Slitherine

when a commander moves its 7 MU and try to join a Battle group, does it need to touch the group in anymaner and then it is placed edge to edge and corner to corner, or does it need to move until it is edge to edge and corner to corner?

It needs to get to edge to edge and corner to corner contact.

I was actually reading the rules last night and it appears I have been doing something else pleasantly incorrectly - a commander is only allowed to touch a BG if he is with it (i.e. in edge to edge and corner to corner contact) if he isn't with the BG then he is not allowed to touch it.

dave_r wrote: I was actually reading the rules last night and it appears I have been doing something else pleasantly incorrectly - a commander is only allowed to touch a BG if he is with it (i.e. in edge to edge and corner to corner contact) if he isn't with the BG then he is not allowed to touch it.

The point is moot as one can declare the distance to be 0.0001 mm.

Presumably you'll now argue that commanders can't interpenetrate BGs as they would be touching them...

It's not moot if you want to move them as a Battle Line.

dave_r wrote:It's not moot if you want to move them as a Battle Line.

In which case he has to be (declared) in contact with one of the BGs in the battle line. Or have you found something else you are interpreting in another way?

I think the point with the rules is, IF he LOOKS LIKE he's with a battle group HE IS. Saves arguments like this.

Well exactly. If he wasn't, but standing very close, I'd normally declare him not to be. Like saying more than or less than 4MU.

there is also the limitation (I seem to remember) that you can't put him in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with two BGs at the same time if a clearer position is available.

What I have done in the past is have a commander touching two BG's (i.e. not with either) so that he can command a bigger battle line because his command range can reach more bg's to move. Nobody's picked me up on it though...

dave_r wrote:What I have done in the past is have a commander touching two BG's (i.e. not with either) so that he can command a bigger battle line because his command range can reach more bg's to move. Nobody's picked me up on it though...

Now that is illegal.

philqw78 wrote:

dave_r wrote:What I have done in the past is have a commander touching two BG's (i.e. not with either) so that he can command a bigger battle line because his command range can reach more bg's to move. Nobody's picked me up on it though...

Now that is illegal.

Too true. That is illegal in accordance with the RAW..."If with a battle group, a commander's base must always be placed in edge to edage and corner to corner contact with a base of this one battle group."

So, Phil, what does wargaming jurisprudence suggest is the appropriate legal process for rectilinearizing Dave?

I think you can forget about the need for any sort of legal procedings. I suspect that most recipients of linearized recti mightregard and inability to walk without discomfort for several weeks as sufficient punishment and deterrence!

ShrubMiK wrote:I think you can forget about the need for any sort of legal procedings. I suspect that most recipients of linearized recti mightregard and inability to walk without discomfort for several weeks as sufficient punishment and deterrence!

We must, therefore, pity the poor bloody b*****d's that are self-rectilinearizing, eh? But must they share their pain?

shadowdragon wrote:........... appropriate legal process for rectilinearizing Dave?

Dave is not sure what a rectangle is. See other thread.

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:........... appropriate legal process for rectilinearizing Dave?

Dave is not sure what a rectangle is. See other thread.

I'm not sure I do any longer either, but what ever a rectangle might be it seems that it resembles something circular.

Anybody who uses rectilinear in a discussion automatically loses the argument.

The only other time I remember the word being used was in pre-GCSE physics, along the lines of rectilinear propogation.

That was B*ll*cks too...

dave_r wrote:Anybody who uses rectilinear in a discussion automatically loses the argument.

The only other time I remember the word being used was in pre-GCSE physics, along the lines of rectilinear propogation.

That was B*ll*cks too...

Careful, Dave. If you read my first reply on the other thread you'll realize that I'm supporting your position...er, argument.

On the one hand the rules are quite specific about having to line up (ETECTC) a commander when he joins a BG. On the other, commanders' bases are "not really there" and can be moved out of the way if necessary.

When measuring to see if a commander is within line of command, do you measure exactly to the commander's figure or simply to any part of the BG he is with? In the latter case, if a commander is at the back of a BG one need only measure to the front of the BG (not the commander's figure itself) to determine line of command distance.

Measure to his base edge, that is where his command radius starts

Can you cite a specific rulebook entry for your view (please)?