moving unreliable Allies

[arnimlueck]

Hello,

can someone please explain (or point me to a place wher it was already explained) this:
1) my Ally is unreliable as usual
2) knowing that I tend to have unreliable Allies I placed him in the way of everybody trying to provoke enemies moving into 240paces
3) the enemy is kind and does so, but exaggerates a bit and moves Elefants towards my Ally who are knights
4) I want to save the guys and move them AWAY from the enemy but my opponent tells me that this is NOT allowed!?!?

Now the point is the last bit of point (a) that tells you what unreliable allies may do: "or move closer than 800 paces to any known enemy".

I read this as: while within 800 paces I may not move even closer, but I would allow moving away even if i do not manage to get out of 800 paces. My opponent said i may only move if I manage to get out of 800 paces with this move.

We diced, I lost.

The Elefants contacted, the knights died.

But their spirits haunt me and whisper "unfair....". How do i read (a) correctly?

Arnim

[william]

  Ooops, never played it like that but it looks like it may be read like that.

And of course you would not have got the pips when the nellies within charge distance.

I would play that you could move troops away, but.

William

[LawrenceG]

I agree that " cannot ... move closer than 800p to any known enemy" is not entirely clear.

I interpret it as "if you are closer than 800 p then you cannot move"

but "you cannot move if you end up closer to any enemy and that enemy is closer than 800p" also seems a likely interpretation. That is how the equivalent rule worked in DBM, but the wording is different.

 "you cannot do a move that goes closer than 800p to enemy, even if the move is away from the enemy" is also possible.

In your case, however, the elephants must have come within 200p on the previous turn to allow them to contact you. At that point the alies would have seen enemy closer than 240p and would have become committed to your side. Then they could have made any move you wanted.

[arnimlueck]

Sadly after your point
"In your case, however, the elephants must have come within 200p on the previous turn to allow them to contact you. At that point the alies would have seen enemy closer than 240p and would have become committed to your side. Then they could have made any move you wanted."
I trew another 1 PIP only so my running away was not too effective

Arnim

[andrew]

I wonder if in future you put out a single picket from the Allied command to speed up the activation process - that way only one element is at risk, irrespective of the varying interpretations.

[landmeister]

but "you cannot move if you end up closer to any enemy and that enemy is closer than 800p" also seems a likely interpretation. That is how the equivalent rule worked in DBM, but the wording is different.

This is the way I've always played, but I admit the other seems plausible too.

[foxgom]

P 14

last paragraph (a)
His troops cannot.... move closer than 800p to any known enemy.

I read this as if by moving you have become closer to any enemy element which is within 800 p, the move becomes illegal.

You can move away, which can be a problem if the enemy already has troops to your side and slightly behind you.

What is not clear is the following situation:

You move away from the enemy in front of you and for the first 10mm of the move become nearer to an enemy to your side and slightly to your rear. For the remainer of the move you move away from all enemies and are further from all enemies than you were at the biginning of the move.
Is that first 10mm allowed?

neil

[MikeCampbell]

It's a known snafu with the wording that was much discussed but never corrected

The intent is that you cannot move closer to enemy who are within 800....

But your opponent was also wrong - it does not stop you from moving further away - it stops you moving from 801p to 799p of enemy - quite another thing and a particularly pointless restriction.

[LawrenceG]

It's a known snafu with the wording that was much discussed but never corrected

The intent is that you cannot move closer to enemy who are within 800....

But your opponent was also wrong - it does not stop you from moving further away - it stops you moving from 801p to 799p of enemy - quite another thing and a particularly pointless restriction.

Well some restriction is needed to stop your ally preparing to attack the enemy as planned and committing as soon as he has moved within 240p of the enemy.

[arnimlueck]

If the interpretation by Neil and Mike is really the general consensus:

PLEASE PUT THAT IN THE COMMENTARY

because not everybody reads it that way.

Arnim

[arnimlueck]

And what really sucks in DBX: yesterday was my sixth game with an ally in a row.... In one out of six games this @!$&%?! Ally was reliable! I go back playing Geargians with Cuman SubGeneral.

Arnim

[MikeCampbell]

Well some restriction is needed to stop your ally preparing to attack the enemy as planned and committing as soon as he has moved within 240p of the enemy.

I don't see why - unreliable allies are less reliable - not less intelligent

[william]

And what really sucks in DBX: yesterday was my sixth game with an ally in a row.... In one out of six games this @!$&%?! Ally was reliable! I go back playing Geargians with Cuman SubGeneral.

Arnim

And I was just thinking of Tibetian or Papel Italian with 3 allies each as the next army.

Just remember it easy to blame the unreliable ally if things go wrong ( makes a change from blaming the dice ).

  William

[LawrenceG]

Well some restriction is needed to stop your ally preparing to attack the enemy as planned and committing as soon as he has moved within 240p of the enemy.

I don't see why - unreliable allies are less reliable - not less intelligent

Intelligent enough not to provoke the enemy into attacking them before they can see which side is winning, I would have thought.

Are you suggesting that unreliable allies should behave the same way as normal ones until they commit one way or the other?

[MikeCampbell]

no - where do you get hat from?

Or provoking?  Heck you're already on a battlefield with "intent"!!

They can move to rearrange their troops as they see fit - within the limitations of being unreliable - which hopefully will be "properly" written some time soon.

It's not easy to rearrange troops when none of them can move closer to any enemy within 800p - for example rear ranks/reserves  cannot move forward so most of it has to be done by retiring away from teh enemy.