Slitherine

We had a ruling that made sense, but some spectators asked for it to be posted here

ZZZ

__@@@

2 BGs facing each other starting parallel. They each only have one base lined up facing each other. @ is moving and makes its CMT.

@ wants to contract and advance on Z. So that its middle base gets partiallly to Z's front. I forget why they wanted to do this.

There were told no.

The reason cited was since they started parallel they couldn't then contract during an advance and then approach at an angle.

But there point was that the bit about moving to parallel didn't apply in this situation IIRC.

Comments?

If you are in a restricted area you are not allowed to CONTRACT (it is one of a list of exclusions in the rules P.74).

Bugle999 wrote:If you are in a restricted area you are not allowed to CONTRACT (it is one of a list of exclusions in the rules P.74).

I'm sorry but I don't have with mee the rules so I don't remeber the page:
you cannot contract if you remain STATIONARY.
Sergio

The bullet saying you cannot contract is (on page 74):

Remain in place. (It can expand or turn, but not contract).

p. 74 is relevant section:

Not allowed to contract if you remain stationary, but somewhat silent on contrating otherwise. I believe in other places there have been rulings that you can contract and end further away.

Are you allowed to contract and advance toward the enemy?

Are you allowed to contract the bases that are currently paralell and lined up then advance and wheel back in front of the enemy ("Advance directly towards enemy")?

IIRC the authors have previously indicated that where the first bullet says "Advance ..." a move from the Advances section of the table on page 42 was intended.

However, no official (FAQ) clarification has been published.

Are you allowed to contract and advance toward the enemy?

I don't believe so - no.

Page 74 lists those moves that a BG in a restricted area may make.

As Nik notes above, the first bullet is 'Advance...' And that has been previously debated on this forum.

In my experience most players, and umpires, accept that 'Advance' is as defined on page 42 - eg it does not include double wheels, expansions, contractions or turns.

So - yes - I believe you played it correctly Dan.

Pete

petedalby wrote: So - yes - I believe you played it correctly Dan.

Pete

Well i was offering a sort of unofficial ruling.

So far i am not sure we are get consensus here, beyond this limited case

Indeed and advance is defined as a term and you are correct.

Hence we haven't issued and FAQ.

We try to stick to logical things in reality - cant imagine trying to engineer a contraction that close to enemy being much fun!!

Si

So you can't advance and contract within 2MU then?

So you can't advance and contract within 2MU then?

I don't believe so - no.

Si - as you know I'm not a fan of FAQs - but so many people have read this wrongly.

Please issue a FAQ to clear it up once and for all?

Ok will add it to a list once I get RBS back form other things.

SI

Thanks Si

Cool - I'm with Pete on the FAQ but I agree it would be beneficial to sort this one out

yea need an FAQ.

Didn't Paul B post a further clarification at Challenge?

I "thought" he consulted with ____ and they said advance includes contract.

ethan wrote:
Are you allowed to contract the bases that are currently paralell and lined up then advance and wheel back in front of the enemy ("Advance directly towards enemy")?

I think people are saying no, but not entirely why.

hazelbark wrote:

ethan wrote:
Are you allowed to contract the bases that are currently paralell and lined up then advance and wheel back in front of the enemy ("Advance directly towards enemy")?

I think people are saying no, but not entirely why.

The reason is "contract with an advance..." is in the section "contractions" in the movement table, not the section "advances" therefore it is not an "advance" so does not qualify as "Advance directly towards enemy".

This is a dubious argument based on the wording alone, as combining a contraction with an advance implies that the advance bit must be an advance (by definition). However, it seems to be the authors intent that only a move in the "advances" section is included within the meaning of "advance" in the rules, and that an advance is not formally an "advance" if you get to it via some other section of the movement table.

I did post something at the Challenge based on one of (insert rules author)'s posts on another thread here that I edited a bit (without trying to change the meaning). It came up on top table and several others over the weekend. As it happens it didn't allow any contraction with an advance as far as I can see. It was one author's views at the time and for one think hadn't been textually analysed by your good selves. I'll post the text here if it would help.

Paul

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but I'm still a bit confused the options for troops in a restricted area.

Specifically, I am wondering about the option to make a move that ends further away but leaves some part still in front (paraphrasing obviously). Do the other restrictions apply in this case?

For example, if a unit of LH is pinned by some infantry with both BGs facing each other, can it turn 180 degrees and move away? This would seem to be allowed by the option to move away, but in another section turns are prohibited.

richnz wrote:For example, if a unit of LH is pinned by some infantry with both BGs facing each other, can it turn 180 degrees and move away? This would seem to be allowed by the option to move away, but in another section turns are prohibited.

Yes a LH BG can turn 180 degrees(simple move) and move a full move ie 7 inchs away or any distance up to that from the pinning group. As long as a part of one base is still in line from the side edge of the Infantry BG. It sounds difficult but all you do is keep in front of the Infantry group.