Teleporting Cavalry using Interpenetration

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:27 pm

hazelbark wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
dave_r wrote: I would think there is a good chance that what was put in FoG:R will be used in FoG:AM v2 - as Richard ran it past Simon and Terry before it went into FoG:R exactly for this reason.
Is it top secret?
Its listed in the TOC as the anti-Dave R rule.

Why would it be listed in the Table of Contents?

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:32 pm

dave_r wrote:
hazelbark wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote: Is it top secret?
Its listed in the TOC as the anti-Dave R rule.
Why would it be listed in the Table of Contents?

Because the wanted the world to know the disdain they had for those who play rules lawyer exploitation.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:38 pm

hazelbark wrote:
dave_r wrote:
hazelbark wrote: Its listed in the TOC as the anti-Dave R rule.
Why would it be listed in the Table of Contents?
Because the wanted the world to know the disdain they had for those who play rules lawyer exploitation.

When you say rules lawyer exploitation I presume you mean playing to the rules as written. Personally, I think MF being able to turn and move is a rules lawyer exploitation and everybody should show their disdain at that.

It's funny how different people view the rules as written as being obviously wrong, cheesy, disdainful, word of your choice depending upon how it affects them. As I have mentioned multiple times previously, I raised this issue prior to publication, so you can't really hold me too much to account for then playing the rules.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:04 am

The rules clearly allow it.

Therefore until the rules are changed it is allowed.

If an umpire was to rule against it I would be very worried as to how he would decide if given another bit of rules he did not quite like.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:07 am

OK, so we seem to have etsablished that teleporting is an odious form of interpenetration where the interpenetrating BG moves more than its normal move plus circa 2-3 MUs (depending on base depths).

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:03 am

dave_r wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
dave_r wrote: Exactly, which is why there hasn't been a good suggestion to try and stop it.
I would think there is a good chance that what was put in FoG:R will be used in FoG:AM v2 - as Richard ran it past Simon and Terry before it went into FoG:R exactly for this reason.
Is it top secret?

Hardly - its published.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:35 am

zoltan wrote:OK, so we seem to have etsablished that teleporting is an odious form of interpenetration where the interpenetrating BG moves more than its normal move plus circa 2-3 MUs (depending on base depths).

Indeed, it is not good but sadly it is there. Expect it not to be present in V2.0 but for the moment we have to live with it. Just call anyone who does it Dave if it makes you feel better

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:00 pm

So this is how it's done?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:04 pm

zoltan wrote:So this is how it's done?

That is one version of it.

There are 'variations' but to be honest I would not try any of them myself.

I do remember pulling something similar in DBM with an element of psiloi and a double based knight general. My general ended up travelling just over twice its normal move at an opportune moment. It rather shocked my opponent and I have to admit I felt a little 'dirty' for doing it.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:17 pm

hammy wrote:I have to admit I felt a little 'dirty' for doing it.

Depending who I am playing with I can gladly get the KY out and pull on my stockings. It only makes you feel dirty if you are the only one playing that way. But most people do not have to worry about that.

Robert241167 · Post by **Robert241167** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:33 pm

I seem to remember you doing it to me in Glasgow Phil and you did say you weren't happy doing it. Mind you I was doing rather well at the time!

Rob

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:04 pm

philqw78 wrote:
hammy wrote:I have to admit I felt a little 'dirty' for doing it.
Depending who I am playing with I can gladly get the KY out and pull on my stockings. It only makes you feel dirty if you are the only one playing that way. But most people do not have to worry about that.

I guess we have a new entry for the v.2 FoG Glossary? "Dirty Interpenetration"

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:22 pm

Robert241167 wrote:I seem to remember you doing it to me in Glasgow Phil and you did say you weren't happy doing it.

Are we still talking about Wargames here?

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:06 pm

Robert241167 wrote:Mind you I was doing rather well at the time!

Rob

Don't believe you!

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:23 pm

The trouble as I see it with the "standard opening move" argument is that it is not something that cannot be avoided without disadvantaging yourself (i.e. voluntarily moving short so as to not interpenetrate - which would be going too far in the gentlemanly direction

). Move the LF first, then the LH, et voila, cheese no more.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:12 pm

ShrubMiK wrote:The trouble as I see it with the "standard opening move" argument is that it is not something that cannot be avoided without disadvantaging yourself (i.e. voluntarily moving short so as to not interpenetrate - which would be going too far in the gentlemanly direction ). Move the LF first, then the LH, et voila, cheese no more.

I thought it was done by moving the LF once at 15mu and then move the Cavalry twice starting at 10mu you get an extra move by passing the cavalry through the LF not that I have done it before