Slitherine

Hi All ,
A LF group is charged , it's VMD is normal .
The move takes it thru a HF group behind it and just into a second HF group .It should go thru , because it's LF , but there is a third HF unit in that space so there is no room .
The question is , where does it go ?
Thanks

I think it ends up stuck in front of the first HF BG since there isn't room behind the second BG for it to be placed there and I assume it doesn't actually have enough movement to reach the third HF BG.

Chris

OK , thank you .
So they move as much as they can , say 1MU and stop at the first HF group ? If you allow it to move thru the second group ( because it had enough move to touch it ) it comes out the other side and contacts the third HF , does it now boing thru them as well ?

They can pop through the 2nd group that they reach if there is room beyond that group for them. From your description, the third HF BG is in the way so they canno pop through the 1st or 2nd BG. Since they don't have enough move to reach the 3rd BG, they aren't entitled to pop through it.

Chris

Makes sense , thanks .
If only I could get a copy of the actual rules this easily

Is the line about "other battlegroups blocking placement of the moving battlegroup's bases being shifted as far as necessary in the direction of the interpenetration to make room" no longer there?

I couldn't find it when I looked in V2. In general interpenetration has been significantly tightened up.

Chris

I guess its part of the "getting rid of leapfrogging and teleporting".

Wouldn't it be so much easier if we'd been given a list of the changes......

A list of the changes has been posted several of times now

Of course, they don't necessarily go into the nitty-gritty detail you are looking for in this case...I have a feeling that Zoltan's quote above is taken directly from the list of changes?

ShrubMiK wrote:...I have a feeling that Zoltan's quote above is taken directly from the list of changes?

Yep I was paraphrasing from JD's earlier 'the revolution continues' press release.

We've had lists giving general idea of changes. No list of sections/paragraphs with changes. That would allow us to be certain we've read all changes. Standard procedure in business documentation.

AlanCutner wrote:We've had lists giving general idea of changes. No list of sections/paragraphs with changes. That would allow us to be certain we've read all changes. Standard procedure in business documentation.

But not wargames rules, unless you wnat them delayed a few more months Alan? I suppose you could ask the BHGS to do it for you though!

Actually it would be solved if we could read the rules !
This stumbling mess is killing FoG in Australia .
Thank God we squealed enough to get a print copy ( one day) , it will have errors ,but at least we will be able to read it .

Phil, why should wargames rules be an exception? And why several months to produce a list of changed sections? The rules are no longer being produced by amateurs but by a professional company. We pay for a professional product. Seems reasonable to me to expect a business-like approach. Which in the main is what we get.

Hmm, software companies professional. That would be new.

AlanCutner wrote:Phil, why should wargames rules be an exception? And why several months to produce a list of changed sections? The rules are no longer being produced by amateurs but by a professional company. We pay for a professional product. Seems reasonable to me to expect a business-like approach. Which in the main is what we get.

I think Alan that it may be more a concern that if you publish a list of the changes in enough detail to be really useful then people might just print that out for free and not pay for V2. I'm not saying that would happen but I could see the copyright owners being concerned.

I think Alan that it may be more a concern that if you publish a list of the changes in enough detail to be really useful then people might just print that out for free and not pay for V2. I'm not saying that would happen but I could see the copyright owners being concerned.

I completely agree -if too much detail is given. But a simple list of amended section numbers/titles should be possible, without any detail of the amendment itself.

Not a bad idea. I suppose it depends how much has actually been changed. Presumably what you would be looking for would be sections where the rules had actually changed, rather than places where the rules are the same but maybe the text has been tidied up, shuffled, tweked etc. to aid clarity.

Presumably what you would be looking for would be sections where the rules had actually changed, rather than places where the rules are the same but maybe the text has been tidied up, shuffled, tweked etc. to aid clarity.

At least where the rules have been intentionally changed. But if the rules have been re-worded that can cause unintentional rules changes - so should be considered at least.