v2 Restricted Area

[zoltan]

P 10-6
"A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy even partly behind its rear can move straight forwards."

Does this mean -

1.A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy can move straight forwards, or
2. A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy behind its rear, can move straight forwards?

[ShrubMiK]

#2 surely?

[nikgaukroger]

#2 surely?

One would think so

[AlanCutner]

I'd agree thats the logical answer and how I'd prefer to play it. But a nasty rules lawyer would argue it would then be worded as "A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy at least partly behind its rear can move straight forwards." As worded the enemy don't have to be in the rear.

[pyruse]

As worded the enemy have to be at least partly to the rear. Even to a rules lawyer.
'at least' just tells you this applies even if the enemy is wholly to the rear.

[nikgaukroger]

I'd agree thats the logical answer and how I'd prefer to play it. But a nasty rules lawyer would argue it would then be worded as "A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy at least partly behind its rear can move straight forwards." As worded the enemy don't have to be in the rear.

I have a simple solution to this to be applied to the offender's head or figures depending how kind I am feeling:

https://picasaweb.google.com/1048179406 ... 7006883842

[ShrubMiK]

But seriously...I'm intrigued as to how a statement like "anyone who is even partly rules-lawyerish should be given a good shoeing" could be interpreted to mean "give everybody a good shoeing even if they are completely non-rules-lawyerish". Somebody will have to explain that to me!

[pyruse]

Surely the point is that as worded, the rule says you can move straight forward if enemy are (even partly) to your rear.
It says nothing about what you can do in other circumstances - which is covered by the normal rules on the restricted area.

[ShrubMiK]

Aha, I have now figured out why the alternative potential interpretation.

Consider if the wording was not:

"A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy even partly behind its rear can move straight forwards."

but instead:

"A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy, even partly behind its rear, can move straight forwards."

You might take the intent of that to be: Any BG in a restricted area can move straight forwards. And just in case anybody would think that a BG threatened from behind shouldn't be able to get out of trouble, we'll emphasis that yes this rule applies in that case too".

Or to build on what pyruse already posted: the alternative interpretation could be represented as:
the rule says you can move straight forward (even if enemy are partly to your rear).

I guess it could be argue that way, but I think it would be written differently if that were the case. As it is written, the natural reading seems to be clearly that "even" is synonymous with "at least"). My opinion anyway!

[zoltan]

Aha, I have now figured out why the alternative potential interpretation.

Consider if the wording was not:

"A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy even partly behind its rear can move straight forwards."

but instead:

"A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy, even partly behind its rear, can move straight forwards."

You might take the intent of that to be: Any BG in a restricted area can move straight forwards. And just in case anybody would think that a BG threatened from behind shouldn't be able to get out of trouble, we'll emphasis that yes this rule applies in that case too".

Or to build on what pyruse already posted: the alternative interpretation could be represented as:
the rule says you can move straight forward (even if enemy are partly to your rear).

I guess it could be argue that way, but I think it would be written differently if that were the case. As it is written, the natural reading seems to be clearly that "even" is synonymous with "at least"). My opinion anyway!

Yes, you have elicited the option 1 reading I gave in he OP. Even in the extremely rare/odd/unlikely situation of a friendly BG having an enemy BG partly behind its rear and zocking it (old money), the friendly BG can move straight ahead.

[rbodleyscott]

Aha, I have now figured out why the alternative potential interpretation.

Consider if the wording was not:

"A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy even partly behind its rear can move straight forwards."

but instead:

"A battle group in the restricted area of an enemy, even partly behind its rear, can move straight forwards."

You might take the intent of that to be: Any BG in a restricted area can move straight forwards. And just in case anybody would think that a BG threatened from behind shouldn't be able to get out of trouble, we'll emphasis that yes this rule applies in that case too".

Or to build on what pyruse already posted: the alternative interpretation could be represented as:
the rule says you can move straight forward (even if enemy are partly to your rear).

I guess it could be argue that way, but I think it would be written differently if that were the case. As it is written, the natural reading seems to be clearly that "even" is synonymous with "at least"). My opinion anyway!

Yes, you have elicited the option 1 reading I gave in he OP. Even in the extremely rare/odd/unlikely situation of a friendly BG having an enemy BG partly behind its rear and zocking it (old money), the friendly BG can move straight ahead.

But those commas are not there, so it doesn't mean that. Get a grip, please.

[zoltan]

In other words, a BG has the new option to move straight forwards only when it is in the restricted area of an enemy BG that is to its rear; for the avoidance of doubt - even partly to its rear.

[Lycanthropic]

This clarification will be the best test of the new digital ruleset dynamically updating.....*cough*

So who's up for some melee vs armoured heavy weapon? Anyone?

[bbotus]

In other words, a BG has the new option to move straight forwards only when it is in the restricted area of an enemy BG that is to its rear; for the avoidance of doubt - even partly to its rear.

Technically, you could do that in V1, too. You just had to end the move further away from the enemy and with at least part of the BG partly in front of the enemy BG. Is there still the restriction to remain partly in front of the enemy BG at the end of the move? Or, can you just make a straight ahead move ending with no part of the BG in front of the enemy?

[IanP]

Technically, you could do that in V1, too. You just had to end the move further away from the enemy and with at least part of the BG partly in front of the enemy BG. Is there still the restriction to remain partly in front of the enemy BG at the end of the move? Or, can you just make a straight ahead move ending with no part of the BG in front of the enemy?

Yes, as I see it thats it.

You still have the same options as V1, but now there is also the option of "straight back" or "straight forwards" without the usual restrictions.

[lawrenceg]

But those commas are not there, so it doesn't mean that. Get a grip, please.

What? We have to understand the significance of commas or their absence? We might as well be playing Barker's rules.

[bbotus]

But those commas are not there, so it doesn't mean that. Get a grip, please.

What? We have to understand the significance of commas or their absence? We might as well be playing Barker's rules.

Wait a minute, I thought it was us guys on the other side of the pond that were supposed to have trouble with the Queen's English

[zoltan]

Wait a minute, I thought it was us guys on the other side of the pond that were supposed to have trouble with the Queen's English

Two nations separated by a common language etc etc...

[rbodleyscott]

But those commas are not there, so it doesn't mean that. Get a grip, please.

What? We have to understand the significance of commas or their absence? We might as well be playing Barker's rules.

This constitutes trolling, Lawrence.

No, you just have to not read a sentence as if it had commas when it doesn't. And even if it did have commas, it would be a very strange way of wording it if interpretation 1 was intended.

If you have to alter a sentence to make it correspond to a certain interpretation, it is a pretty safe bet that that interpretation is wrong.

And if you did choose "interpretation" 1, it would mean that a BG in a restricted area could move straight forward in every circumstance except when the enemy is completely behind its rear. Surely this should be a clue (if any was needed) that "interpretation" 1 is a crock.

[hoodlum]

Hi

We recently had a competition of 12 players. Before the competition we sat down and discussed the wording of the alternative for restricted area. The group consisting of a number of very experienced players who travel on a regular basis to international competitions. We agreed the correct interpretation was interpretation 1.

The fact that a number of people have a different interpretation to what you intended, is sufficient to justify an FAQ or a digital update to ensure there is no confusion and deal to those nasty rules lawyers.