Slitherine

iversonjm wrote:

philqw78 wrote:They cannot turn until they pass the kink

Why?

And if so, can they expand before they pass the kink? Why is expanding treated differently from turning?

And if it can't expand, doesn't that mean that a unit in kinked column can be taken out of the game by planting a unit of skirmishers in front of them so they can't advance?

I would rule against a 90 degree turn, because the formation has more than one side edge. I would permit a 180, or an expansion because in the former case, the formation's footprint stays the same, in the latter, you are expanding your frontage and the front edge is defined.

gozerius wrote:

iversonjm wrote:

philqw78 wrote:They cannot turn until they pass the kink

Why?

And if so, can they expand before they pass the kink? Why is expanding treated differently from turning?

And if it can't expand, doesn't that mean that a unit in kinked column can be taken out of the game by planting a unit of skirmishers in front of them so they can't advance?

I would rule against a 90 degree turn, because the formation has more than one side edge. I would permit a 180, or an expansion because in the former case, the formation's footprint stays the same, in the latter, you are expanding your frontage and the front edge is defined.

So you think in a 180 degree turn, you keep the kink?

This aspect hasn't greatly changed from V1. Kinked columns are a fudge, but the alternative is worse as it would mean column tails swinging wildly round as they turn. At least preventing them from charging has eliminated a lot of the cheesy possibilities.

If the column turns 180 it is still a column. I see no reason why it wouldn't retain the kink until it passes point of kinking, albeit in the opposite direction.

Expanding is not really a problem, the formation is no longer a column so the kink vanishes. As the expansion has to happen before any movement there isn't really much that you can do to get any unresonable benefit from it.

Turning 90 could open up some cheesy options with the tail shooting out a long way, especially with a large BG, particularly if it happens at the end of a move. This possibility has been reduced by V2 as the move is reduced if the BG turns.

gozerius wrote:A kinked column cannot reform because it is specifically listed as an exception to the normal rule on maintaining a rectangular formation.

Actually, the opposite is true. A kinked column is allowed to reform because it is an exception to the normal rule on maintaining a rectangular formation. See text from p. 76 quoted in my earlier post . Under the RAW, the only non-normal formation that CANNOT reform is an Orb.

Insist on doing it on my table and you'll have a lot of expensive lead on the floor. A column, even when kinked, is a legal formation, therefore cannot reform.

A question on the original photo.

I thought wheels were restricted to 90 degrees under V2? So that looks like an illegal move to me anyway?

gozerius wrote:Insist on doing it on my table and you'll have a lot of expensive lead on the floor. A column, even when kinked, is a legal formation, therefore cannot reform.

I would not recommend that approach, as you will probably find that you follow the lead to the floor in short order and end up in a similar condition.

Please do not participate in these debates if you cannot do so in a civil fashion.

petedalby wrote:A question on the original photo.

I thought wheels were restricted to 90 degrees under V2? So that looks like an illegal move to me anyway?

Good point, although it looks like wheel could be made legal with a minor adjustment and the 180' turn issue still stands.

iversonjm wrote:

gozerius wrote:Insist on doing it on my table and you'll have a lot of expensive lead on the floor. A column, even when kinked, is a legal formation, therefore cannot reform.

I would not recommend that approach, as you will probably find that you follow the lead to the floor in short order and end up in a similar condition.

Easy there, killers. Everybody take a deep breath and go back to citing rules. In addition to being more civilized, it is a more effective form of debate.

Marc

iversonjm wrote:

gozerius wrote:A kinked column cannot reform because it is specifically listed as an exception to the normal rule on maintaining a rectangular formation.

Actually, the opposite is true. A kinked column is allowed to reform because it is an exception to the normal rule on maintaining a rectangular formation. See text from p. 76 quoted in my earlier post . Under the RAW, the only non-normal formation that CANNOT reform is an Orb.

Pg 76 mentions BG's not in a normal formation. Pg 23 states there are five exceptions to the general case and goes on to describe them.

Critically, Pg23 now defines which of those exceptions can reform - a kinked column is not one of them. If for example you had kinked to follow a road would you have to reform to return to a normal formation?

dave_r wrote:
Pg 76 mentions BG's not in a normal formation. Pg 23 states there are five exceptions to the general case and goes on to describe them.

Critically, Pg23 now defines which of those exceptions can reform - a kinked column is not one of them. If for example you had kinked to follow a road would you have to reform to return to a normal formation?

Actually no - as I mentioned in my earlier post to Nik: P. 76 contradicts this interpretation. It states, explicitly, that the only non-normal (which has always meant non-rectangular) formations that cannot reform are "Orb[s] and [those] depicting adverse cohesion states." As a kinked column is neither of these, it can reform by the letter of the rules. Also, although the p.23 cases 2 & 3 mention reforming, case 4 (stepped forward files from expansion) does not, but one can reform to get out of it once a fight is over. It would seem to follow that of mention reforming in the p. 23 examples isn't dispositive of a formation's ability to do so.

