Slitherine

grahambriggs wrote:I believe it is number 3.

The wording is "partly behind its rear" not "partly behind a line extending it's rear edge".

If I say "I was driving down the road with a truck behind me" you would imagine that I could see the truck in my rear mirror, not that it might be coming up on my outside and just about to overtake me.

I agree with Graham and Chris on this. To qualify as partly behind, the enemy BG must be positioned such that if the friendly BG was capable of moving straight backwards it would bang into the enemy BG.

Modified Example 2:

Which way should the skirmishers move in this example?

bbotus wrote:Modified Example 2:

Which way should the skirmishers move in this example?

Because the enemy is not at least partially behind their rear they do not have the 'special case' option to move straight forward. Thus their movement choices are limited to the 'normal case' options available all of which require the skirmishers to remain 'in front' of the enemy BG. From memory: stand still, turn 90 degrees on the spot or move directly away from the enemy (which would also require a 90 degree turn or a sufficient wheel to ensure the skirmishers ended their move 'in front' of the enemy).

For 'normal case' examples, BGs in a restricted area must remain 'in front' of the enemy. This is often determined by laying a straight rule along the enemy's side edge. I've never seen it suggested that remaining 'in front' of the enemy simply means forward of a straight rule laid along the front edge of the enemy BG. So I can't see that a different logic would be applied to 'at least partially to its rear'?

zoltan wrote: For 'normal case' examples, BGs in a restricted area must remain 'in front' of the enemy. This is often determined by laying a straight rule along the enemy's side edge. I've never seen it suggested that remaining 'in front' of the enemy simply means forward of a straight rule laid along the front edge of the enemy BG. So I can't see that a different logic would be applied to 'at least partially to its rear'?

Ah, I see it now. I agree, option 2 cannot move forward. Thanks for that comment, helped a lot.

zoltan wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:I believe it is number 3.

The wording is "partly behind its rear" not "partly behind a line extending it's rear edge".

If I say "I was driving down the road with a truck behind me" you would imagine that I could see the truck in my rear mirror, not that it might be coming up on my outside and just about to overtake me.

I agree with Graham and Chris on this. To qualify as partly behind, the enemy BG must be positioned such that if the friendly BG was capable of moving straight backwards it would bang into the enemy BG.

I've changed my position - what Chris and Graham are saying is I believe correct.

I'm very comfortable with this and it probably makes more sense.

What the chance of getting a V2 FAQ?

I've already started another thread on this Pete on the main page.

Rob

dave_r wrote:I've changed my position - what Chris and Graham are saying is I believe correct.

Clearly a very reasonable man open to considering other people's points of view and willing to admit when he's wrong; sorry, initially adopted a position that he subsequently wishes to modify. I admire that in a person.

zoltan wrote:

dave_r wrote:I've changed my position - what Chris and Graham are saying is I believe correct.

Clearly a very reasonable man open to considering other people's points of view and willing to admit when he's wrong; sorry, initially adopted a position that he subsequently wishes to modify. I admire that in a person.

Quite. Clearly Graham and Chris now agree with me.