap position which may be tricky.

It must be quite rare to want to feed into an offset overlap - I can't recall it in a game. Though you do quite frequently get the issue that Phil posted originally.

[kal5056]

p. 23 Covers General Situations so I am not convinced it would apply in this case since we are specifically talking about feeding more bases into close combat.

p. 46 Expansions does not apply because it specifically says for BGs not in close combat.

p. 72-73 Does not say anything about legal formations. It is a mechanism for gradually feeding more bases into a protracted combat and as long as the mechanisms that follow are applied it would be legal.

Precisely. We are talking apples (expansion as an act of maneuver) and oranges (feeding bases into an existing melee). The feeding bases use of expansion and contraction are not synonymous with the use of expansion and contraction in normal movement. In close combat the BG is permitted to respond to the enemy in ways that a BG not in close combat cannot. For example: when feeding bases into a melee it is permissible to remove a file of bases from one side of a BG (contract) and insert them at the other side of the BG (expand). A BG is permitted to voluntarily turn a base to face an enemy in front edge to side edge contact even when that violates the requirement to maintain equal # of bases in all ranks except the last. Base losses sometime force a BG to maintain a formation in contact with the enemy that would otherwise be illegal. It doesn't matter because it's in combat and cannot do anything else but fight until one side or the other is defeated. At which point it will have to reform before doing any other voluntary action.

I will buy you a beer when / if I ever meet you. Thanks for the common sense argument.
Gino
SMAC

[iversonjm]

There is way too much rules lawyering creeping into this AND that is a bigger turn off to mid-field players than anything else.

This i believe is the fundamental point. In my view there is a load of difference between did a player engineer with malice the situation or did it arise by accident. Accidents can be resolved with the umpire's best intentions. Malice...well stadnign loudly and telling everyone within 750 KM what an absolute _____ your opponent is would be an opening gambit.

Okay, time for a nice Thanksgiving rant. To begin with, Dan, I’m fairly sure that you (but perhaps it was Crouteau) taught me this prevent-expansion-by-side-overlap trick, although I have no memory of whether you engineered it deliberately. I do recall, however, that when you (or Crouteau) pointed out the rule on p. 23, it was crystal clear. “In general, troops must be in a rectangular formation” and”there are four exceptions to this general case.” Expansion, which as Dave pointed is a “voluntary move” according to p.70, is not among the exceptions, ergo one can’t expand into an illegal formation.
When you (or Crouteau) did point out that my knights couldn’t expand, I did not whine. I did not blubber. I did not punch you in the nose, go running to my mommy or to the umpire to get him (or her) to change the rule “because gosh darn its just SO unfair!” I acknowledged that you had me and played on. And, as I always do in these situations, I filed the trick away for future use.

Why didn’t I engage in any of these incredibly unsportsmanlike behaviors that various folks on this thread have advocated? Because we were playing a game. And games are governed by rules. And rules should be followed, even when, as is often the case, they produce odd results. Why should they be followed? Because the purpose of those rules is to insure consistency and uniformity. I should be able to know that when I play a game in a tournament in Boston, or Austin, or Manchester, or Antarctica, that I am playing the same game, by the same rules, and I can do the same things and get the same results. As we have all known since we were about 6, nothing is more frustrating than when someone changes the rules in the middle of the game. And yes, this is tournament-based response. You all are free to change whatever rules you like when you play on your own, just like you can use whatever rules you want when you play basketball in the driveway with your buddy. But if you play in the NBA, you have to play by the NBA’s rules.

With regard to the argument that using this tactic is somehow “unsportsmanlike” or “malicious,” let me explain the difference between a “malicious” tactic and a “smart” tactic. A “malicious” tactic is one that I think up and use against you. A “smart” tactic is one you think up and use against me. Don’t delude yourselves; there is no other difference. Every one of the players posting on this thread that I have played against on a regular basis has used a tactic equally screwy against me at one time or another, and I am willing to bet that everyone else has done the same against someone else when it suited their needs. So all of you get off of your soapbox.
By choice, we play a complicated game with complex interactions and a plethora of rules that often produce weird results. While the rules should be drafted to avoid these where possible, in a game this complex, that effort will never be 100% successful. Sometimes those weird results will help you. Sometimes those weird results will hurt you. But they are an inherent part of this type of game, and if they spoil your fun, you should really find another hobby.

Additionally, I have no objection to anyone advocating ANY change to the expansion rule in V.2. From a simulation point of view, this is down at arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. After all, a rule that allows expansion into illegal formations against an overlap but not when non-overlappers are blocking expansion is just as arbitrary as one that allows expansion in neither case. But if it makes people happier, so be it. I just want to know what the rule is before the issue comes up. What I don’t want is the loosy-goosy system of bringing the ump over to determine if a situation is sufficiently “malicious” to allow an expand. Here is what happens in that world: Someone overlaps me and says I can’t expand (they do on occasion) and I won’t expand. Why? Because the rules don’t allow it, and I play by the rules. Then I will go and try to block someone else’s expand, and they will whine and cry and carry on. And I will give in, because I hate to see grown men cry. And hay, presto, there is one set of rules that bind me, and a different set that bind my opponent.
Alright. I’m done. Now go and play the way you want. But if anyone who posted on this thread ever tries to tell ME I can’t expand into an illegal formation, rest assured that I WILL punch you in the nose.

Now Happy &%$%# Thanksgiving everyone.

[kal5056]

Matt,
I will say one thing. I appreciate the fact that when a "disputable" interp of a rule was noticed that you brought it up here where it can be discussed and did not file it way in your hip pocket to spring it during a tourney game to throw off an opponent. To me that is the difference between a "Malicious" trick and and honest difference of opinion on the rules that may or may not be correct.

I recently was dumbfounded in a tournament when I told an opponent that he could not whheel within 1 MU to hit the rear of one of my BG's. I was mad as hell at that moment and it was pointed out to me that the rule say Flank not Rear and that there are plenty of places where the rules mention Flank and/or rear seperately so they are not the same.

At that moment it felt like a dirty trick or rules lawyering to me and it was absolutely not the case and I was wrong.

I know for a fact that many GCC players have made the same assumption that I did that the wheel within 1mu applies to flanks AND rears. I posted on here to clarify and have tried very hard to discuss this with as many as I can to prevent it from seeming like a dirty trick if I do it to someone now that I understand thhe rule correctly.

This discussion is what this board is for and I respect you for bringing up the issue here even through we may dissagree on interpretation.

I think as has been discussed that pages 70-75 discuss the gradual spreading of a BG in melle and are apart and seperate from the general movements and formation rules on 24. The two can co-exist and don't have to be contradictory.

Again disagreement is probably why we play wargames. We could all get together and scrapbook if we want to play nice.

I do respect your approach. and have enjoyed both games where you creamed me.

Gino
SMAC

[ShrubMiK]

I would also say there is a bit of a difference between rules which may have been misunderstood, but when you look at them in detail are unambiguous; and those which are open to interpretation (e.g. does this bit of the rules override what that one seems to say, or vice-versa; if this rule means what it actually says, why does that other rule make a mention of a special case...etc.)

And that is where bringing the issue up and seeing if a consensus can be arrived at comes into the picture. If consensus is sufficiently strong it can change people's interpretation of the rule, and improve consistency between different groups of players. (Ideally that would also mean it should be covered by a FAQ or something.)