Slitherine

You are right. The term shortest move possible is open to interpretation. That's what the examples of play are for. They are there to clarify what is meant by the written rules. I accept the examples of play as definitive as regards to "shortest move necessary". I accept that the shortest move necessary means exactly what is shown in the diagrams on pages 72 and 87. Each base in contact must fully conform by moving to the base or overlap position that is reached by the shortest measurable distance. If that position is physically impossible to reach due to terrain, table edge or troops that can't be shifted, it stays put. That is what is shown in all the examples of play in the rulebook. I get frustrated when a rules author tells me that I shouldn't accept the examples of play as such. If I can't draw inferences from the examples of play as to the proper application of a rule, what am I to put my trust in?

gozerius wrote:If I can't draw inferences from the examples of play as to the proper application of a rule, what am I to put my trust in?

Roll 5s and it will work out.

Seriously we all have been where you are. I think the alternative to your perspective has been spelled out. The questions could use clarification and people think the process is one way and you see it another. Let Simon et al discuss it and get back. they may agree with you. But don't let the speed of feedback in this forum get to you.