Slitherine

My opponent had a battleline and expanded a BG on the end as that BG's first move. He then wanted to move the whole battleline forward as a second move.

The rules prohibit forming a battleline and then moving it, but they don't appear to explicitly prohibit the combination above, where the battleline already exists.

I think the move is against the spirit of the rule. Can anyone find some wording that makes it against the rules as written? Alternatively, did the authors intend to allow it?

Off the top of my head all BG in a BL must do the same thing in a move, wheel same, move same distance etc. So the expand and move would be a CMT. The rest of the BL don't do it so no they cannot be a BL.

I don't have a problem with this - I have done it myself! As long as all the elements that are in contact with the BG to the side don't move then I don't see a problem.

One of the Authors would have to comment upon whether they wanted it to work like that or not!

battle line are limited to Simple ADVANCE . So you can't EXPAND in a battle line..

dave_r wrote:I don't have a problem with this - I have done it myself! As long as all the elements that are in contact with the BG to the side don't move then I don't see a problem.

Now we know how you did so well at IWF, Dave.

It isn't allowed. Zeitoun gives the reason.

I still don't see how people equate doing well in a tournament with knowing the rules!

Have you got an answer for the evade question though?

dave_r wrote:I still don't see how people equate doing well in a tournament with knowing the rules!

Actually, I was equating it with not knowing the rules, and somehow managing to convince your opponents of your made-up version.

Actually, I was equating it with not knowing the rules, and somehow managing to convince your opponents of your made-up version.

I leave that to the Authors

Terry Specifically. As the two rulings that went against him will show.

rbodleyscott wrote:

dave_r wrote:I don't have a problem with this - I have done it myself! As long as all the elements that are in contact with the BG to the side don't move then I don't see a problem.

Now we know how you did so well at IWF, Dave.

It isn't allowed. Zeitoun gives the reason.

A single BG that is touching another BG with a commander can expand.

A single BG that is touching another BG with a commander is part of a battleline.

Clearly, then, a BG that is part of a battleline can expand. Zeitoun's reason does not answer the question.

Paraphrasing my original question: what is the wording in the rules that prevents you expanding a single BG that is touching another BG with a commander, then advancing both BGs as a battleline as a second move?

It can't be done Lawrence.

A battleline can only do a simple advance. So when the BG expands, it is doing a move independent of the BL. Hence no 2nd move for the BL.

The BG that expanded could do a 2nd move.

Pete

lawrenceg wrote:Paraphrasing my original question: what is the wording in the rules that prevents you expanding a single BG that is touching another BG with a commander, then advancing both BGs as a battleline as a second move?

It isn't a matter of specific wording, just the normal use of English.

Something cannot move for a second time unless it has moved for a first time.

How can a battle line make a second move, if it hasn't made a first move?

Sure, you can twist the detailed wording if you want, but as we have previously stated we intentionally did not write the rules in the pedantic (and more long-winded) way that would be necessary to exclude every perverse interpretation of the wording. Even if we (thought we) had, the twisters would just find another way to twist them anyway.

Even if you argue that the rules don't specifically say that the first and second move must be by the same entity, (although that is the intention of the rule), then you could only make a second move if all the BGs in the BL had already made a first move as a BG, otherwise they would not be making a 2nd move. This would require each of them to have their own general with them (otherwise they would not be eligible for a 2nd move), whereupon the issue of moving a 2nd time as a BL becomes moot as they could all move a 2nd move as individual BGs anyway.

Maybe the Skythian deserves more credit from his friends and authors.

- The SECOND move by a battle group or battle line must be a simple Advance. (page 75)

Where is the restriction about each BG in the BL doing the same action?
I can't find it.

If it applies, the other BGs could make an advance and the expanding BG would have to move to them with a second move.


JM

rbodleyscott wrote: Something cannot move for a second time unless it has moved for a first time.

How can a battle line make a second move, if it hasn't made a first move?

Even if you argue that the rules don't specifically say that the first and second move must be by the same entity, (although that is the intention of the rule), then you could only make a second move if all the BGs in the BL had already made a first move as a BG, otherwise they would not be making a 2nd move. This would require each of them to have their own general with them (otherwise they would not be eligible for a 2nd move), whereupon the issue of moving a 2nd time as a BL becomes moot as they could all move a 2nd move as individual BGs anyway.

THat solves it for me. Thanks.

Even if you argue that the rules don't specifically say that the first and second move must be by the same entity, (although that is the intention of the rule), then you could only make a second move if all the BGs in the BL had already made a first move as a BG, otherwise they would not be making a 2nd move. This would require each of them to have their own general with them (otherwise they would not be eligible for a 2nd move), whereupon the issue of moving a 2nd time as a BL becomes moot as they could all move a 2nd move as individual BGs anyway.

Just out of interest, if the troops expanding were also able to move I presume this would be OK? i.e. one BG expands and moves it's full move and the BG next to it moves forward it's full move - could you then make a second move with the Battle Line?

dave_r wrote:

Even if you argue that the rules don't specifically say that the first and second move must be by the same entity, (although that is the intention of the rule), then you could only make a second move if all the BGs in the BL had already made a first move as a BG, otherwise they would not be making a 2nd move. This would require each of them to have their own general with them (otherwise they would not be eligible for a 2nd move), whereupon the issue of moving a 2nd time as a BL becomes moot as they could all move a 2nd move as individual BGs anyway.

Just out of interest, if the troops expanding were also able to move I presume this would be OK? i.e. one BG expands and moves it's full move and the BG next to it moves forward it's full move - could you then make a second move with the Battle Line?

I refer the honorable gentleman to RBS's previous answer.

How about this one then?

P40

Movement rules

"A battle group or commanders move is over if the player moves another battle group or commander or makes a dice roll for another battle group"

combined with:

P41

Simple and complex moves

"Battle lines are limited to the 'Advances' section of the table"

So when you expand the end BG of a battle line you must be doing so as a battle group. The moment you move another battle group the move of the battle group that expanded is over.

and what about this?

P75 : a battel line must remain toghether throughout the first and second move. It cannot be formed as a fisrt move then moved together as a 2nd move. it cannot "drop off" or "pick up" battle group during the moves.

The clinching, and much used, argument is "Dave, you're wrong again!"

Apart from the interesting explorations of how many interpretation of the same phrase can we have, why in the last days threads which usually should end in 2 or 3 post go on for tens? Perhaps a side effect of this first hot whether?

Seems like some like a debate over rules generally to seek an advantage in a situation, this looks like good practice. LOL