Slitherine

No it is not. Bases may be facing in different directions, the number of bases per rank may be different, but they all remain in contact with the rest of the BG, even if only corner to corner - as in the case of a kinked column, or a stepped forward file.

gozerius wrote:No it is not. Bases may be facing in different directions, the number of bases per rank may be different, but they all remain in contact with the rest of the BG, even if only corner to corner - as in the case of a kinked column, or a stepped forward file.

Yes it is - read page 23.

Which bit Dave?

"in general, troops must be in a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank is allowed to have fewer bases. So, for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and 4 deep and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:

..
2. A battle group that is, or has been fighting in two directions will have bases facing in different directions until it reforms"

This therefore removes the requirement to be in a normal formation.

dave_r wrote:"in general, troops must be in a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank is allowed to have fewer bases. So, for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and 4 deep and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:

..
2. A battle group that is, or has been fighting in two directions will have bases facing in different directions until it reforms"

This therefore removes the requirement to be in a normal formation.

It specifically removes the requirement to be "facing in the same direction", it does not remove the requirement that they be in "edge and corner contact with each other". Point 2 explicitly describes the exception, it does not provide a blanket exemption.

shadowdragon wrote:

dave_r wrote:"in general, troops must be in a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank is allowed to have fewer bases. So, for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and 4 deep and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:

..
2. A battle group that is, or has been fighting in two directions will have bases facing in different directions until it reforms"

This therefore removes the requirement to be in a normal formation.

It specifically removes the requirement to be "facing in the same direction", it does not remove the requirement that they be in "edge and corner contact with each other". Point 2 explicitly describes the exception, it does not provide a blanket exemption.

The first bit which describes the general case has exceptions from the four reasons. It doesn't state anywhere that each exception only provides for parts of the general case.

dave_r wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:

dave_r wrote:"in general, troops must be in a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank is allowed to have fewer bases. So, for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and 4 deep and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:

..
2. A battle group that is, or has been fighting in two directions will have bases facing in different directions until it reforms"

This therefore removes the requirement to be in a normal formation.

It specifically removes the requirement to be "facing in the same direction", it does not remove the requirement that they be in "edge and corner contact with each other". Point 2 explicitly describes the exception, it does not provide a blanket exemption.

The first bit which describes the general case has exceptions from the four reasons. It doesn't state anywhere that each exception only provides for parts of the general case.

So, with point 1, which supposedly allows columns to be kinked could allow a BG in column to be in parts separated by several MU if it is kinked? Since your argument is that any reason for an exception allows non-compliance with any or all parts of the general case. I would have thought that a column would need to maintain corner-to-corner contact at the kinked point and that other bases, where it is not kinked must be in edge and corner contact. But, no! Lo! The Column exception only states that columns must be kinked at points where it has wheeled. Since there's nothing that "states anywhere that each exception only provides for parts of the general case", columns are in fact exempt since the exception is for "Columns". They don't even have to be kinked since it says columns are an exception and the later bit only says they must be kinked where the column has wheeled.

It is normal to understand that an exception only ever provides the explicit case for the exception and can never be taken as an exception to all parts of the general case. I suggest you try your view in a court of law and see how far it gets you with the judge.

In the exceptions on page 23, none explicitly state that a base can become seperated from its parent BG. Furthermore, in all cases which clarify what happens to a BG covered by those exceptions to the normal formation rules, there are explicit instructions as to maintaining contiguity. Simply being in an unformed state does not then allow a person to break bases off the main body.
Again the only the rule covering a BG partially interpenetrating friends explicitly permits the bases of a battlegroup to be temporarily seperated from on another, and then they are required to be able to trace contiguity through the interpenetrated BG.

gozerius wrote:In the exceptions on page 23, none explicitly state that a base can become seperated from its parent BG. Furthermore, in all cases which clarify what happens to a BG covered by those exceptions to the normal formation rules, there are explicit instructions as to maintaining contiguity. Simply being in an unformed state does not then allow a person to break bases off the main body.

Can you provide quotes from the rules for all this please?

i.e. the bit on page 23 states the general formation and then states that in certain circumstances BG's are exempt from this formation.

Again the only the rule covering a BG partially interpenetrating friends explicitly permits the bases of a battlegroup to be temporarily seperated from on another, and then they are required to be able to trace contiguity through the interpenetrated BG.

Yes, the next time I kink a column of lights I'm not going to move the last base forwards, in case I need to turn around. I can then use that last base as my front and teleport to it.

