Slitherine

A unit that is pinned by a BG even partly to its rear can move directly forwards.

What does this actually mean.

Does the pinning BG just need to have part of a base to the rear of a line extending the pinned BG's rearmost base edge?
Or
Does the pinning BG actually need to be directly behind that edge, like supporting bases must be to a supported BG's rear?

Discussed at some length here Phil.

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... it=pinning

So after 20 minutes of reading both threads is this going to be added to your wonderful rules clarifications Pete.
FWIW its like rear support behind

I agree it's open to interpretation. If there is sufficient demand for it we could look to update the document maybe later in the year?

I DEMAND it is done TODAY as I had to suffer with Bob and Nik's spurious thoughts on this during a game on Monday night

philqw78 wrote:I DEMAND it is done TODAY as I had to suffer with Bob and Nik's spurious thoughts on this during a game on Monday night

A trifle harsh as I was dragged in and my opinion (the same as Pete Dalby's original thought) was that 2 and 3 were behind the rear. If it were 3 only then I would have expected the words 'directly' rather than partially to have been used as they are in the rear support wording. Also if you move back slightly from the wording and look at the situation:



The 'spirit' of the rule is that the brown light horse go up the pictures rather than down the picture TOWARDS the enemy.

Hi Bob

From the way I and the MAWS players are playing we would say the 4 base BG is not to the rear of the 3 base BG as it is not behind a line drawn directly back from both sides of the 3 base BG.

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:Hi Bob

From the way I and the MAWS players are playing we would say the 4 base BG is not to the rear of the 3 base BG as it is not behind a line drawn directly back from both sides of the 3 base BG.

Rob

Which is the way the linked thread decided it.

and
Sorry Bob but you need to be harsh to get anything done in this world. We wouldn't have beat the French if Henry V had said, "Well most of them are OK but there's a few ruff 'uns that need sorting out" (though I think that may be what Ruddock said to the ITC team in 2013)

Robert241167 wrote:Hi Bob

From the way I and the MAWS players are playing we would say the 4 base BG is not to the rear of the 3 base BG as it is not behind a line drawn directly back from both sides of the 3 base BG.

Rob

And that is the way I will be ruling it should it come up at the NZ nationals this weekend.

philqw78 wrote:

Robert241167 wrote:Hi Bob

From the way I and the MAWS players are playing we would say the 4 base BG is not to the rear of the 3 base BG as it is not behind a line drawn directly back from both sides of the 3 base BG.

Rob

Which is the way the linked thread decided it.

and
Sorry Bob but you need to be harsh to get anything done in this world. We wouldn't have beat the French if Henry V had said, "Well most of them are OK but there's a few ruff 'uns that need sorting out" (though I think that may be what Ruddock said to the ITC team in 2013)

It's not all that harsh as the pinned BG can still move almost straight ahead using the "any move ending further away but still in front" option.