Evading when you can't go anywhere

[shadowdragon]

Isn't there something in the rules about troops who are unable to complete an evade move being destroyed? This could have applied. If I could have remembered it.

No, you're confusing that with routers. P67 covers a number of situations where evaders cannot complete their moves and is clear that they move as far as they can and "are likely to be caught". In this example they would be caught 5 times out of 6...

Indeed...on p. 100 of the v1 rules, under "Initial Rout", "if its path is obstructed by unbroken enemy that cannot be bypassed, the BG is destroyed at the end of the phase."

[philqw78]

I have the v1 rules in front of me and they read, "BG that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught." V2 reads exactly the same. I understand how irritating this might be - especially when playing against Dave R , but I'd rather keep the uncertainty. Otherwise we'll get into situations where people park their LF 1 MU plus 1 mm from enemy so that they can move that "1 mm" and claim to be "evading". I like a game where as much as possible the importance of micro-measurement is minimized since to me micro-measurement isn't very realistic.

Its very frustrating

[shadowdragon]

I have the v1 rules in front of me and they read, "BG that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught." V2 reads exactly the same. I understand how irritating this might be - especially when playing against Dave R , but I'd rather keep the uncertainty. Otherwise we'll get into situations where people park their LF 1 MU plus 1 mm from enemy so that they can move that "1 mm" and claim to be "evading". I like a game where as much as possible the importance of micro-measurement is minimized since to me micro-measurement isn't very realistic.

Its very frustrating

Maybe Slitherine can introduce "virtual" sympathy presents for the forum.

[dave_r]

I have the v1 rules in front of me and they read, "BG that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught." V2 reads exactly the same. I understand how irritating this might be - especially when playing against Dave R , but I'd rather keep the uncertainty. Otherwise we'll get into situations where people park their LF 1 MU plus 1 mm from enemy so that they can move that "1 mm" and claim to be "evading". I like a game where as much as possible the importance of micro-measurement is minimized since to me micro-measurement isn't very realistic.

Its very frustrating

It made the difference between a 19-6 and an 18-7

[shadowdragon]

I have the v1 rules in front of me and they read, "BG that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught." V2 reads exactly the same. I understand how irritating this might be - especially when playing against Dave R , but I'd rather keep the uncertainty. Otherwise we'll get into situations where people park their LF 1 MU plus 1 mm from enemy so that they can move that "1 mm" and claim to be "evading". I like a game where as much as possible the importance of micro-measurement is minimized since to me micro-measurement isn't very realistic.

Its very frustrating

It made the difference between a 19-6 and an 18-7

By the way, Dave, - just to head off the potential evasive discussion about right and wrong - don't make the mistake of thinking that because I agree with you on this that I think you're right. That would be going "a bridge too far".

[dave_r]

By the way, Dave, - just to head off the potential evasive discussion about right and wrong - don't make the mistake of thinking that because I agree with you on this that I think you're right. That would be going "a bridge too far".

Right, so what you are saying is that despite agreeing with me, you don't think I'm right?

Or do you mean that you agree with me and I'm wrong?

Either way, you don't make sense!

[shadowdragon]

By the way, Dave, - just to head off the potential evasive discussion about right and wrong - don't make the mistake of thinking that because I agree with you on this that I think you're right. That would be going "a bridge too far".

Right, so what you are saying is that despite agreeing with me, you don't think I'm right?

Or do you mean that you agree with me and I'm wrong?

Either way, you don't make sense!

Precisely wrong, Dave.

Just think of it as one of those mysteries of the universe - like the dual wave-particle nature of matter-energy.

[philqw78]

Or different sizes of infinity

[grahambriggs]

By the way, Dave, - just to head off the potential evasive discussion about right and wrong - don't make the mistake of thinking that because I agree with you on this that I think you're right. That would be going "a bridge too far".

Right, so what you are saying is that despite agreeing with me, you don't think I'm right?

Or do you mean that you agree with me and I'm wrong?

Either way, you don't make sense!

Probably best just to say that Phil is more wrong that you are. In this one instance.

[philqw78]

Probably best just to say that Phil is more wrong that you are. In this one instance.

I wasn't wrong in any way. I said that was the rules, but it was frustrating.

Being on the opposite side to Dave is always right.

But then Alan joined sides with me, which must be wrong, so now I don't know whats wrong or right.

[AlanCutner]

But then Alan joined sides with me, which must be wrong, so now I don't know whats wrong or right.

You assume theres only two sides.

[philqw78]

In my world there's only right or wrong, black or white.

You're getting into shades of grey now Alan. That's not only wrong but also deviant

[bbotus]

I said that was the rules, but it was frustrating.

'Feeling very dense, I finally understand the whole reason for this thread.

[philqw78]

bored at work