Moving a commander in a BG that does not move

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:32 am

MikeK wrote:The BG is stationary. The commander post-CMT must remain with it. The choice of "remain" does not appear to preclude legal movement from one attached position to another as long as he remains with the BG. It is not an unreasonable reading.

I think it is cleaner and saves time if being present for the CMT means the commander can't change position attached to the BG. It could have been written that way.

If the BG moves post-CMT, the rules are clear he remains in exactly the same relative position during the move.

The only problem is what is the same relative position if the BG changes formation. I would be happier with remains with the BG, wherever, providing they are in legal contact even after a CMT and move.

If A BG contracts and he is at the rear other bases would fall in behind him as the column moved forward. If it expanded and he was at the back he would have to go out to the flank expanded to if in contact with a base that moved or would he move forward and remain at the back. Relative position is a very subjective statement.

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:37 pm

The RAW already account for changes in formation and remaining with the BG after a CMT. As noted, page 50 says "If he moves with the battle group, he must remain in exactly the same position relative to it, unless the formation changes." but page 43 says only that if the battle group takes a CMT when he is with it than he must "remain with the same battle group." A post-CMT "remain" should not conflict with formation changes (many of which require a CMT). I submit that the "remain post-CMT" rule is primarily aimed at skittish generals that cannot live with their CMT failures (because the BG has to charge, etc.)

In the narrow situation of the OP, I would not be that hung up about the BG moving within the stationary BG, provided that he did not exceed his 7 MU move rate. So moving a general across 12 elements would not go, but he could shift across 4 elements or so (if my math is right).

Spike

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:56 pm

MikeK wrote:The BG is stationary. The commander post-CMT must remain with it. The choice of "remain" does not appear to preclude legal movement from one attached position to another as long as he remains with the BG. It is not an unreasonable reading.

I think it is cleaner and saves time if being present for the CMT means the commander can't change position attached to the BG. It could have been written that way.

If the BG moves post-CMT, the rules are clear he remains in exactly the same relative position during the move.

Omnipresence and teleportation would be for FOG Fantasy adaptations.

If the commander is not with the BG (which requires edge to edge and corner to corner contact) during his move then he is not remaining with it (even if he rejoins it at the end of his move).

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:27 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
MikeK wrote:The BG is stationary. The commander post-CMT must remain with it. The choice of "remain" does not appear to preclude legal movement from one attached position to another as long as he remains with the BG. It is not an unreasonable reading.

I think it is cleaner and saves time if being present for the CMT means the commander can't change position attached to the BG. It could have been written that way.

If the BG moves post-CMT, the rules are clear he remains in exactly the same relative position during the move.

Omnipresence and teleportation would be for FOG Fantasy adaptations.
If the commander is not with the BG (which requires edge to edge and corner to corner contact) during his move then he is not remaining with it (even if he rejoins it at the end of his move).

By that logic, then a drilled unit with commander that fails its CMT cannot change formation, even though a stationary expansion is permitted as a simple move. During the expansion, the commander will not be in constant edge/corner contact.

But that is not right, is it?

Spike

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:23 pm

I could get there form your house in 30 minutes. Unless Bognor has moved

Ah - that one!

Sadly still no - my planned quota is full - and pushing my luck trying to get to the ITC this year.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:29 pm

During the expansion, the commander will not be in constant edge/corner contact.

But that is not right, is it?

No it's not. No-one else introduced the word constant did they? It does rather change the meaning.

To go back to the OP, the BG attempted to CMT with the benefit of a Commander. It failed and elected to remain stationery. Therefore the Commander should not be able to move.

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:12 pm

petedalby wrote:
During the expansion, the commander will not be in constant edge/corner contact.

But that is not right, is it?
No it's not. No-one else introduced the word constant did they? It does rather change the meaning.

To go back to the OP, the BG attempted to CMT with the benefit of a Commander. It failed and elected to remain stationery. Therefore the Commander should not be able to move.

The only way that Lawrence's point works is if remain = constant corner/edge contact. Recall that he posted:

"If the commander is not with the BG (which requires edge to edge and corner to corner contact) during his move then he is not remaining with it (even if he rejoins it at the end of his move)."

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:01 pm

It's clear the edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner contact is required for a commander to count as with the battle group. Certainly at start of turn if it is to contribute to the CMT, and at end of turn.

If you just look at what "remain with the BG" implies in normal English usage, it would be natural to assume that it could change position. Where that is not allowed, the rules explicitly say so, again in clear English. If the intention that that should also be a constraint in this case, wouldn't it have been better to say so explicitly rather than relying on people to make assumptions about whether "constant" is implied or not?

A commander must stay with a BG it is accompanying on a second move. You could claim that if your opponent doesn't pick up and move all the BG's bases and general simultaneously, that a) the general is not "constantly" in contact and b) there were temporary formation changes. Therefore the second move was illegal and he has to take it back and try it agin.

Regarding the expansion in place scenario after failing CMT, in a lot of cases (e.g. where the general is attached to the rear of the BG), anyone who can pick up two bases simultaneously can have the commander remain in constant edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner contact with a base of that BG.

I feel these would be good ways to raise an appreciative smile from a competitive opponent during a critical competition game

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:43 pm

And well said indeed

stenic · Post by **stenic** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:37 am

On a related note, and apologies if it's already been discussed (search facility seems to have disappeared), but does this mean the officer measures his move from the BG and not his position, even for a normal move and assuming no CMTs have occured?

This occured last night and the player said they had confirmation from the Roll Call umpire so I assume it's valid?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:29 pm

Commanders moves are measured from where the Commanders base actually is.

You may be getting confusion with measuring for who has to test if a Commander is killed where the measurement is from any part of the BG he is with.

stenic · Post by **stenic** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:18 pm

Thanks Nik.

Steve P

Primarch · Post by **Primarch** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:19 pm

Hmmm, I put all my Commanders on Round 38mm bases, how would that work?

Clay

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:33 pm

Won't stop you measuring from the commander's base will it.

Primarch · Post by **Primarch** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:33 pm

I meant in regards to the "edge to edge at all times" comments....

Clay

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:26 am

Primarch wrote:I meant in regards to the "edge to edge at all times" comments....

Well the times I've played against armies that had commanders on round bases we had no problems as you place the round base touching a normal base which is usually clear enough, and if there is uncertainty you just say where it is. Simples

Always worked in my experience.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:16 pm

I would like to meet a player who would seriously try to pull a "that commander technically isn't with that BG because..." stunt if the commander is on a round base. I would endeavour to prove that although my fist wasn't technically in constant contact with the nose the end result is still the same

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:19 pm

ShrubMiK wrote:I would like to meet a player who would seriously try to pull a "that commander technically isn't with that BG because..." stunt if the commander is on a round base. I would endeavour to prove that although my fist wasn't technically in constant contact with the nose the end result is still the same

You run home crying for your mum again?