Contraction in restricted zone

[Polkovnik]

Under the moves allowed in a restricted zone, it says under the bullet point about remaining in place, that a BG cannot contract. Does this just apply to this bullet point, or is it a general restriction.
Can a BG contract if it is making a move that ends further away and stays partly in front of the pinning BG ?

[hammy]

Under the moves allowed in a restricted zone, it says under the bullet point about remaining in place, that a BG cannot contract. Does this just apply to this bullet point, or is it a general restriction.
Can a BG contract if it is making a move that ends further away and stays partly in front of the pinning BG ?

Yes.

The restriction on cntracting is part of the remain in place bullet

[deadtorius]

once outside the restricted zone you can do what you like. Its only when you get close that your boys get nervous and don't want to do any fancy parade ground moves.

[Ghaznavid]

Under the moves allowed in a restricted zone, it says under the bullet point about remaining in place, that a BG cannot contract. Does this just apply to this bullet point, or is it a general restriction.
Can a BG contract if it is making a move that ends further away and stays partly in front of the pinning BG ?

Yes.

The restriction on cntracting is part of the remain in place bullet

Using that reading it could be argued that one can advance towards the enemy and contract or wheel and contract. I doubt however that's the intend.

[SirGarnet]

Since you can contract moving away why not contract advancing towards the enemy? The unusual limitation is staying at least partly in front of the pinning BG.

[Ghaznavid]

Just doesn't makes sense to me that I'm not allowed to contract while stationary in front of the enemy but permitted to do so if I move just a hairs width towards the same enemy. Pretty much circumvents the limitation for the stay stationary part IMO.

[hammy]

Just doesn't makes sense to me that I'm not allowed to contract while stationary in front of the enemy but permitted to do so if I move just a hairs width towards the same enemy. Pretty much circumvents the limitation for the stay stationary part IMO.

I didn't say that you could advance and contract, I said that you could make a move that ends up further away and contract.

When in the restricted zone you have a strictly limited set of options:

Advance directly towards (advances do not allow contraction or expansion)

Remain in place, expansion and turning are fine but contraction is not allowed

Make a move that ends further away. There are no restrictions on what this move can be as long as it ends up further away and remains partly in front of the BG doing the restricting.

[marioslaz]

Just doesn't makes sense to me that I'm not allowed to contract while stationary in front of the enemy but permitted to do so if I move just a hairs width towards the same enemy. Pretty much circumvents the limitation for the stay stationary part IMO.

I think so too. It's quite odd your BG can turn and expand, but not contract. I suppose this is do with the intention to let a BG turning toward an enemy which approach from its flank or rear, but it would be simply to say: you turn, wheel and/or advance toward or away from enemy BG who pinned your one. It's obvious this is a rule imposed by the move-counter move mechanism, but in this case, and just in this, IMO DBM system works better.

[hazelbark]

I think the no contraction rule was designed to prevent gamesmanship.

^^^^^^
UUUUUUU.......Enemy flank charge

In this situation if "U" could be flank charged and in a restricted zone of 2 MU. Then a contraction of 1 wdith would mean HF would not be a threat and it would be much easier for them to avoid a flank charge. And 2 widths ends up being over 5 MU and thus would make it very easy to avoid well positioned flank charges.

So I think people are reading a lot into what was fundamentally a rule to eliminate an artifcially easy way to avoid flank charges.

[SirGarnet]

Advance directly towards (advances do not allow contraction or expansion)

Bit of a surprise! Why is this so? It seems very unobvious - an direct Advance preceded by a contraction or expansion is still a direct Advance (though only some BGs would be able to perform it). (I assume direct means no wheeling allowed, since wheeling is covered by the next sub-bullet).

Mike

[expendablecinc]

Advance directly towards (advances do not allow contraction or expansion)

Bit of a surprise! Why is this so? It seems very unobvious - an direct Advance preceded by a contraction or expansion is still a direct Advance (though only some BGs would be able to perform it). (I assume direct means no wheeling allowed, since wheeling is covered by the next sub-bullet).

Mike

Its all in the movements tables. They are classified into advances, contractsions, expansions etc. Its just that some instances of one can include another (eg a contraction with a simple advance). Advance in this respect has a specific referece - not just the colloquial "moving forwards".

In the movement table there are instances of contractions that can include an advacne but not vice versa.

Anthony

[SirGarnet]

In the movement table there are instances of contractions that can include an advacne but not vice versa.
Anthony

Rather my point!

[marioslaz]

I think the no contraction rule was designed to prevent gamesmanship.

