Slitherine

kal5056 wrote:I think the only thing we are getting out of this is (unless adressed in V2) this will be up to individual referees to decide when it occurs.

Gino
SMAC

It has now been flagged so consider us aware of it - I'm sure we'd like to help Mr Iverson with his difficulty

nikgaukroger wrote:You are not quite following through the logic of allowing the expansion as if the BG were not stepped forward. Any such expansion would also have to conform to the BG rules as if the BG had not stepped forward - so it would, for example, have to have all ranks with the same number of bases (other than the back one which can have less).

As mentioned above it all seems to work out quite nicely in my experience, with happy players (usual exceptions apply) - so for those who may wish to ask, I'm sticking with it when umpiring*

Oh, I follow the logic. And frankly I've always played it that way (at least when units are flush with each other). It makes perfect sense from a realism standpoint.

The problem is that I can't figure out any way to read the rules to allow it without also waiving all of the other restrictions that go with "legal" or "general" formations (which is what Dave's interpretation does).

Needs to be fixed is all.

iversonjm wrote:I'm not assuming. You said it and I agreed with it. Besides, as I pointed out, absent that "assumption" a unit that has stepped forward could expand into a 1/2/4 rank structure or so that it had bases at right angles to its front, etc.

I thought they could. Green BG impacts red then conforms. This BG is not fighting in two directions after conforming at impact. Can it not expand to position B either?

philqw78 wrote:

iversonjm wrote:I'm not assuming. You said it and I agreed with it. Besides, as I pointed out, absent that "assumption" a unit that has stepped forward could expand into a 1/2/4 rank structure or so that it had bases at right angles to its front, etc.

I thought they could. Green BG impacts red then conforms. This BG is not fighting in two directions after conforming at impact. Can it not expand to position B either?

I thought this was a situation where Green did not conform, because doing so broke contact with a unit?

Put your specs on Matt. It is only impacting the Red at the top. When it conforms it is then also in contact with an overlap from red on its right. It is not fighting in 2 directions. It can normally expand to face an overlap. But this overlap? Yes or No?

Even if it did contact both reds at impact it is still incontact with both after conforming to top red..

philqw78 wrote:Put your specs on Matt. It is only impacting the Red at the top. When it conforms it is then also in contact with an overlap from red on its right. It is not fighting in 2 directions. It can normally expand to face an overlap. But this overlap? Yes or No?

Even if it did contact both reds at impact it is still incontact with both after conforming to top red..

Yes, but not while the conform takes place. I've never seen this happen to be honest, and would need to parse the rules before I took a position. That said, Dave's interpretation would allow a 90' expansion even if the righthand red unit weren't there (assuming green stepped forward into a non-general formation for some other reason). Great way to cover a flank.

iversonjm wrote: That said, Dave's interpretation would allow a 90' expansion even if the righthand red unit weren't there (assuming green stepped forward into a non-general formation for some other reason). Great way to cover a flank.

Feeding bases in expansion can only take place to feed bases in. So they couldn't go at 90 if it wasn't there.

philqw78 wrote:

iversonjm wrote: That said, Dave's interpretation would allow a 90' expansion even if the righthand red unit weren't there (assuming green stepped forward into a non-general formation for some other reason). Great way to cover a flank.

Feeding bases in expansion can only take place to feed bases in. So they couldn't go at 90 if it wasn't there.

They could to cover an existing overlap to the front. Maybe also to create a new overlap, but I'd need to look at the rules to see if that would result in a legal overlap position.

Nik,
I support your interpretation. Feeding in more bases is a function of BGs in combat adjusting to the frontage of the fight. It is not a "move" such as a BG not in close combat might wish to make. If we take the idea that a BG not in a rectangular formation or a BG fighting enemy which would preclude maintaining a rectangular formation cannot feed more bases into combat we are really asking for some obcene gamesmanship.
To those who object to narrow formations expanding after impact I point to the German "wedge" formations adopted by their knights.

Matt I see what you are trying to say. However you are wrong as many have pointed out.

It would break the game.
The step forward that phil posted is the simplest example. Any step forward would prevent expanding. I deploy an annouce all my BG through the game will never be perfectly lined up unless i say so. This increases the odds that somewhere you will fight against someone stepped forward.
The engineered non expansion converts the game into a DBx-fest geometry. As RBS noted the appropriate rule is to punch your opponent in the nose.

shall wrote:You can expand as far as I am concerned and will rule that way at weekend. As long as bases stay in contact with each other.

Its only you can't conform but you fight as if you had.

Definitely also the spirit therefore.

S

Feel free to copy all above to forum if you want to Phil cheers S

The horses mouth

philqw78 wrote:

iversonjm wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

I concur, and it is how I have ruled it. The other way encourages "geometric ploys" which is undesirable.

