Slitherine

Thinking of playing in a tournament at some point and I was curious if 'teleporting units' is something that happens or if a noose comes with the judges kit in case someone tries to pull such shenannigans!

imanfasil wrote:Thinking of playing in a tournament at some point and I was curious if 'teleporting units' is something that happens or if a noose comes with the judges kit in case someone tries to pull such shenannigans!

In general players view it as so cheesy that they don't use it. If somebody did it is, however, legal. It will be legislated away in v2.

imanfasil wrote:Thinking of playing in a tournament at some point and I was curious if 'teleporting units' is something that happens or if a noose comes with the judges kit in case someone tries to pull such shenannigans!

No rule against it. But the rule book is also silent on walking around the table to kick your opponent in the junk, so . . .

nikgaukroger wrote:

imanfasil wrote:Thinking of playing in a tournament at some point and I was curious if 'teleporting units' is something that happens or if a noose comes with the judges kit in case someone tries to pull such shenannigans!

In general players view it as so cheesy that they don't use it.

Except Ruddock who claims proudly to do it routinely with his scythians.

hazelbark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

imanfasil wrote:Thinking of playing in a tournament at some point and I was curious if 'teleporting units' is something that happens or if a noose comes with the judges kit in case someone tries to pull such shenannigans!

In general players view it as so cheesy that they don't use it.

Except Ruddock who claims proudly to do it routinely with his scythians.

There is a difference between interpenetrating and teleporting.

Line of sight.

Ok, we need to make a distinction:

Case 1 - The active player wishes to "declare" a charge. P52 requires that the target BG "must be visible" (i.e. the charging BG must have line of sight).

Case 2 - Troops who may charge without orders. There is no requirement on pages 58 & 59 for the shock troops who may charge without order, to have line of sight to the enemy BG.

dave_r wrote: There is a difference between interpenetrating and teleporting.

The teleporting is the evil one you boast of IIRC. Or am I mistaken?

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: There is a difference between interpenetrating and teleporting.

The teleporting is the evil one you boast of IIRC. Or am I mistaken?

Yes, you are mistaken. I have never intentionally teleported a unit.

It has I think happened in a couple of games with routers, but never with non-routing troops.

dave_r wrote: Yes, you are mistaken. I have never intentionally teleported a unit.

It has I think happened in a couple of games with routers, but never with non-routing troops.

Now let's define "your" definiation of teleportation.

Let's say you have a LF unit. You move it. THen you move a LH unit to interpentrate. You are moving this sequence for the puropse of getting say the 2 base depth additional movement for the LH above its normal speed.

1) Have you done so?
2) It is teleportation?

My recollection is you have claimed 1 before with your scythians and boasted that it was a standard opening move.

I define that as teleportation, if for the purpose of additional move.

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: Yes, you are mistaken. I have never intentionally teleported a unit.

It has I think happened in a couple of games with routers, but never with non-routing troops.

Now let's define "your" definiation of teleportation.

Let's say you have a LF unit. You move it. THen you move a LH unit to interpentrate. You are moving this sequence for the puropse of getting say the 2 base depth additional movement for the LH above its normal speed.

1) Have you done so?
2) It is teleportation?

My recollection is you have claimed 1 before with your scythians and boasted that it was a standard opening move.

I define that as teleportation, if for the purpose of additional move.

That's not teleporting. That's interpenetration.

With the Worlds looming (to be attended by both Dan and Dave) I better get this right if asked to umpire. I guess I could always use a single die roll to decide between two players rather than read the rules on the day - over the event that should also give the "standard" 50% right/wrong rate and speed up when we can get to the pub for the gripe session;->)

Case 1 - LH gains "bonus MUs" to clear a friendly LF BG it is voluntarily interpenetrating ("as a standard historical tactic" says Dave).

Case 2 - any routing BG gains "bonus MUs" when (involuntarily) forced to interpenetrate a friendly BG in order to complete its obligatory rout move.

Dave calls case 1 "interpenetration" (with implicit legitimacy) and case 2 "teleporting".

Dan appears to call both cases "teleporting" with case 1 having an implied perjorative connotation (its cheesy to voluntarily gain extra MUs).

Have I got this right?

dave_r wrote:
That's not teleporting. That's interpenetration.

Actually it is both but what's worse it is the gamesmanship and rules exploitation that if common and majorly advantaging would bring the game into disrepute.

zoltan wrote:With the Worlds looming (to be attended by both Dan and Dave) I better get this right if asked to umpire. I guess I could always use a single die roll to decide between two players rather than read the rules on the day - over the event that should also give the "standard" 50% right/wrong rate and speed up when we can get to the pub for the gripe session;->)

Case 1 - LH gains "bonus MUs" to clear a friendly LF BG it is voluntarily interpenetrating ("as a standard historical tactic" says Dave).

Case 2 - any routing BG gains "bonus MUs" when (involuntarily) forced to interpenetrate a friendly BG in order to complete its obligatory rout move.

Dave calls case 1 "interpenetration" (with implicit legitimacy) and case 2 "teleporting".

Dan appears to call both cases "teleporting" with case 1 having an implied perjorative connotation (its cheesy to voluntarily gain extra MUs).

Have I got this right?

No. If you are forced to teleport because of a compulsory move then there is nothing you can do about it and have to make the move - this is just life.

Teleporting is to do with putting a single line of LF through a wood and then moving a BG of elephants through it, moving about 12" through a wood in one turn. Interpenetrating is where you gain a couple of inches at most, but have to do this to make the move.

There are numerous examples of where you can get into big trouble if you try to stop interpenetrating, namely in evades or when you are forced to move one particular BG first because of ZOI / Troops in the way etc.

You can rule against the first, but I would strongly advise that you take the second on a case by case basis.

In other words it is

Interpenetration when dave_r thinks he will get away with it

Teleportation when he thinks he won't.

lawrenceg wrote:In other words it is

Interpenetration when dave_r thinks he will get away with it

Teleportation when he thinks he won't.

Sums it up rather well. When it appears ludicrous, chances are it's teleportation.

I have no criticism of the rules for interpentration when applied to routing or evading moves.

I think the problem is the line between mild use and significant abuse lead too quickly to rules lawyering which FOG has largely fought.

hazelbark wrote:I have no criticism of the rules for interpentration when applied to routing or evading moves.

I think the problem is the line between mild use and significant abuse lead too quickly to rules lawyering which FOG has largely fought.

Exactly, which is why there hasn't been a good suggestion to try and stop it.

dave_r wrote:

hazelbark wrote:I have no criticism of the rules for interpentration when applied to routing or evading moves.

I think the problem is the line between mild use and significant abuse lead too quickly to rules lawyering which FOG has largely fought.

Exactly, which is why there hasn't been a good suggestion to try and stop it.

I would think there is a good chance that what was put in FoG:R will be used in FoG:AM v2 - as Richard ran it past Simon and Terry before it went into FoG:R exactly for this reason.

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote:

hazelbark wrote:I have no criticism of the rules for interpentration when applied to routing or evading moves.

I think the problem is the line between mild use and significant abuse lead too quickly to rules lawyering which FOG has largely fought.

Exactly, which is why there hasn't been a good suggestion to try and stop it.

I would think there is a good chance that what was put in FoG:R will be used in FoG:AM v2 - as Richard ran it past Simon and Terry before it went into FoG:R exactly for this reason.

Is it top secret?

dave_r wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote: I would think there is a good chance that what was put in FoG:R will be used in FoG:AM v2 - as Richard ran it past Simon and Terry before it went into FoG:R exactly for this reason.

Is it top secret?

Its listed in the TOC as the anti-Dave R rule.