Slitherine

bbotus wrote:

IMO that is an odd interpretation of "reach" in this context, and certainly not how it is generally understood played in my experience where reach is taken to be actually contacts.

I can see how it would be played as you say. What I find odd is that the authors chose the word 'reach'. The dictionary defines 'reach' as: To get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc. So each base either reaches (or gets as far as) the BG to be interpenetrated or it does not. Those that do not 'reach' are placed with the front base in contact. How can this mean anything but all bases that don't reach? There is no category described as those bases moving but off to the side and will not physically interpenetrate the intervening BG so they don't move according to this section. And the bullet paragraph we are discussing is talking about the BG not individual bases interpenetrating another BG. If they wanted only the bases of a BG that would physically interpenetrate another BG to be affected, they could have easily said that.

Just my 2 cents.

So, if you were travelling from New York to San Francisco but went by way of Los Angeles, would you say you "reached" San Francisco because you had travelled as far as as someone else who travelled directly from New York to San Francisco? Even more to the point, if you were travelling from New York to Los Angeles and went there directly, what would "reaching San Francisco" have to do with anything.

So, it is with the bases off to the side. "Reach" is irrelevant since they do not nor will not ever "reach" the other BG and hence they will not interpenetrate that other BG. So reference to the bases that do not reach is quite irrelevant. Note that the authors mentioned "bases of the moving BG that reached the BG being interpenetrated". If they had meant "ranks" instead of "bases" shouldn't they have written "ranks of the moving BG....". Therefore, the bases off to the side would move up to their maximum distance whilst remaining contiguous with their neighbouring files, which would mean dave_r's interpretation is quite correct.

In any event I agree with the sentiment that, if there is any doubt, the moving player should not get the benefit.

"Reach" is irrelevant

First time I ever heard anyone discount the use of a word in the rules. This is a geometrical issue. Draw a line from the nearest point of the BG to be interpenetrated perpendicular to the line of movement. Any parts of the interpenetrating BG that touch or cross that line have 'reached' or 'gone as far as' the BG to be interpenetrated.

Also, look at the next column "Bursting Through Friends" and particularly the 1st bullet at the top of page 49. A 'bursting through' BG that does not completely clear friends is placed entirely beyond. Again, no mention of some parts of the BG doing this and some making the normal move because they wouldn't physically interpenetrate the other BG. If you change the unit in this thread from LF to MF then they would have to burst through and would have to move even farther than if it was a permitted interpenetration.

And you haven't explained how you have created the third category for interpenetrating bases that isn't in the rules. The rules are clear, a BG interpenetrating another has 2 types of bases: Those that 'reach' and those that don't.

In any event I agree with the sentiment that, if there is any doubt, the moving player should not get the benefit.

Please don't mistake me. I do not seek any advantage. I just wish to play the rules as written. Sometimes it works for me and sometimes it doesn't. The rules tell us how far to move each BG. If I don't catch an evader because an interpenetration gives the evader a little extra movement, so be it.

bbotus wrote:

"Reach" is irrelevant

First time I ever heard anyone discount the use of a word in the rules. This is a geometrical issue. Draw a line from the nearest point of the BG to be interpenetrated perpendicular to the line of movement. Any parts of the interpenetrating BG that touch or cross that line have 'reached' or 'gone as far as' the BG to be interpenetrated.

Also, look at the next column "Bursting Through Friends" and particularly the 1st bullet at the top of page 49. A 'bursting through' BG that does not completely clear friends is placed entirely beyond. Again, no mention of some parts of the BG doing this and some making the normal move because they wouldn't physically interpenetrate the other BG. If you change the unit in this thread from LF to MF then they would have to burst through and would have to move even farther than if it was a permitted interpenetration.

And you haven't explained how you have created the third category for interpenetrating bases that isn't in the rules. The rules are clear, a BG interpenetrating another has 2 types of bases: Those that 'reach' and those that don't.

In any event I agree with the sentiment that, if there is any doubt, the moving player should not get the benefit.

