Author Topic: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official  (Read 15827 times)

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2011, 04:51:00 PM »
OK, here's something I threw together in five minutes as a sample illustration of the Current Fastest Path.



The shapes would be replaced by pictures of unit cards, obviously.  :)

But I'm mainly concerned about if the picture sufficiently expresses the idea of moving around an object.

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2011, 05:37:27 PM »
And here's a pinching example.


Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4413
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2011, 06:48:06 PM »
My understanding is that pinching is when two friendly units are engaging the same enemy unit, while neither friendly unit engaging another enemy.

So in that example there are no pinches. 

B is flanking C and C is flanking A. 

If B wasn't there, then C & D would be pinching A.

If D wasn't there, then A & B would be flanking C.

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2011, 07:03:27 PM »
My understanding is that pinching is when two friendly units are engaging the same enemy unit, while neither friendly unit engaging another enemy.

So in that example there are no pinches. 

B is flanking C and C is flanking A. 

If B wasn't there, then C & D would be pinching A.

If D wasn't there, then A & B would be flanking C.

Quote
3.2.3.2.5 Pinching
If your attacking unit is engaged with only one enemy unit, and that enemy unit is also engaged on a different side, your unit is pinching and gets (+0) +1/+1.

Both D and B are engaged with only one enemy unit, and the enemy that they're engaged with is also engaged on a different side. That means both D and B are pinching.

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4413
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2011, 07:13:12 PM »
Quote
Both D and B are engaged with only one enemy unit, and the enemy that they're engaged with is also engaged on a different side. That means both D and B are pinching.

We had this come up at Kubla (almost that exact situation) and Niko ruled that both units had to be pinching and not engaged with another unit for either unit to get the benefit.  He cited this phrase:

"Note:  All of your units that are eligible receive the pinching bonus, so if an enemy unit is engaged by your units on two sides and neither of your units are otherwise engaged, attacks by both of your units get the bonus."


fireball_85

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2011, 07:31:57 PM »
Damn, I've been messing that up.

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4413
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2011, 07:42:37 PM »
Not necessarily.  It could be Niko heard our question wrong, it could be convention fatigue made him give a wrong answer, it could be that due to noise & fatigue we understood him wrong.

We'll just wait for him and/or Chad to stumble onto this thread and set us straight.

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2011, 07:50:14 PM »
Quote
Both D and B are engaged with only one enemy unit, and the enemy that they're engaged with is also engaged on a different side. That means both D and B are pinching.

We had this come up at Kubla (almost that exact situation) and Niko ruled that both units had to be pinching and not engaged with another unit for either unit to get the benefit.  He cited this phrase:

"Note:  All of your units that are eligible receive the pinching bonus, so if an enemy unit is engaged by your units on two sides and neither of your units are otherwise engaged, attacks by both of your units get the bonus."



Ah, but the other two units are otherwise engaged, QED. One clarification I should mention because it is unclear, is that while it takes multiple units to pinch, only otherwise unengaged units are considered "pinching." Pinching means that they are eligible to recieve the pinching bonus. I would suggest wording to some such effect in order to prevent a very common misunderstanding.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 08:04:32 PM by gull2112 »
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4413
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2011, 08:00:24 PM »
Which was how I read it originally.  And then was corrected by the guy who wrote the rules.   8)

(Now if that correction was a misspeak/misunderstand, it's probably a good time to clear that up)

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #39 on: March 24, 2011, 08:03:07 PM »
And now for something completely different.

I was reading the backup rules and came across this:

If a backed-up unit fails a rout check you may choose to destroy
it instead of having it rout. If the friendly unit is destroyed in
this way, you can move one of its back-up units into its place. If
it is destroyed by any other means you may not(?) choose to do
so.

I assume the ? is alluding to what other means could a unit be destroyed. This is a direct reference to missile fire, but also allows for possible future ways of a unit becoming destroyed. Perhaps a slight clarification:

If a backed-up unit fails a rout check as a result of engaged combat, you may choose to destroy it instead of having it rout. If the friendly unit is destroyed in this way, you can move one of its back-up units into its place. If it is destroyed by any other means (missile fire e.g.) you may not choose to do so.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 08:06:10 PM by gull2112 »
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #40 on: March 24, 2011, 08:11:27 PM »
Quote
Both D and B are engaged with only one enemy unit, and the enemy that they're engaged with is also engaged on a different side. That means both D and B are pinching.

We had this come up at Kubla (almost that exact situation) and Niko ruled that both units had to be pinching and not engaged with another unit for either unit to get the benefit.  He cited this phrase:

"Note:  All of your units that are eligible receive the pinching bonus, so if an enemy unit is engaged by your units on two sides and neither of your units are otherwise engaged, attacks by both of your units get the bonus."


What the noted ruling is clarifying is that all units that are pinching get the bonus. This was to head off the incorrect interpretation where somebody might think that only the initial or first engaged unit gets the bonus and not the other pinching units that grant the bonus. "Here, here, bonuses all around!" :D

Ah, but the other two units are otherwise engaged, QED. One clarification I should mention because it is unclear, is that while it takes multiple units to pinch, only otherwise unengaged units are considered "pinching." Pinching means that they are eligible to recieve the pinching bonus. I would suggest wording to some such effect in order to prevent a very common misunderstanding.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 08:14:06 PM by gull2112 »
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

Niko White

  • Celestial Guard
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
  • A tíro nin, Fanuilos!
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #41 on: March 24, 2011, 08:25:16 PM »
Quote
Both D and B are engaged with only one enemy unit, and the enemy that they're engaged with is also engaged on a different side. That means both D and B are pinching.

We had this come up at Kubla (almost that exact situation) and Niko ruled that both units had to be pinching and not engaged with another unit for either unit to get the benefit.  He cited this phrase:

"Note:  All of your units that are eligible receive the pinching bonus, so if an enemy unit is engaged by your units on two sides and neither of your units are otherwise engaged, attacks by both of your units get the bonus."



I didn't intentionally rule it this way, certainly; either I had a brain fart or we had a missed communication.  Both A and C are pinched, but only B and D get the bonuses against them.

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #42 on: March 24, 2011, 08:28:33 PM »
Following SO clarification.

I was looking for the rule regarding what happens when a unit Following another unit is in combat and the forward unit is destroyed or routs. I didn't remember this was called "backing up." For completeness you might append the rules like this:

FOLLOW

The unit moves towards the nearest non-front center point of
the nearest friendly unit using the shortest path, invoking the
Indirect Path and Impossible Path rules where appropriate.
For Combat and Rout see Back-Up Units page 21.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 08:30:55 PM by gull2112 »
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4413
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #43 on: March 24, 2011, 08:40:22 PM »
Quote
I didn't intentionally rule it this way, certainly; either I had a brain fart or we had a missed communication.

Heh.  Yeah I remember it because it came during our game when my skirmishers failedto keep your Orcs from flanking my line.  We had to pause because Manny & Trent has the situation and I was shocked by your answer.  So shocked that I asked you again and said "oh wow, I've been doing that wrong for a long time."

Oh well.  The irony is that it has literally only come up once since then.

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2011, 08:44:44 PM »
And here's a pinching example.



This is so basic and common a question that this illustration should definitely be part of any future rulesbook. I will admit to having to look up the ruling for exactly this situation a number of times because a few weeks or months had transpired between games and I had to get the wording exact again to wrap my mind around it.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 08:47:03 PM by gull2112 »
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/