Slitherine

kevinj wrote:

Isn't there something in the rules about troops who are unable to complete an evade move being destroyed? This could have applied. If I could have remembered it.

No, you're confusing that with routers. P67 covers a number of situations where evaders cannot complete their moves and is clear that they move as far as they can and "are likely to be caught". In this example they would be caught 5 times out of 6...

shadowdragon wrote:I have the v1 rules in front of me and they read, "BG that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught." V2 reads exactly the same. I understand how irritating this might be - especially when playing against Dave R , but I'd rather keep the uncertainty. Otherwise we'll get into situations where people park their LF 1 MU plus 1 mm from enemy so that they can move that "1 mm" and claim to be "evading". I like a game where as much as possible the importance of micro-measurement is minimized since to me micro-measurement isn't very realistic.

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:I have the v1 rules in front of me and they read, "BG that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught." V2 reads exactly the same. I understand how irritating this might be - especially when playing against Dave R , but I'd rather keep the uncertainty. Otherwise we'll get into situations where people park their LF 1 MU plus 1 mm from enemy so that they can move that "1 mm" and claim to be "evading". I like a game where as much as possible the importance of micro-measurement is minimized since to me micro-measurement isn't very realistic.

Its very frustrating

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:I have the v1 rules in front of me and they read, "BG that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught." V2 reads exactly the same. I understand how irritating this might be - especially when playing against Dave R , but I'd rather keep the uncertainty. Otherwise we'll get into situations where people park their LF 1 MU plus 1 mm from enemy so that they can move that "1 mm" and claim to be "evading". I like a game where as much as possible the importance of micro-measurement is minimized since to me micro-measurement isn't very realistic.

Its very frustrating

dave_r wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:I have the v1 rules in front of me and they read, "BG that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught." V2 reads exactly the same. I understand how irritating this might be - especially when playing against Dave R , but I'd rather keep the uncertainty. Otherwise we'll get into situations where people park their LF 1 MU plus 1 mm from enemy so that they can move that "1 mm" and claim to be "evading". I like a game where as much as possible the importance of micro-measurement is minimized since to me micro-measurement isn't very realistic.

Its very frustrating

It made the difference between a 19-6 and an 18-7

shadowdragon wrote:By the way, Dave, - just to head off the potential evasive discussion about right and wrong - don't make the mistake of thinking that because I agree with you on this that I think you're right. That would be going "a bridge too far".

dave_r wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:By the way, Dave, - just to head off the potential evasive discussion about right and wrong - don't make the mistake of thinking that because I agree with you on this that I think you're right. That would be going "a bridge too far".

Right, so what you are saying is that despite agreeing with me, you don't think I'm right?

Or do you mean that you agree with me and I'm wrong?

Either way, you don't make sense!

dave_r wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:By the way, Dave, - just to head off the potential evasive discussion about right and wrong - don't make the mistake of thinking that because I agree with you on this that I think you're right. That would be going "a bridge too far".

Right, so what you are saying is that despite agreeing with me, you don't think I'm right?

Or do you mean that you agree with me and I'm wrong?

Either way, you don't make sense!

grahambriggs wrote:Probably best just to say that Phil is more wrong that you are. In this one instance.

But then Alan joined sides with me, which must be wrong, so now I don't know whats wrong or right.

philqw78 wrote: I said that was the rules, but it was frustrating.