is this move possible?

[stefoid]

BG starts like this (V facing down, 1 base deep. X is enemy BG, presumably a charge and evade just hapened)

XXXX

VVVV


it turns 90 degrees to form column

XXXX

<<<<


then the column wheels 45 degrees and moves off full move distance, ending up like this


....<
.....< XXXX
......<
........<

the column is now pointed towards the top left of the page.


My take is that the 45 degree wheel of the column within 6 MU of the enemy means it is not a simple advance unless a commander starts the move phase with the BG. So it needs a commander to make it legal, and it still needs a CMT unless its skirmishers.

[philqw78]

No as the BG is in 2MU and not going directly to line up or further away.

[aventine]

It would depend on what each of the BGs were and how far apart they started.

[Polkovnik]

My take is that the 45 degree wheel of the column within 6 MU of the enemy means it is not a simple advance unless a commander starts the move phase with the BG. So it needs a commander to make it legal, and it still needs a CMT unless its skirmishers.

You're misunderstanding the complex moves table.
Assuming the BG is outside the 2 MU restricted zone :
Drilled troops, cavalry and skirmishers can always wheel.
Any troops can wheel if with a general.
Other undrilled must pass a CMT to wheel if within 6 MU of enemy.

[marioslaz]

My take is that the 45 degree wheel of the column within 6 MU of the enemy means it is not a simple advance unless a commander starts the move phase with the BG. So it needs a commander to make it legal, and it still needs a CMT unless its skirmishers.

You're misunderstanding the complex moves table.
Assuming the BG is outside the 2 MU restricted zone :
Drilled troops, cavalry and skirmishers can always wheel.
Any troops can wheel if with a general.
Other undrilled must pass a CMT to wheel if within 6 MU of enemy.

Yes, but to turn and then make a simple advance is anyway a complex manoeuvre, so a CMT it's needed by any troops, except skimishers, which can do without, and other undrilled, which can never do it. Anyway, it seems this is another problem of misunderstanding about simple/complex manoeuver and difficult forward move.

[Polkovnik]

Ah, I thought he meant it turns in one turn and moves the next.

So it can only be done in one move if the BG is cavalry or drilled and passes a CMT or skirmishers. Then it doesn't need a general with (but having one will increase the chance of passing the CMT).

Or if it is more than 6 MU away for the whole move and has a general with it can turn (CMT if other undrilled) then do a second move with a wheel.

[philqw78]

But the move still cannot be done as it is in 2MU. Unless the moving BG is non skirmishers and the stationary unit is. But then why would it have evaded?

[Polkovnik]

But the move still cannot be done as it is in 2MU.

No it's not ! It doesn't say in the example that it's within 2 MU.

[philqw78]

....<
.....< XXXX
......<
........<

No it's not ! It doesn't say in the example that it's within 2 MU.

Looks like it to me

[petedalby]

My take is that the 45 degree wheel of the column within 6 MU of the enemy means it is not a simple advance unless a commander starts the move phase with the BG. So it needs a commander to make it legal, and it still needs a CMT unless its

This can only be done by undrilled cav or light chariots, or a drilled BG - and then only if they pass a CMT. It could also be done by Skirmishers without a CMT. Other undrilled can't turn and move in the same turn.

Whatever the type of BG, it will have a problem if it tries to enter the enemy BGs restricted area. Unless of course the enemy are Skirmishers and your BG aren't.

Or we might have misunderstood your example?

Pete

[stefoid]

Sorry, to explain further, this is a 90 degree turn which, if a CMT is pased, can be followed by a SIMPLE advance. My reading of a simple advance was one that had no wheels and used the full move distance, unless a) with a commander or b) outside of 6MU from the enemy.

Is that correct?

I suppose that before the move, the evading BG could be within 2MU or outside of 2MU, depending on VMDs and such (something I hadnt considered). If it was inside, the best it could do is turn 90 degrees and advance lateraly away from the pursuer, ending like this?

...........XXXX
<<<<


pardon the '.'s but the editor strips excessive spaces.

[hammy]

A simple advance is any advance that is not complex.

Difficult advances are complex for other undrilled but simple for everyone else.

The major restriction in a simple advance is that only a single wheel is allowed.

[stefoid]

A simple advance is any advance that is not complex.

Difficult advances are complex for other undrilled but simple for everyone else.

The major restriction in a simple advance is that only a single wheel is allowed.

ah AH. That is far from clear in the rulebook in my opinion.

So this move is easilly possible, as long as it does not start within 2MUs of the enemy , or if it does, brings no unit closer to the enemy.

thanks!

[spikemesq]

In your ASCII art the tail of the column remains in front of the enemy BG.

On the table, wouldn't that element be kinked because it has to clear the original line before turning?

Seems like another reason to avoid this maneuver.

Spike

[expendablecinc]

A simple advance is any advance that is not complex.

Difficult advances are complex for other undrilled but simple for everyone else.

The major restriction in a simple advance is that only a single wheel is allowed.

ah AH. That is far from clear in the rulebook in my opinion.

So this move is easilly possible, as long as it does not start within 2MUs of the enemy , or if it does, brings no unit closer to the enemy.

thanks!

a fine summary is available at:

http://www.madaxeman.com/main/Explanati ... in_FoG.php

[stefoid]

A simple advance is any advance that is not complex.

Difficult advances are complex for other undrilled but simple for everyone else.

The major restriction in a simple advance is that only a single wheel is allowed.

ah AH. That is far from clear in the rulebook in my opinion.

So this move is easilly possible, as long as it does not start within 2MUs of the enemy , or if it does, brings no unit closer to the enemy.

thanks!

a fine summary is available at:

http://www.madaxeman.com/main/Explanati ... in_FoG.php

yep, I understand now. I was mixing terms simple, difficult and complex. As in, I was using difficult and complex interchangeably.

[stefoid]

In your ASCII art the tail of the column remains in front of the enemy BG.

On the table, wouldn't that element be kinked because it has to clear the original line before turning?

Seems like another reason to avoid this maneuver.

Spike

I havent measured it. But I think I can work it out. When turned 90 degrees, the units line up behind each other, so chariots would stay in place, whilst cavalry would crib to the left a bit to maintain contact.

to avoid a kink, the last unit has to travel 3 base depths, then execute a wheel.

chariots are deeper, so Ill use them as an example. 3 base depths = 12cm which is 4.7MUs (divide by 2.54 to get inches) Leaves only .3 inches to wheel which is probably only 10 degrees or so. So the move would be possible without kinking if the angle was shallow.

cavalry, because of their shallower base depth could make a turn of 45 degrees, because moving 3 base depths still leaves them with 1.5 inces to wheel with.

In either case, the last unit would be wheeling in the place where the first unit used to be, so it would be still in front of the enemy BG. Im not sure if that is important or not.

[shall]

A simple advance is an ADVANCE on the table which has the word SIMPLE in the box t the right.

It has caused some confusion with "difficult moves" which was, alas, created a short-hand and has proved anything but

But it is very easy. To me I just remember that ...

Other Undrilled troops trying to wheel when close to enemy without a general attached need to test to so do so; others can wheel once "for free" as part of an advance.

Alas we overcomplicated that one a bit

Si