Good observation. Nevertheless, I think this is vague. IMO this would be better if it was presented as an out out: you can advance toward enemy, doing turn or wheel needed, or you can retreat from it, again doing turn or wheel needed; no other options.
This would be, again IMHO, more coherent with charge rule, where it's forbidden expand (but you can contract... mmmmh... I need to think more about this point). In this game impact is a crucial point, and this is IMO a great strong point of the game; for this reason, I suppose, a BG cannot expand while charging and can do when melee already started (melee represent a more static phase of a fight, so here some adjustments to formations are possible). Because this is a move-counter move game, it's not important in most cases who charge, so they should insert restrictions when BG are near to represent a pre-charge phase, with limitation similar to those existing for charge, but there are some inconsistencies. I mean: my BG is out of charge distance and advances toward your BG, ending its move within 2 MU from enemy. Now it's your turn and you don't charge and expand your BG while stationary. My turn again, I charge and I cannot expand because I cannot do while charging. When my BG charge, again for the mechanism of game, also your BG get POA as it was charging (with some limited exceptions that rightly intend to discourage infantry to charge cavalry) so IMO your BG should be considered "in charge" since the moment when it has been pinned, and it shouldn't expand.

[Polkovnik]

I think the no contraction rule was designed to prevent gamesmanship.

^^^^^^
UUUUUUU.......Enemy flank charge

In this situation if "U" could be flank charged and in a restricted zone of 2 MU. Then a contraction of 1 wdith would mean HF would not be a threat and it would be much easier for them to avoid a flank charge. And 2 widths ends up being over 5 MU and thus would make it very easy to avoid well positioned flank charges.

So I think people are reading a lot into what was fundamentally a rule to eliminate an artifcially easy way to avoid flank charges.

Yes but you are allowed to contract to avoid a flank charge, as long as you move forward a small amount. You are then making a move that ends further away from the enemy and remaining partly in front.

In fact this is what prompted my original question, as my opponent did exactly this. He contracted to avoid my flank charge. It only gets you out of trouble for one turn, but he had another BG coming up in support to engage my BG the following turn.

[petedalby]

Yes but you are allowed to contract to avoid a flank charge, as long as you move forward a small amount. You are then making a move that ends further away from the enemy and remaining partly in front.

Sorry but I think you are mistaken.

A BG in a restricted area can not contract under any circumstance unless it then ends further away.

An advance is an advance as defined on P42. A contraction is another move - also defined on p42, which may also include an advance.

But for the purposes of the restricted area the 2 are very different.

Pete

[SirGarnet]

An advance is an advance as defined on P42. A contraction is another move - also defined on p42, which may also include an advance.

But for the purposes of the restricted area the 2 are very different.

Pete

But why? Contraction or not, the troops have performed an advance.

[nikgaukroger]

I believe Pete has correctly stated the intent of the rule - as previously explained on this forum by at least one author.

However, as also previously pointed out on the forum as the first bullet on p74 just says "Advance ..." rather than, say, "Make and advance ..." it is not clear that the technical use of the word "advance" as defined on p42 is meant or the more general use of "getting close to the enemy". It is not helped by the second bullet which (i) also uses "advance" and talks about wheels which can be part of an "Adavance" as per p42.

Whilst I'm sure I've played it both ways I'm happier with the stricter usage as detailed by Pete and that is how I would enforce it if umpiring. However, it desperately needs a FAQ IMO, or even an erratum.

[SirGarnet]

The problem with Pete's view is that whether the normal or technical meaning of advance is meant, contract and advance, turn and advance, or expand and advance still include the required "advance."

If the text meant to prohibit contractions, expansions, or turns, surely it would say so, as it does for the later bullet? Indeed, if facing in an inopportune direction, a turn or expansion might be necessary to advance toward the enemy at all. I don't see the harm in these moves so long as it results in the advance on the enemy, but maybe I've not been paying enough attention.

Of course "directly" has been a question too - presumably it means straight ahead, but it's also argued to require a wheel to the most direct path to contact the enemy (this seems inconsistent with the next bullet on wheeling, although it is certainly the case that wheeling a little may get you to the enemy faster than wheeling all the way to a parallel line.

Maybe the language could take a stab at clearing up these issues with

"Only advance directly forward towards that enemy battle group."

which indicates the BG should just advance with no funny stuff. If it can't legally do this, it must look for options under the other bullets.

[nikgaukroger]

Your suggestion is really no better than the current wording - saying something like "Make an Advance ..." is better as "an advance" means something specific in the rules.

[SirGarnet]

Your suggestion is really no better than the current wording - saying something like "Make an Advance ..." is better as "an advance" means something specific in the rules.

Yes it does mean something specific, but Making an Advance is still a subset of Contracting + Making an Advance, so I don't see how it helps you.

In logical terms,

Only (Making an) Advance = Making an Advance AND NOT(Contraction OR Turn OR Expansion)

Be it noted Double Wheels are an Advance with 2 wheels and not excluded by the "only" but should be by "directly" unless interpreted as something other than "directly forward".