Please don't mistake me. I do not seek any advantage. I just wish to play the rules as written. Sometimes it works for me and sometimes it doesn't. The rules tell us how far to move each BG. If I don't catch an evader because an interpenetration gives the evader a little extra movement, so be it.

I haven't discounted the word "reach" but it is irrelevant for bases whose line of march will not intersect with the BG they are supposed to have "reached" or "not yet reached". I haven't created a 3rd category. There are those bases that have "reached" the interpenetrated BG, those bases that have not yet "reached" the interpenetrated BG but will and every other base. Where do the rules clearly say an interpenetrating BG has only two types of bases? You are inferring. I haven't created anything new at all, but you have since you claim that a base has "reached" a BG if it crosses a line drawn as you've described above. Please provide the reference in the rules for that definition for "reach". I have the rules before me and can find no explicit reference to either your statement that an interpenetrating BG has only two types of bases those that have "reached" and those that have not or that the bases of neighbouring files have "reached" the interpenetrated BG if they cross a line as you've described.

However, the rules are ambiguous in this circumstance and it would be nice if the authors provided an explanation for the movement of the files whose movement won't intersect the interpenetrated BG.

I'm happy to leave them where their movement ends. Except that bases behind those which have reached are placed in contact with the interpenetrated BG.

it would be nice if the authors provided an explanation for the movement of the files whose movement won't intersect the interpenetrated BG.

Nice indeed. But don't hold your breath. They seem to have forgotten about this rule system and prefer we fend for ourselves. I understand there are other rule systems where the publisher maintains an active interest and clarifies rules where necessary. This would be a great rule system if they did something like that. Oh, well. I can only wish.

I think the authors have become slaves to capitalism. However I don't see where the confusion is

A, B anc C reach green so interpenetrate. The rmainder do not so close up.



Ending like this

Which acts the same if lined up

A is part way through, the 4 in the centre have reached green. The 4 outside have not reached green.

If you said reaching was being in line with I would put my troops behind evaders in column between the join

LF1LF1 LF1LF2LF2LF2
________HF
________HF
________HF
________HF
________HF
________HF

This way they would both get three times as far with no chance of being caught. Cheese extraordinnairre

Cheese extraordinnairre

Maybe, but first answer this question.

Change the situation a bit. A is no longer interpenetrating, it is bursting through. Would you have it end up in the same split formation? The answer is, no, you would move the entire BG beyond green. That is even more cheesy than the interpenetration situation. But it is the RAW. Is there that much difference between interpenetrations and bursting through? As I read the rules, it just seems that the intention of the authors is not what we would necessarily want to allow.

Second, how do you create the red and green blocks for your diagrams?

P.S. Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember a thread in this forum a couple years back talking about some players using the interpenetration rule to teleport across the battlefield. Definitely cheesy and not something I would do but legal.

But it is the RAW. Is there that much difference between interpenetrations and bursting through? As I read the rules, it just seems that the intention of the authors is not what we would necessarily want to allow.

Allowing BG that burst through to partially interpentrate would create a lot more rules since a BG that is partiallly interpenetrated/ating cannot move until the move is completed by legal interpenetration. A legal interpen cannot usually happen with troops bursting through.

The squares are done in word, copied to jpg and put in photo bucket.

The teleport interpen needs to get all interpen bases into the the BG passed through otherwise some can be left behind temporarily.

OK, stand by. Its getting close to Christmas and the TO DO list is getting bigger. I have a follow-up question and I'll pose it with Phil's neat way of showing the units. I'm still trying to figure out how to save all the rectangles as one picture. I'm missing something.

You can create the rectangles in Publisher and save as jpegs as well.

Yahoo! it worked but its a little fuzzy. Thanks Phil.

OK the LI are 2MU from Hvy Inf X and Y. Their starting positions are indicated by the dashed boxes. Let's say either of them charge and roll a six and the LI roll a 1. So the LI evade 3 and the HI charge 5 MUs. If I understand what you are saying then the LI infantry will end up as shown. Note that X will not catch the LI if it charges but Y would contact the file A that does not itself actually interpenetrate the green friend Z. Do I have it right?

