Moving Generals in the Joint Action Phase

korvus · Post by **korvus** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:36 pm

I've been wondering about this for a bit now. In the joint action phase is there a sequence as to who moves their generals first?

Thanks
Cole

MadBanker · Post by **MadBanker** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:04 pm

page 106 of the rulebook (top of the page): Although the order rarely matters, the active player goes first.

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 pm

...or the active player "...decides the sequence of events should either side feel this is necessary." Top of p 106.

Does this refer to the whole JAP? In other words, if the active player wishes, can they determine the order in which the JAP is played out?

In my games so far we have followed the sequence for JAP given on p 168. The implication of the quoted sentence is that active player could alter it or, say, ask opponent to move all his commanders first, then decide where to allocate his own?

What do folk think?

Martin

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:33 am

Apologies for moving this back up the postings...would one or two of the authors or experienced players give their take on this? I'm sure that I understand the spirit and intention of sequence of events in the JAP and one of the refreshing aspects of FOG is most disagreements are easily answered with ref to the rule book or in theses postings. Just want to clear this up before meeting Mr Ultimate Gamesman or his like!

Martin

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:14 pm

I have never had an issue arise where one player's choice on whether or where to move a general was dependant on what the opponent did. I suppose that such a situation could arise, but admit that I am having a hard time envisioning it. Usually it is pretty clear where generals are needed on the battlfield, and players are going to move them there regardless of what the opponent does. It simply has not come up in any game I have played.

And if it does come up, the rule (quoted earlier in this thread) lets the active player decide the order of moves.

Marc

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:27 pm

Authors response.......

The sequence of events in the rules is sacrasanct as per the table on page 168

In the event that anyone feels it matters - and I too have never yet come across on in 150+ games - then the active player chooses the sequence in that line in the JAP. So if there is an issue where 2 break off may collide for instance the active player chooses the sequence of break offs and may therefore influence which one is now in charge reach of opposing foot.

So I am sure it will happen at some point to me but I haven't had it yet.

BUT it never overrides page 168 - it is only for if there is anything within one item e.g. Move Commanders. So you can't choose to do break offs last for example...

Si

Kineas1 · Post by **Kineas1** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:28 pm

Korvus and I were playing the other night and we noted (without having it come up officially, so to speak) that it could be useful to let your opponent show his hand on general placement before you showed your hand. After all, I assume a general has to be "with" a unit at the end of the JAP so that he can choose to be in the front rank on the Impact phase... so if each side has a general with a battle line facing off, and both sides know that the next impact phase is critical, general placement could become an issue.

(shrug) or maybe not...

Niceas · Post by **Niceas** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:55 pm

Kineas1 wrote:Korvus and I were playing the other night and we noted (without having it come up officially, so to speak) that it could be useful to let your opponent show his hand on general placement before you showed your hand. After all, I assume a general has to be "with" a unit at the end of the JAP so that he can choose to be in the front rank on the Impact phase... so if each side has a general with a battle line facing off, and both sides know that the next impact phase is critical, general placement could become an issue.

(shrug) or maybe not...

I think shall has the sense of it from what I'm seeing so far. generals are nice, and I make them earn their pay, but I can't see that knowing where your opponent's general is going to will yield any sort of substantial tactical advantage.

Kineas1 · Post by **Kineas1** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:05 am

Point taken--that's where the shrug came from. We were hypothesizing, but it hadn't come up yet.

Although my life experience is that once you see a possibility like that, it'll come and bite you in the finals of a tournament.

Now, Niceas gets to say "that's why I don't play tournaments" and Steve gets to laugh silently.