Turning 90 question

[nikgaukroger]

Cavalry formation 2 bases wide by 3 bases deep. Turns 90. Driving me mad where in the rules or clarries the resulting formation is explained. Help me with a page/clarrie reference please ...

[lionheartrjc]

Page 55 9.2 A.3

Note a UG turning 90 must always expand to form a legal formation.  Therefore it cannot contract.  So if it was 90mm deep, it must end up at least 120mm wide after turning 90.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

OK, so one of those "sideways" explanations.

I keep thinking there is an explicit one like in FoG.

[AntiokosIII]

I don't dispute that this is the rule, but it makes me a bit frustrated that  cavalry skirmishers can't turn without making their shooting less effective because they lose depth.  Infantry skirmishers have no such problem. If this makes any sense, I don't see it. Do we have to make ourselves prisoners to base depths in this fashion?

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Not necessarily wedded to it. Legacy habit.

Could equally allow them to turn with a maximum width equal to the depth, and must be legal.
Thereby allowing 3 deep/ 2 wide to remain so.

But also we are pretty generous with turns and moves as is.

I'll ponder for vs 2.

S

[AntiokosIII]

I agree that turns are perhaps too generous, but if you're gonna allow flexibility to anyone, surely skirmishers, especially mounted ones, should be the ones to get it. Skirmishing cavalry is basically a cloud, a flock, a loose  mob more than a formation. Anyway, something to consider, and I'm glad you'll consider it.

Now, if we can only convince you to let Flexible mounted shooters to shoot at full effect while in Skirmish formation...

[GEOFFRM1]

    My interpretation of this rule is a little different.  The rule 9.2.A.3 does not actually say you must expand but says you will always expand to create a legal formation.  There is no mention of having to go to three bases width because your formation is over two base widths in depth.  You turn a element 90 and expand UP to one element on either side so if you want to go to two bases width you expand one element on either the left or right side.  If you want to go to three you can.  You pile the other bases behind but you have to have the room.

Geoff

[Dru]

I'm keen to hear more about what is the actual rule intent on this.

[badhabum]

I know that at the scale we play, a unit's bases do cover much more space than it should.

But if we say it is the space occupied by the TUG, when turning 90 °, if cavalry 3 bases deep it should be 3 wide and 2 deep just because you need be minimum as wide as you were deep. To do otherwise would mean that the unit turns and contracts . Imagine just all squadrons turn right or left...the depth becomes the front .Unless the reasoning is that the space covered by the base is not the real space covered by the unit.

If you want to turn 90° with cavalry and stay 2 wide and 3 deep, why not use the M3 move ( but you need to go forward to do it )

[GEOFFRM1]

Hi,
     Why do we have the rule that you have to end up as wide as you were deep?  In only affects Mtd as foot Tugs tend to be made up of 3 to 4 squares and even mounted are not that badly affected accepting skirmishers who did not fight in set formations anyway.

Geoff

[badhabum]

Because that rule does not exist in MEG ?  I could not find it 

[lionheartrjc]

Because that rule does not exist in MEG ?  I could not find it 

Page 55 9.2 A.3  (as I said earlier).

[stuuk]

All that says is that you can expand 1BW on either side of the point of turn. It doesn't specify a required depth etc.
Where does it say how wide and how deep a turning formation must be?

[GEOFFRM1]

Page 61 3.6..  I personally do not think it is a rule but people assume it is.

Geoff

[stuuk]

That paragraph starts with the words "here is another example"
doesn't sound like a rule to me. Kind of sounds like an example.

I don't see anywhere in the rules that the various actions are explicitly defined.