flank march arrival

[jonathan]

Myself and another gamer are a little confused as to when a flank marching command arrives if it meets, and drives back, a smaller enemy flank march.

For example. player A takes the first bound 1 and gets sufficient PIPs for his flank marching command to arrive on his next bound. However, player B has a smaller flank marching command on the same flank so is driven back onto the table in that players next bound, that is bound 2. So far so good.

But when does player A's flank marching command arrive? Logic suggests in his next bound (3) directly after the driven back enemy command arrived. But what is confusing is the rules (a copy of which I dont have to hand) say the larger command arrives on the "next subsequent" bound. If they said simply "next" or "subsequent" the position would be crystal clear.

But an opponent of mine argued that "next subsequent bound" means that the larger command had to remain off table for an extra bound. I think this is wrong. Can any one clarify this ?

[landmeister]

I would say it is as your logic is pointing out, but unfortunately, I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know if a different meaning is hidden behind that expression  . For me, "next", "subsequent" and "next subsequent" are just the same.

[foxgom]

Hi

"next subsequent" sounds like a tautology to me.


CASE 1
A rolls for a successful flank march on bound 1.
A has the smaller command and is driven back.
In Bound 1 nothing happens.

B moves in bound 2.

A moves in bound 3 and must retreat on the the board.

B arrives in bound 4.


CASE 2
A rolls for a successful flank march on bound 1.
B has the smaller command and is driven back.
In Bound 1 nothing happens.

B moves in bound 2 and must retreat on the the board.

A arrives in bound 3.



Neil Fox

[jonathan]

Thanks Neil your interpretation matches mine precisely so I think we must be right on this one.

Shame really because I was beginning to think up the sneaky ploy of throwing a tiny flank march onto a an exposed flank and hoping to tie up a larger enemy one for a few extra bounds whilst crushing all before me!

[LawrenceG]

Hi

"next subsequent" sounds like a tautology to me. No it isn't


CASE 1
A rolls for a successful flank march on bound 1.
A has the smaller command and is driven back.
In Bound 1 nothing happens.

B moves in bound 2.    THis is B's next bound

A moves in bound 3 and must retreat on the the board.

B arrives in bound 4.    This is B's next subsequent bound, i.e. his next bound that is subsequent to the enemy flank march entering the table


Neil Fox

[foxgom]

Hi

You?re right.

I would find it easier to understand if it read:

"A smaller flank march arrives in its next bound.  A larger flank march arrives in the (immediately) following bound".

I suspect that few people can explain what "next subsequent" means.

neil