Page 23 lists exeptions to the normal formation rules. It does not explain the specific exemptions from the requirements to those rules.
A column is required to kink at the point that the front rank wheeled until all following bases have passed that point. There is no explicit exemption from maintaining contact with the other bases of the BG.
A BG fighting in more than one direction must abide by the requirements stipulated in the rules covering bases turning to fight. In none of those cases is a BG explicitly permitted to seperate bases from the BG.
In all cases of compulsary moves which can lead to a BG departing from a normal formation , BGs are explicitly restricted from seperating.
And of course this applies to orb as well.

Only when passing through friendly troops can a BG become seperated.

On page 48 "bases of the moving battlegroup that reach the battlegroupbeing interpenetrated are moved all the way through and placed on the far side. Those that did not reach are placed with the front base in contact with the the near side."

gozerius wrote:Page 23 lists exeptions to the normal formation rules. It does not explain the specific exemptions from the requirements to those rules.

????

A column is required to kink at the point that the front rank wheeled until all following bases have passed that point. There is no explicit exemption from maintaining contact with the other bases of the BG.

Which is specifically mentioned in the kinked columns bit.

A BG fighting in more than one direction must abide by the requirements stipulated in the rules covering bases turning to fight. In none of those cases is a BG explicitly permitted to seperate bases from the BG.

Well, yes it is - this isn't turning bases to fight, this is feeding more bases into the melee.

In all cases of compulsary moves which can lead to a BG departing from a normal formation , BGs are explicitly restricted from seperating. And of course this applies to orb as well.

Not relevant - this isn't a compulsory move.

Only when passing through friendly troops can a BG become seperated.

On page 48 "bases of the moving battlegroup that reach the battlegroupbeing interpenetrated are moved all the way through and placed on the far side. Those that did not reach are placed with the front base in contact with the the near side."

This isn't relevant.

The rules for feeding more bases do not explicitly allow a BG to become seperated.

gozerius wrote:The rules for feeding more bases do not explicitly allow a BG to become seperated.

But they do because the battle group is exempt from being in a normal formation.

Not being in a normal formation does not negate the explicit prohibition on not seperating. Only partial interpenetrations permit bases to be seperated from the parent unit. And then they are restricted to their placement.

gozerius wrote:Not being in a normal formation does not negate the explicit prohibition on not seperating. Only partial interpenetrations permit bases to be seperated from the parent unit. And then they are restricted to their placement.

Rules quote please?

gozerius wrote:Not being in a normal formation does not negate the explicit prohibition on not seperating. Only partial interpenetrations permit bases to be seperated from the parent unit. And then they are restricted to their placement.

In all cases which could lead to a seperation from the parent BG there are specific rules that the BG not be seperated.
Stepping forward, turning to face, losing a base. Feeding bases in does not allow a BG to violate the blanket rule requiring bases to remain in contact with one another.

gozerius wrote:

gozerius wrote:Not being in a normal formation does not negate the explicit prohibition on not seperating. Only partial interpenetrations permit bases to be seperated from the parent unit. And then they are restricted to their placement.

In all cases which could lead to a seperation from the parent BG there are specific rules that the BG not be seperated.
Stepping forward, turning to face, losing a base. Feeding bases in does not allow a BG to violate the blanket rule requiring bases to remain in contact with one another.

So you haven't got a rules quote that states the BG can't be separated then?

This is a specific case for a BG fighting in two directions which is exempt from the normal formation to allow bases to gradually feed into the melee.

dave_r wrote:

gozerius wrote:

gozerius wrote:Not being in a normal formation does not negate the explicit prohibition on not seperating. Only partial interpenetrations permit bases to be seperated from the parent unit. And then they are restricted to their placement.

In all cases which could lead to a seperation from the parent BG there are specific rules that the BG not be seperated.
Stepping forward, turning to face, losing a base. Feeding bases in does not allow a BG to violate the blanket rule requiring bases to remain in contact with one another.

So you haven't got a rules quote that states the BG can't be separated then?

This is a specific case for a BG fighting in two directions which is exempt from the normal formation to allow bases to gradually feed into the melee.

Can you provide the rules reference for the last part of your comment - that the BG is exempt "to allow bases to gradually feed into the melee". I read the exception. There is nothing about feeding bases into melee. It merely states that a BG fighting in two directions will have bases facing in....ta da...different directions. I would have thought the exception was because the situation was obviously an exception, but apparently it's to allow "bases to gradually feed into the melee. Who knew?

Thank you SD.