Assume X did not charge. What happens if the disordered evading unit (LI in this case) manage to survive to the melee phase? Do you pull back the files next to A to fight Y? How many blue bases would be eligible to fight Y (X is not there)?

Hope everyone had a great Christmas or holiday as the case may be. Glad it's over.

Hold everything. What we've been saying isn't right. Take a look at the diagram on page 71 of the Velites interpenetrating the HI. And also read the authors' (Hall and Scott) comments in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=4642.

shall, Field of Glory Team says: "So it is for BGs in multiple ranks where a second rank wouldn't get into the interpenetrated BG leading to what we called a partial interpenetration. In your case they do just pass through if the rank reaches and other bases need to stay in legal formation with those that pass through - so they go too. Yep it ends up nice and simple in this case." (Quote edited for typos by me)

So if the were interpenetrating the moving in a bottom to top of page direction and only the 1st rank reached them, they would look like this.

bbotus wrote:Hold everything. What we've been saying isn't right. Take a look at the diagram on page 71 of the Velites interpenetrating the HI. And also read the authors' (Hall and Scott) comments in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=4642.

shall, Field of Glory Team says: "So it is for BGs in multiple ranks where a second rank wouldn't get into the interpenetrated BG leading to what we called a partial interpenetration. In your case they do just pass through if the rank reaches and other bases need to stay in legal formation with those that pass through - so they go too. Yep it ends up nice and simple in this case." (Quote edited for typos by me)

So if the were interpenetrating the moving in a bottom to top of page direction and only the 1st rank reached them, they would look like this.

Simon was wrong. This is also from 2007!

Simon was wrong. This is also from 2007!

The post was Dec 2007 and in Feb 2008 they opened the forum to the public since the rules were published. Doubt they made many changes in that last 2 months. If Simon misquoted the rules, then how do you explain the example on page 71 which clearly agrees with his statement and has never been corrected?

In the same thread RBS also makes the comment, "Only the ranks whose move reach the friendly BG pass through, the remaining ranks stay on the wrong side." That doesn't quite agree with the page 71 example but it does say that the ranks stay together and pass through together or move up in line to the BG they are interpenetrating. Which, btw, goes back to the definition of 'REACH' in the dictionary. Apparently, RBS uses a dictionary published in New York. And 2 out of 3 authors are really wrong (the third not commenting)?

You guys can play it anyway you want but I'm going to play it based on author intent.

A classic example of why FoG 2 should contain 40 pages of example diagrams detailing exactly what the authors meant to say.

bbotus wrote:

Simon was wrong. This is also from 2007!

The post was Dec 2007 and in Feb 2008 they opened the forum to the public since the rules were published. Doubt they made many changes in that last 2 months. If Simon misquoted the rules, then how do you explain the example on page 71 which clearly agrees with his statement and has never been corrected?

In the same thread RBS also makes the comment, "Only the ranks whose move reach the friendly BG pass through, the remaining ranks stay on the wrong side." That doesn't quite agree with the page 71 example but it does say that the ranks stay together and pass through together or move up in line to the BG they are interpenetrating. Which, btw, goes back to the definition of 'REACH' in the dictionary. Apparently, RBS uses a dictionary published in New York. And 2 out of 3 authors are really wrong (the third not commenting)?

You guys can play it anyway you want but I'm going to play it based on author intent.

The authors are very clear that you should not take anything they say on this forum as quoted intent. If they wish to do something official this will be present in the FAQ's or Errata.

I think everybody will play it with rules as written rather than some dodgy post from five years ago, before the rules were published - yes, they could well have changed in those two months.

Dave the misguided wrote:The authors are very clear that you should not take anything they say on this forum as quoted intent

I can never remember them saying anything like that Dave, and this is the official site for official resolution of rules problems.

Though anything on V1 beta does not count as that was V1 beta not rules published

I think everybody will play it with rules as written

And the diagram on page 71? That is a pretty clear example, imho.