Generals with BGs

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:58 pm

which is different from having ones own friends on the other side preventing them from interpenetrating....

Madcam.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:20 pm

summary, the General is removed with the BG per page 49-50 as cited above?.

A well reasoned argument Scott - and not one that I'd considered before - on balance I think I'd buy it. And it seems right that there should be some consequences for the Commander.

For the definitive answer we need an author's view.

Pete

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:53 pm

I would invoke the simple reading principle of the authors and rule that the "intent" is not double punishment (lost BG and lost General) and it is generally clear that generals are supposed to be able to escape if there is a friendly BG in the move range (the shot at section).

While Scott is correct he should be rule against in principle.

Seriously Scott points out a hole, but I think the intent was to overlap such a potential hole, not to define it as lost.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:15 pm

Bump for authors input....

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:24 pm

bump for authors input....

Summary, when a BG is removed from the table due to not being able to complete its rout, but is not reduced to 1 base nor autobroken, what happens to a General that was with the BG since it was the opponents turn?

Thanks.

Madcam

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:21 am

by the sounds of it there was an enemy unit in the path of the general getting to the nearest friendly unit, so in that case its funeral time for the lost war hero. Happened to me once, couldnt make it to friends because I would have gone through an enemy unit so I had to offer a prayer and watch him die

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:10 pm

Bump for authors input...

C'mon Si, you've posted on the time warp thingy!!!

Madcam.

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:42 pm

I reflected on this puzzle last night with the rulebook in one hand (never mind the contents of the other one

).

The dilemma I see is this:

Does remaining on the table when the BG is destroyed constitute "leaving" that BG (which can only be done in the general's own Man/JAP)?

I am not certain that it does.

If not, then the general need not move at all until the very next phase -- i.e., the enemy maneuver phase. The trigger for the general having to "join or die" is any enemy movement that would contact (or put into shooting range) that general. He can react to that in any phase.

Thus, while Scott's "can't leave, gotta die" result may be the answer. The rules also seem to support this result:

BG is destroyed. General remains alone (soiling his cod piece, no doubt) until any enemy's movement (pursuit, maneuver, etc.) triggers his "join or die" move. At that point, he can and must move to the nearest friendly BG, etc.

Thoughts?

Spike

The one-armed bandit

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:35 pm

spikemesq wrote:I reflected on this puzzle last night with the rulebook in one hand (never mind the contents of the other one ).

The dilemma I see is this:

Does remaining on the table when the BG is destroyed constitute "leaving" that BG (which can only be done in the general's own Man/JAP)?

I am not certain that it does.

If not, then the general need not move at all until the very next phase -- i.e., the enemy maneuver phase. The trigger for the general having to "join or die" is any enemy movement that would contact (or put into shooting range) that general. He can react to that in any phase.

Thus, while Scott's "can't leave, gotta die" result may be the answer. The rules also seem to support this result:

BG is destroyed. General remains alone (soiling his cod piece, no doubt) until any enemy's movement (pursuit, maneuver, etc.) triggers his "join or die" move. At that point, he can and must move to the nearest friendly BG, etc.

Thoughts?

Spike

The one-armed bandit

The other question is:

If a BG is eliminated without moving off the table, does that constitute "leaving the table"?

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:47 pm

BUMP for Authors input..

Si, since this didn't make your shortlist in the other thread, here's hoping you can see this prior to your honeymoon...

Madcam.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:17 pm

Another Day, another bump!

Madcam.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:35 pm

PM them. They must get paid for reading our drivel on here since this is the official FoG site for rules questions.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:00 pm

madcam2us wrote:Another Day, another bump!

Madcam.

Weird multiple pregnancy?

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:02 pm

Boils....

Madcam.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:16 pm

New week... New BUMP!

Nik, how 'bout an assist here to get someone to look into this....

I don't want to PM this, I want the community to see the process...

Madcam

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:54 pm

Don't expect anything from Si for a fortnight at least. Terry and Richard are busy on other projects.

I am fairly sure I have already stated my position on this anyway. If not let me know and I will reread the whole thread.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:29 pm

Hammy,

thanks for the update. thought that the case (re: Terry&RBS), but had hoped to hear back from si prior to his honeymoon since he had been involved in the interpentration conversation.

As to your thoughts on the subject, IIRC you confused the issue of destroyed BGs which both Pete and I explained away.

I'd love to get your added comments after reading the whole thread along with the issues brought up within the text.

Madcam.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:01 pm

I don't think that the leaves the table section is relevant. There is a difference between leaves and removed.

It would seem that the commander does indeed get away with it in this situation.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:00 pm

...then I have to ask, why? A commander is not allowed to leave a BG unless its his turn and in the movement phase or either players JAP.

It would have been nice if you would have provided text to go along with your opinion that illustrates why you formed it...

without, I find it hard to take it seriously. Not meaning to be harsh. But when/where did I state an argument for either leaves or removed from table? - That was Spikes.

the problem is with pages 49-50 and 108.

Nowhere do they address the problem created by page 49 (Routing/Evading BGs unable to interpenetrate due to friendly BGs behind the first) and what would happen to a leader with said BG. Page 108 only deals with BGs autobroken/reduced to last stand. Its not applicable to the situation at hand.

Madcam.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:06 am

To counter the question with another question.

If a BG routs with a commander and is caught by pursuers who destroy the last base of the BG but don't roll the 10+ to kill the commander what happens to the commander?