Sequence of moving commanders in V2

[richafricanus]

Is there a sequence of play in the JAP phase for moving commanders by opposing sides? I had an idea non phasing player moved first but can't find it. Maybe I'm getting confused with Fog N??

[zoltan]

Is there a sequence of play in the JAP phase for moving commanders by opposing sides? I had an idea non phasing player moved first but can't find it. Maybe I'm getting confused with Fog N??

No. Both sides move their commanders at the same time during the JAP. There is no distinction between phasing/non phasing players.

[nikgaukroger]

However, on 14-1 in the initial paragraph it does say "The order rarely matters, but the active player moves his troops first, or decides the sequence of events, should either side feel this is necessary."

[zoltan]

However, on 14-1 in the initial paragraph it does say "The order rarely matters, but the active player moves his troops first, or decides the sequence of events, should either side feel this is necessary."

The second part of this quote seems a little too open as the sequence of events is mandated in the RAW sequence of play.

[nikgaukroger]

Not really - it applies to things like which routing BG to move first which apply within one part of the sequence.

[grahambriggs]

Is there a sequence of play in the JAP phase for moving commanders by opposing sides? I had an idea non phasing player moved first but can't find it. Maybe I'm getting confused with Fog N??

No. Both sides move their commanders at the same time during the JAP. There is no distinction between phasing/non phasing players.

Ah, scope for politeness then. "Aftter you, dear opponent"

[bbotus]

Ah, scope for politeness then. "Aftter you, dear opponent"

And then I'll finish you off!

It sounds so British

[zoltan]

Not really - it applies to things like which routing BG to move first which apply within one part of the sequence.

But it doesn't explicitly say that. It's what I assume is meant but it wouldn't take much to say, 'follow the strict sequence if play. Within the sequence the phasing player choses whi goes first should this be necessary." But its a red herring as I think its only ever come up once in all the games I've played.

More important is the unresolved) debate over:

1. Do all charge responses; now do all charge moves

Versus

2. Do one charge response and its related charge move; now do another charge response and its related charge move etc.

[richafricanus]

But back to my original question, I think Nik's quote from 14-1 is the pertinent one. Phasing player can choose when it becomes relevant. Who ever reads those introductory paragraphs when looking for something?!

[batesmotel]

Not really - it applies to things like which routing BG to move first which apply within one part of the sequence.

But it doesn't explicitly say that. It's what I assume is meant but it wouldn't take much to say, 'follow the strict sequence if play. Within the sequence the phasing player choses whi goes first should this be necessary." But its a red herring as I think its only ever come up once in all the games I've played.

More important is the unresolved) debate over:

1. Do all charge responses; now do all charge moves

Versus

2. Do one charge response and its related charge move; now do another charge response and its related charge move etc.

The sequence of play in V2 does clarify this as "Declare and move all interception charges...", "Make all evade moves." and "Make all charge moves..." as separate steps in the Full Turn Sequence.

Chris