Nik appears to have seen the issue with this langauge and is running the issue by Richard. The reason that I like reforming, btw, is it is an elegant way to (a) preserve the intent to prevent kinked columns from charging (reforming occurs after impact), (b) eliminate all of these debates regarding how and if a kinked column can turn or expand (none of which, as far as I can tell or anyone has been able to explain to me, have any grounding in the rules text) and (c) prevent the absurdity of a kinked column of battle troops being frozen impotently in place for the rest of the game by a cunningly placed skirmisher stand or two.

Note that if the reform rule applies, the BG MUST reform before making a voluntary move, so all expands/turns etc. come off of the reformed column.

The solution is elegant enough that it is possible that the authors actually intended it.

If a kinked column is on a road in bad terrain and reforms causing the rear of the column to be in the terrain off the road then I assume on the next turn it would not benefit from moving along the road.

I'm starting to think this thread would be better titled 'Kinked can of worms'.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:If a kinked column is on a road in bad terrain and reforms causing the rear of the column to be in the terrain off the road then I assume on the next turn it would not benefit from moving along the road.

Chris

I suppose not, but how often has that happened to you? The real can of worms here are the raft of unanswerable questions that arise when an already kinked column tries to move. And the reform rules tie all of them up into a nice neat bow. I honestly don't know why people are kicking and screaming about it. If the biggest problem with it is limited to roads that turn in bad terrain, gee....

iversonjm wrote:The reason that I like reforming, btw, is it is an elegant way to (a) preserve the intent to prevent kinked columns from charging (reforming occurs after impact), (b) eliminate all of these debates regarding how and if a kinked column can turn or expand (none of which, as far as I can tell or anyone has been able to explain to me, have any grounding in the rules text) and (c) prevent the absurdity of a kinked column of battle troops being frozen impotently in place for the rest of the game by a cunningly placed skirmisher stand or two.

The problem with (a) is that you can reform in your opponents turn - so whilst it prevents intercepting, it would never prevent charging as you would reform before your opponent can get cunning with skirmishers.

The main problem is that since ninked columns never really mattered before, nobody was particularly bothered about them. Now they do matter (a lot) then people are bothered by them.

For one more turn of the worm, why impose a restriction on a kinked column charging in V2 since a column must reform by the time its next impact phase occurs? Inquiring minds want to know .

Chris

dave_r wrote:
The problem with (a) is that you can reform in your opponents turn - so whilst it prevents intercepting, it would never prevent charging as you would reform before your opponent can get cunning with skirmishers.

Aha, good point. The problem could easily be solved by saying that kinked columns can only reform in the owner's maneuver phase, but you're right that as it is written now they can reform in both.

iversonjm wrote:

dave_r wrote:
The problem with (a) is that you can reform in your opponents turn - so whilst it prevents intercepting, it would never prevent charging as you would reform before your opponent can get cunning with skirmishers.

Aha, good point. The problem could easily be solved by saying that kinked columns can only reform in the owner's maneuver phase, but you're right that as it is written now they can reform in both.

The kinked column rules are some where between seriously incomplete and broken, probably closer to the latter.

Chris

dave_r wrote: The main problem is that since ninked columns never really mattered before, nobody was particularly bothered about them. Now they do matter (a lot) then people are bothered by them.

No people were always bothered by them. You are just immune to people castigating your play style.

Now people will look for the columns more because the turn and move is harder.

iversonjm wrote:

dave_r wrote:
The problem with (a) is that you can reform in your opponents turn - so whilst it prevents intercepting, it would never prevent charging as you would reform before your opponent can get cunning with skirmishers.

Aha, good point. The problem could easily be solved by saying that kinked columns can only reform in the owner's maneuver phase, but you're right that as it is written now they can reform in both.

How about banning single wide columns (except those units starting with two bases) from initiating an impact move of any kind. Its totally ahistorical anyway. You would still allow a 2 base unit to drop a file.

Iversonjm, we are at an impasse because you refuse to accept that the rules regarding column of march preclude them from reforming. While I reject your insistance that the lack of excepting kinked columns in the reforms section allows you to reform a kinked column.
Here is my objection to your position.
1. The rules on page 23 (Section 4-2) explicitly state that a column of march must be kinked at the point it has wheeled until the whole column has passed that point. It does not say "or has reformed". This omission is a clear indicator of author intent on the matter. Column of marches are a single base wide file. Being kinked does not change that. They have only one front edge - that of the lead base. They have only one rear edge - that of the rear base. They are all facing the same direction - toward the front edge of the lead base.
2. To accept your interpretation would introduce such strong smelling cheese onto the battlefield only the Swiss would be able to stand it.
Case in point - I am a column of march of medium foot light spear which has been pinned by enemy cav lancers to my flank. I cannot move away and turning to face will mean facing a superior force at impact. But I have cleverly wheeled my lead base 90 degrees. Now I simply reform out of the pin and move normally. Is that fair play?