Slitherine

petedalby wrote:We have a relatively simple question. The movement bit is clear and well defined. The shooting bit might be open to interpretation but I believe most right thinking people would expect to see the shooting base in arc and in range and obeying all of the other rules for shooting such as visibility. And in arc for most shooters is in front. You need to read the whole section on shooting rather than just selective bits.

My concern is that 'silly' interpretations and attempts to twist the rules such as this are why FoG is losing players. When people read this they must think we're daft.

And they'd be right! Grown men playing with toy soldiers has got to be daft!

At the risk of being labelled as "wrong thinking" (or until RBS enters this debate) I remain of the view that this rule is merely a simple, abstract device to simulate a threat to a lone commander. I don't think the rule writers intended that a BG of shooters would actually shoot at the commander - that is why they don't mention arc of fire, or rolling dice in the shooting phase to cause base loss or a cohesion test.

It's just a simple device - if shooters move within their shooting range of an enemy commander he has to run and hide with friends. If he can't, he is deemed to be so isolated that he is captured/killed.

In all the years I've played FoG AM I've never ever seen it happen on the wargames table myself.

Grown men playing with toy soldiers has got to be daft!

Fair point!

I guess we'll have to disagree on the other bits.

If my Commander is on the far side of a wood, you seem to be suggesting that your shooters on the other side of the wood would kill him if he is within their shooting range and he can't join a friendly BG? But I would argue that he is not in shooting range if the shooters can't see him.

But as you say - I've never seen it on the table either.

kevinj wrote:So, if the general is within 6 MU of my MF bow, he has to move or die even if he's directly behind them?

Or <dons competition mindset> I get to move him within 6MU of your archers then another 7MU to 'safety'. Handy way to get a double move

grahambriggs wrote:

kevinj wrote:So, if the general is within 6 MU of my MF bow, he has to move or die even if he's directly behind them?

Or <dons competition mindset> I get to move him within 6MU of your archers then another 7MU to 'safety'. Handy way to get a double move

I do this frequently. Normally by placing the general right in front of charging troops so I can choose which BG to put the general with after charges have been declared.

dave_r wrote: I do this frequently. Normally by placing the general right in front of charging troops so I can choose which BG to put the general with after charges have been declared.

So take a rule designed for a clean solution and turn it into a gamey mechanic.

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: I do this frequently. Normally by placing the general right in front of charging troops so I can choose which BG to put the general with after charges have been declared.

So take a rule designed for a clean solution and turn it into a gamey mechanic.

Its what separates the players from the politicians

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: I do this frequently. Normally by placing the general right in front of charging troops so I can choose which BG to put the general with after charges have been declared.

So take a rule designed for a clean solution and turn it into a gamey mechanic.

Blessed are the cheesmakers!

dave_r wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: I do this frequently. Normally by placing the general right in front of charging troops so I can choose which BG to put the general with after charges have been declared.

So take a rule designed for a clean solution and turn it into a gamey mechanic.

Its what separates the players from the politicians

Wow you've demoted yourself to below politician class. Points for self-awareness.

Nothing is lower than the political class

zoltan wrote:RBS is always adamant that the rules mean exactly what they say.

Actually I think you'll find that that was Phil Barker.

I merely hope they say what we mean. (At least enough for those who actually want to play a game of toy soldiers to do so).

But you are surely an old enough hand that you realise by now that "exactly what they say" often means different things to different people.

As to what our intentions were in this case (shorthand statement or simplified mechanism) I simply don't remember for certain.......but I think the former is more likely, and certainly concords with common sense.

Apologies for the ambiguity, but hopefully no animals will be harmed as a result.

rbodleyscott wrote:

zoltan wrote:RBS is always adamant that the rules mean exactly what they say.

Actually I think you'll find that that was Phil Barker.

I merely hope they say what we mean. (At least enough for those who actually want to play a game of toy soldiers to do so).

But you are surely an old enough hand that you realise by now that "exactly what they say" often means different things to different people.

As to what our intentions were in this case (shorthand statement or simplified mechanism) I simply don't remember for certain.......but I think the former is more likely, and certainly concords with common sense.

Apologies for the ambiguity, but hopefully no animals will be harmed as a result.

Yes, I think you may have caught the disease from Phil Barker (I don't recall seeing any comments of his on this forum).

Now less of the crypticism please sir ("the former" - each of us will have different views about to which of your earlier statements your comment relates) and say exactly what you mean - I am right and Pete and Dave are wrong, right?

Oh, and less snide remarks about the near extent Kiwi bird thank you very much!

zoltan wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:I am right and Pete and Dave are wrong, right?

There you go again.

I would have thought it clear from my previously reply that the issue is not clear cut.

However, if you must have an ex cathedra ruling, you are wrong. Happy now?

As to the issue of transubstantiation, I am not willing to give a ruling at the present time.

However, if you must have an ex cathedra ruling, you are wrong.

Hurrah!

Richard - please return to plain speaking - it is so much easier to follow. I had to Google 'ex cathedra'.

rbodleyscott wrote:

zoltan wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:I am right and Pete and Dave are wrong, right?

There you go again.

I would have thought it clear from my previously reply that the issue is not clear cut.

However, if you must have an ex cathedra ruling, you are wrong. Happy now?

As to the issue of transubstantiation, I am not willing to give a ruling at the present time.

So you are ruling that a commander must also be within arc of fire in addition to being within shooting range?

petedalby wrote:Richard - please return to plain speaking - it is so much easier to follow. I had to Google 'ex cathedra'.

And are you any the wiser? I'm certainly not - it's all Greek to an atheist like me!

My position hasn't really changed TBH Steve. To be 'in shooting range' I believe you must observe all of the rules for shooting. That includes distance, visibility, arc etc. If you can't see a target it cannot be in shooting range. If a target is out of arc it is not in shooting range.

I think you have taken too narrow a view of 'shooting range'.

zoltan wrote:So you are ruling that a commander must also be within arc of fire in addition to being within shooting range?

Yes.

(If you want it any clearer I will have to reduce it to words of less than one syllable.)

rbodleyscott wrote:

zoltan wrote:So you are ruling that a commander must also be within arc of fire in addition to being within shooting range?

Yes.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

zoltan wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

zoltan wrote:So you are ruling that a commander must also be within arc of fire in addition to being within shooting range?

Yes.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Well I gave a clear answer ("You are wrong") several posts ago, from which it should have been apparent that the proposition you were arguing against was right.

petedalby wrote:My position hasn't really changed TBH Steve. To be 'in shooting range' I believe you must observe all of the rules for shooting. That includes distance, visibility, arc etc. If you can't see a target it cannot be in shooting range. If a target is out of arc it is not in shooting range.

I think you have taken too narrow a view of 'shooting range'.

Well I think my position is reasonable as the RAW defines 'shooting range' as a quite separate thing to 'arc of fire' etc. RBS has acknowledged that the rule we have been discussing is ambiguous and that he can't recall the original design rationale (fair enough). He has now made a clear post hoc ruling that the commander must be wihin arc of fire as well as shooting range, so the matter is settled.

Now, I wonder if the rule applies when a routing or fragmented battle group moves within shooting range (and arc) of an enrmy commander......