Undesirable outcome or not, now that I've reread p. 23, it seems pretty clear that the expansion Phil wanted to do is barred by the rules. Expansion isn't one of the four exceptions by which you can enter an illegal formation. Nor does it say that if you start in an one illegal formation you can adopt another one.

Especially since one can still fight as if conformed without expanding, I don't see how that clause can override p. 23.

So, in effect, the only rule stopping the expansion is 'illegal formation'. Therefore any BG that has stepped forward may not expand.

I disagree with this. The step forward creates an exception "A compulsory move specified by the rules can temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms". The unit can't yet reform, as it is in close combat.

The reform rules state "A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move. (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)." This clearly allows a BG that has not yet reformed to feed in more bases.

I disagree with this. The step forward creates an exception "A compulsory move specified by the rules can temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms". The unit can't yet reform, as it is in close combat.

The reform rules state "A battle group must reform if it is to make any voluntary move. (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)." This clearly allows a BG that has not yet reformed to feed in more bases.

A nice summary that I agree with.

However the expansion rules also say "If there is space to do so".

So this is the crux for me.

Do the bases that are expanded have to be in edge and corner to corner contact? (i.e. a normal "legal" formation)
Or are they allowed to be in an "illegal" stepped formation as in Phil's original example?

This was basically the point that Phil and I were discussing during the game.

See Simons reply above Peter.

Also if expanded bases had to be in corner to corner contact it again means that stepped forward BG could not usually expand. Like this one
.

Sorry twisting the rectanlges around again made them a bit skew whiff. But they should be all be lined up, just the top red BG half a base depth offset back from the other

And the needing space bit does not say needs space to line up corner to corner

philqw78 wrote:See Simons reply above Peter.

Also if expanded bases had to be in corner to corner contact it again means that stepped forward BG could not usually expand. Like this one
.

Sorry twisting the rectanlges around again made them a bit skew whiff. But they should be all be lined up, just the top red BG half a base depth offset back from the other

And the needing space bit does not say needs space to line up corner to corner

But here you stsart in formation and end up out of formation. And not by one of the four allowed excepetions by which you can get out of formation. So I don't think you can feed in to the overlapping BG.

grahambriggs wrote:But here you stsart in formation and end up out of formation. And not by one of the four allowed excepetions by which you can get out of formation. So I don't think you can feed in to the overlapping BG.

ooh! Another rule failing then. Most people I've seen do expand in this situation. So the rules are flawed despite what you said on the V2 forum graham

No No NO Graham.
If this were the case then anyone could protect Light Foot from being grabbed in over lap just by moving them slightly ahead of the front edge of a BG they are providing overlap support.

We have all had a situation where we did not bring light foot into over lap because there were stands in a non combat spot that could then grab the LF. Your interpretation provides a Cheesy way to protect these LF

Could not disagree with this interpretation more.

Gino
SMAC

Feeding bases into melee is not governed by normal expansion or contraction rules. which are for BGs not in close combat. The ability to adjust the fighting front of the BG to its opponents is not restricted by normal formation rules.
Cases in which feeding more bases into combat would not be possible are when the BG cannot expand due to the presence of impassible terrain or a table edge, the presence of enemy which are not already in close combat even as an overlap with the BG in question or the presence of another friendly BG. In all other cases expansion as a means of feeding in more bases should be allowed, provided that the BG maintains its integrity. Obviously you can't expand if this would require the files to become seperated from one another. The interesting scenario that Phil lays out is one I have not encountered, and it is clear that upon conforming the green BG will be in contact with both red BGs. The righthand red BG is not in overlap. It is in front edge contact with green's side edge. In this case both red BGs are fighting to their front with all their bases. When a BG is contacted on the flank during the manuever phase it can turn bases in contact to face the enemy in contact.


The rules for fighting when unconformed allow the combatants to treat the combat as if it were conformed. Therefore if a BG would normally be able to expand to meet an overlap, it should be able to do so regardless of the actual geometric positions of the opposing bases.

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:But here you stsart in formation and end up out of formation. And not by one of the four allowed excepetions by which you can get out of formation. So I don't think you can feed in to the overlapping BG.

ooh! Another rule failing then. Most people I've seen do expand in this situation. So the rules are flawed despite what you said on the V2 forum graham

Well, I think the do odd things, and are perhaps not easy to find, and are broken in this way, but not broken in the way that way being said there.

kal5056 wrote:No No NO Graham.
If this were the case then anyone could protect Light Foot from being grabbed in over lap just by moving them slightly ahead of the front edge of a BG they are providing overlap support.

We have all had a situation where we did not bring light foot into over lap because there were stands in a non combat spot that could then grab the LF. Your interpretation provides a Cheesy way to protect these LF

Could not disagree with this interpretation more.

Gino
SMAC

So you're saying we'll disregard rules you don't like?

I agreed it's daft, but them what if this were a 10 deep column doing the overapping with it's rear two elements? would you still allow it?