Movement of commanders in the JAP Phase

[hoodlum]

Tonight had the issue.

the unit breaks off from combat with steady foot. the unit knights has a general attached. So the general moves back with the unit.

The next sequence of the JAP phase is move commanders.

My opponent then moves the commander involved in the break off.

We looked at the rules and this appears to be correct as there is nothing that prevents it. However it does seem odd for the commander to move twice in one phase.

Comments?

[Robert241167]

Hi hoodlum

Page 117 of V2 says "commanders of both sides can move once in the joint action phase".

As break offs happen in the joint action phase the commander would have already made a move in the joint action phase.

Rob

[dave_r]

Hi hoodlum

Page 117 of V2 says "commanders of both sides can move once in the joint action phase".

As break offs happen in the joint action phase the commander would have already made a move in the joint action phase.

Rob

I'd missed that - is this new under v2?

[Robert241167]

Hi Dave

My quote is from version 2 but page 109 from V1 is the same.

Rob

[petedalby]

I'd missed that - is this new under v2?

So had loads of other people - including me.

[gozerius]

The above sentence quoted, limiting a commander to one move, was taken out of context. The immediately succeeding sentence makes that clear.

Commanders of both sides can move once in the joint action phase. They cannot move a battle group with them.

(p117)

"Move commanders" is a separate sub-phase of the JAP which is not affected by outcome moves either before or after the independent movement of a commander. A commander could conceivably be with a BG that breaks off, then move to rally a broken BG, routing with it when the rally attempt fails. Both the break off and the rout are outcome moves. The voluntary, independent, movement of the commander is not affected by either.

[batesmotel]

The rules only talk about BGs breaking off, not commanders. So maybe the commander doesn't move with the breaking off BG. Then when it is time to move the commander he may move to join the BG that broke off or any other BG within range?

Chris

[philqw78]

The above sentence quoted, limiting a commander to one move, was taken out of context. The immediately succeeding sentence makes that clear.

Commanders of both sides can move once in the joint action phase. They cannot move a battle group with them.

(p117)

"Move commanders" is a separate sub-phase of the JAP which is not affected by outcome moves either before or after the independent movement of a commander. A commander could conceivably be with a BG that breaks off, then move to rally a broken BG, routing with it when the rally attempt fails. Both the break off and the rout are outcome moves. The voluntary, independent, movement of the commander is not affected by either.

How is it out of context and how are they exclusive?
If the "move commanders" bit did not exist commanders would only move as outcomes of other things.
It clearly says they move only once in the JAP. So if they didn't move as part of a break off they can then move, if they did break off they cannot.
And a general does not have to move with a routing BG, indeed cannot if he already moved there to rally it due to being able to move only once in the JAP
I would prefer your interpretation as I use very few generals, but cannot see how you come up with it.

[grahambriggs]

The above sentence quoted, limiting a commander to one move, was taken out of context. The immediately succeeding sentence makes that clear.

Commanders of both sides can move once in the joint action phase. They cannot move a battle group with them.

(p117)

Hmm. But elsewhere it says commanders can't move if they are in close combat. And if he's been fighting with a BG that now has to break off IIRC he has to break off with them, which seems to contradict "they cannot move a BG with them".
How curious.

I'd quite expected someone to chirp up with 'but it doesn't say "once and only once" '.

Oh.

I appear to have become Ruddock.

"I am become Ruddock, the destroyer of games"

[philqw78]

Hmm. But elsewhere it says commanders can't move if they are in close combat. And if he's been fighting with a BG that now has to break off IIRC he has to break off with them, which seems to contradict "they cannot move a BG with them".
Oh.

I appear to have become Ruddock.

"I am become Ruddock, the destroyer of games"

He is moving with the BG, he is not moving a BG with him. You will have to try much harder to be a Ruddock

[gozerius]

Top of page 114

The final phase is a common phase in which various outcome moves are actioned. In addition, both sides' commanders get a chance to move to new positions to bolster or rally unsteady troops.

I take the in addition portion of the sentence to mean that the independent movement of commanders, in which they can move, but not take a battle group with them, is unaffected by outcome moves it may be involved with while with a battle group. There is no explicit restriction stating that a commander that breaks off may then not move independently, nor is there a prohibition from routing with a BG to which the general has moved. The commander is simply not required to remain with the BG. The limit on moving only once is in contrast to the maneuver phase, in which a commander that remains outside of 6 MU of enemy may move twice.

[kevinj]

The extension of that logic is that a commander could break off with a BG, move to a routing BG, attempt to bolster it, then run away with it if he failed.

I've always played that you move once, and if that's a break off, that's your move.

[rbodleyscott]

The extension of that logic is that a commander could break off with a BG, move to a routing BG, attempt to bolster it, then run away with it if he failed.

I've always played that you move once, and if that's a break off, that's your move.

That is the intention, tortuous logic-chopping notwithstanding.

[zoltan]

The extension of that logic is that a commander could break off with a BG, move to a routing BG, attempt to bolster it, then run away with it if he failed.

I've always played that you move once, and if that's a break off, that's your move.

That is the intention, tortuous logic-chopping notwithstanding.

The Oracle has spoken - a commander's base may only be moved once during the JAP. Interesting that some experienced, well-respected UK players have not read the RAW this way up to now.

[philqw78]

The limit on moving only once is in contrast to the maneuver phase

Which is a different phase. Its also in contrast to the JAP in that the general can take a BG with him on the second move.

But (although wishing he could be more forceful)

I've always played that you move once

That is the intention

So problem solved.

Take note Derby club, though pollution by a certain player may have caused your interpretation to side with gozerius.

[madaxeman]

The extension of that logic is that a commander could break off with a BG, move to a routing BG, attempt to bolster it, then run away with it if he failed.

I've always played that you move once, and if that's a break off, that's your move.

That is the intention, tortuous logic-chopping notwithstanding.

Which of the two statements are you agreeing with though?

[philqw78]

Which of the two statements are you agreeing with though?

Tortuous illogic

[rbodleyscott]

The extension of that logic is that a commander could break off with a BG, move to a routing BG, attempt to bolster it, then run away with it if he failed.

I've always played that you move once, and if that's a break off, that's your move.

That is the intention, tortuous logic-chopping notwithstanding.

Which of the two statements are you agreeing with though?

The latter.

Code: Select all

if (you are taking the piss)
       show_message("Very amusing")
else
       show_message("D minus. Must try harder. In English grammar, a statement of agreement (unless qualified) would normally apply to the expressed view of the person to whom you are replying, and not to the contrary view." )

e.g.

Speaker A: "The extension of that logic is that all Londoners are b*st*rds. On the contrary, I've always thought that Londoners were jolly fine chaps."
Speaker B: "I agree."

You would have to be pretty perverse (and grammatically naive) to conclude that Speaker B thinks that all Londoners are b*st*rds.

(Of course Speaker A and Speaker B may both be wrong).

[philqw78]

Though you must first consider where Tim lives before answering.

[zoltan]

Though you must first consider where Tim lives before answering.

Oh I read between RBS's lines that he had very much taken into account where Tim lived. As with RAW, doesn't everyone contemplate what the author is really trying to say, no matter how inglorious, rather than simply taking the words on their plain face value?