Slitherine

the extension rules says we extend the front then we fit holes when its necessary to be in legal formation. So may i conclude that this expansion is not allowed:

SpSpSpSp
SpSpSpSp

to

SpSpSpSpSp
........SpSpSp

I can't see anything wrong here. Its a legal formation and you have expanded 2 base widths or less.

my point is that i should not have put the rear rank spear (in orange). It is not an expansion of the front and it is not a regularisation of the legality of the formation. IMo i could only put it on the front rank like that:

SpSpSpSpSpSp
........SpSP

both are permited as legal formations.

hazelbark wrote:both are permited as legal formations.

i know they are. the question is can an expansion from the initial situation reaches the final situation.

domblas wrote:i know they are. the question is can an expansion from the initial situation reaches the final situation.

Yes except that captial P should be lower case.
yes. The expansion is defined by frontage file and then all bases flow behind to make it legal

SO

12
34
56

could also expand like this
5612
34

Yes. You could even do this





___._ ____

Blimey! It's very reminiscent of many happy hours spent playing galaxians...

I think the issue is the exact rule wording, which I don't have in front of me, but is something like:

Extend the front rank by one or two bases. Fill out the rear ranks as necessary to make it a legal formation.


If after extending the front rank you are already in a legal formation, are you allowed to rearrange the second rank bases at all?


IMO the intention is yes, you can, but what do the rules as written really say?

lawrenceg wrote:I think the issue is the exact rule wording, which I don't have in front of me, but is something like:

Extend the front rank by one or two bases. Fill out the rear ranks as necessary to make it a legal formation.


If after extending the front rank you are already in a legal formation, are you allowed to rearrange the second rank bases at all?


IMO the intention is yes, you can, but what do the rules as written really say?

exactly lawrence!!!!
the rule doesn't say that after extanding ur front by one or two bases, u can rearange as u like in a legal formation. The Rule says that u rearange to be in legal formation. So i understood that u can only rearange those base that makes ur Bg in unlegal formation.

But in your first example that is what you have done. You have taken 2 bases to expand your frontage by one base width. So its legal. You are just looking for complication that isn't there.

in my first exemple i showed an expansion that my opponent did and that i considered illegal. Who was right?

In my opinion he was.

lawrenceg wrote:I think the issue is the exact rule wording

Which is "Increase the width of the front rank by adding one or two bases taken from other ranks" (P46).

I'm with Phil here, I think the example does not violate this as 2 bases have been added and the width has been increased.

kevinj wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:I think the issue is the exact rule wording

Which is "Increase the width of the front rank by adding one or two bases taken from other ranks" (P46).

I'm with Phil here, I think the example does not violate this as 2 bases have been added and the width has been increased.

but in one post phil added 3 bases from other ranks!

an official figure of permitted expansion would help

Well you are just reading somethign that is not there. I would not expect the authors to correct something that is so clear.

The rules read something like:

Increase the width of the front rank by adding one or two bases taken from other ranks. If two bases
are expanded, they can either be added to the same side, or one to each side. Then move
bases not in the front rank to make the formation legal.

This is the limitation of modeling real life on a tabletop using bases of figures. In real life, the formation would be uniformly deep across its entire breadth. But because we are using figures attached to bases some distortion of reality is required. The authors have for logistical reasons settled on the formation mechanisms in the rules. There is no restriction in the rules limiting rearranging non front rank bases when expanding, as long as the formation meets the rquirements of a legal formation. Great freedom is afforded the player to rearrange his bases as he sees fit. Otherwise we would need a book about three times the size of the current rulebook to list all the micromovement allowed when changing formation.

kevinj wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:I think the issue is the exact rule wording

Which is "Increase the width of the front rank by adding one or two bases taken from other ranks" (P46).

I'm with Phil here, I think the example does not violate this as 2 bases have been added and the width has been increased.

I think the wording at issue is the sentence or two after that, which you did not quote and I can’t because I don’t have my rules with me.

If it says "then move other bases as you like as long as it ends in a legal formation" then that would be clear.

If it says "then move other bases only if necessary to make a legal formation" then it would be clear that other bases can’t be moved if the formation is already legal.

If it is "Move other bases to make a legal formation" then it is open to philosophical argument whether rearranging bases in an already legal formation is making a legal formation - how can you make something into something if it is already that thing?

The exact wording is: THEN move bases not in the front rank to make the formation legal.


OP asked about

1234
5678

going to:

12345
__786

Moving 5 is fine, but why would you be allowed to move 6 to behind 5?

I had thought/ played that you could expand 6 because you expanded the formation by up to 2 base widths but reading on page 46 it says 'expand the front rank by adding one or two bases.. then move bases to make the formation legal'. So I can see your point.

Paul