one to ponder

[papsterdino]

LF LF LF
LF LF LF

CV CV
CV CV
Here we have six lf facing south, the cv are facing north and pinning the lf to their front.
The lf turn east and form a column and move of leaving part of their last base just in front of cv.
Q have they reduced their frontage as they are now the same width to the cv as they were before they turned and moved?

[philqw78]

Providing the LF end further away it doesn't matter.

If they do not end further away they cannot do this.

They can only: advance directly forward; wheel towards; remain in place (turn if they want); Move to end further away

[bbotus]

Yes, as Phil said. If you are wondering about the turn being a contraction since you went from 3 wide to 2 wide, that isn't what the authors care about. They don't want you to be able to stay in place and contract frontage. The reasoning is that the enemy might have a unit in position for a flank charge and the contraction would take the contracting unit out of the range of the flank charge without actually moving away. Sorry I can't remember which post that was from.

Their semi-official answer on RAs is:
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=10008

[zoltan]

From memory turning 90 degrees on the spot without any further movement is also an option. But I agree with Phil that the OP is illegal.

[bbotus]

From memory turning 90 degrees on the spot without any further movement is also an option.

Yes, that is what the book says. I hope my post didn't confuse. You can turn on the spot and have a smaller frontage due to the turn mechanism but you can't stay facing the same way and contract frontage.

[philqw78]

remain in place (turn if they want)