Slitherine

hammy wrote:How about this one then?

P40

Movement rules

"A battle group or commanders move is over if the player moves another battle group or commander or makes a dice roll for another battle group"

combined with:

P41

Simple and complex moves

"Battle lines are limited to the 'Advances' section of the table"

So when you expand the end BG of a battle line you must be doing so as a battle group. The moment you move another battle group the move of the battle group that expanded is over.

Yes but is it another battle group - The wording on P75 is 'The SECOND move must be a simple advance'. On page 30 which clause is broken if a battle group performs a complex manouvre? The last paragraph says that the advantage is that they perform certain actions together. So if the battle group is only two battle groups both of which expand and move what rule is being broken?

Again, P 41 Simple and Complex Moves: Battle lines are limited to the 'Advances' section of the the table.
A BG cannot be claimed part of a battle line if it performs a move not permitted to a BL. Expansions are not permitted to BL.
P 75, Second Moves: A battle line must remain together throughout the first and second moves. It cannot be formed as a first move then moved together as a second move. it cannot drop off or pick up battle groups during the moves.

What you are proposing falls under the catagory of "picking up". The expanding BG has already performed a move. The adjacent BG "with a commander" has not moved at all. The first BG is not eligible to move again as the commander was not with it at the start of its first move.

Had the situation been reversed, The expanding BG had the commander with it, it could expand, then advance as a second move, the adjacent BG could then make its move to end along side the first BG.

DaiSho wrote:DIE THREAD! DIE DIE DIE!

I think we are going to get a lot of use out of this picture.

dave_r wrote:I still don't see how people equate doing well in a tournament with knowing the rules!

I've always thought it had more to do with rolling 6's

At least that's the only reason I've ever lost a game. Never because of lack of skill on my behalf, but because my opponent rolled more 6's

Ian

rbodleyscott wrote:

DaiSho wrote:DIE THREAD! DIE DIE DIE!

I think we are going to get a lot of use out of this picture.

Glad to be of service

Now all we need is someone to superimpose a laptop onto the thing the guy is stabbing!

Ian

DaiSho wrote:At least that's the only reason I've ever lost a game. Never because of lack of skill on my behalf, but because my opponent rolled more 6's

Ian

I won a game by rolling a 1. It was great.

philqw78 wrote:

DaiSho wrote:At least that's the only reason I've ever lost a game. Never because of lack of skill on my behalf, but because my opponent rolled more 6's

Ian

I won a game by rolling a 1. It was great.

Well, that you HAVE to explain.

Although it reminds me of a game I played once of WRG Napoleonics. I had a unit of Guard who got themselves into a bit of trouble. I calculated the chance of them breaking (which I wanted them to do so they'd get OUT of trouble, then I could rally them easily and put them back into the fray). I can't remember the rules, but it was something like 'they would only stick around on rolling 2 6's. What did I roll? 2 6's

Ian

Evading off table would have lost me 1 AP, I didn't, I rolled a 1 and stopped about 2mm from the table edge.

philqw78 wrote:Evading off table would have lost me 1 AP, I didn't, I rolled a 1 and stopped about 2mm from the table edge.

You lucky lucky bastard

In the game I played last Wednesday I was a bit in for it. I evaded close to the table edge and I needed my opponents VMD to be 'normal'. If it was > normal he would have had me in his 2" and I would have not been able to scurry away. As it was I ran for my cowardly life back toward the centre of the table.

So, I feel your luck

Ian

Evading off table would have lost me 1 AP, I didn't, I rolled a 1 and stopped about 2mm from the table edge.

You lucky lucky bastard Smile

I am fairly certain that game was against Hammy, therefore any luck was purely Hammy's

The clinching, and much used, argument is "Dave, you're wrong again!"

Could've just paluyed the odds and saved a couple of pages ...

I think RBS has covered this one - what he said!

Si