MeG

Author's Section => Rules Queries and Clarifications => Topic started by: lionheartrjc on January 20, 2022, 08:33:31 AM

Title: Can you deploy in Cantabrian formation?
Post by: lionheartrjc on January 20, 2022, 08:33:31 AM
Question came up in a game yesterday.

The rules are silent on the matter.  My view (which I hadn't really challenged until yesterday) was yes you can - other characteristics (notably dismountable) allow you to deploy that way.  However, the fact that the rules don't say you can implies that you can't. 

At the same time I realised that you can't switch to (or from) Cantabrian as part of a tuG a SuG move - something I hadn't noticed until yesterday - it has to be part of a prompted action - so okay if you do it as part of a group move, but not as a simple tug a SuG.

I would like to have clarity in time for Ice and Fire.

Richard
Title: Re: Can you deploy in Cantabrian formation?
Post by: nikgaukroger on January 20, 2022, 09:24:28 AM
I have interpreted it as you cannot on the basis of the line in the characteristic that talks about going into and out of Cantabrian as part of a move.

However, because as you say the rules are actually silent, this is my interpretation.

But you knew this  ;)

As we're both down for umpiring at Ice & Fire it'd be useful to know so we can be consistent  8)
Title: Re: Can you deploy in Cantabrian formation?
Post by: Simon Meg-Meister on January 20, 2022, 11:52:21 AM
The intent is precisely as written expanded here with reasoning:

a) you can't deploy that way, but you can move into it as any move which was a move involving the SuG - so where I considered the cards had been spent on the SuG.
b) therefore not part of a TuG a SuG move as that is simply tagging along

So for instance, a hesitant ally will be stuck and not moving into "fighting formation' until it is back in the fight.  All deliberately as is.

Hope that gives the requested clarity for you both from an umpiring point of view.

Si

Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 20, 2022, 08:33:31 AM
Question came up in a game yesterday.

The rules are silent on the matter.  My view (which I hadn't really challenged until yesterday) was yes you can - other characteristics (notably dismountable) allow you to deploy that way.  However, the fact that the rules don't say you can implies that you can't. 

At the same time I realised that you can't switch to (or from) Cantabrian as part of a tuG a SuG move - something I hadn't noticed until yesterday - it has to be part of a prompted action - so okay if you do it as part of a group move, but not as a simple tug a SuG.

I would like to have clarity in time for Ice and Fire.

Richard
Title: Re: Can you deploy in Cantabrian formation?
Post by: rayfredjohn on January 20, 2022, 03:09:43 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 20, 2022, 08:33:31 AM
Question came up in a game yesterday.

The rules are silent on the matter.  My view (which I hadn't really challenged until yesterday) was yes you can - other characteristics (notably dismountable) allow you to deploy that way.  However, the fact that the rules don't say you can implies that you can't. 

At the same time I realised that you can't switch to (or from) Cantabrian as part of a tuG a SuG move - something I hadn't noticed until yesterday - it has to be part of a prompted action - so okay if you do it as part of a group move, but not as a simple tug a SuG.

I would like to have clarity in time for Ice and Fire.

Richard

Who knew you'd learn two things in a game with Ray "I've never read the rules" Duggins
Title: Re: Can you deploy in Cantabrian formation?
Post by: LawrenceG on January 20, 2022, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on January 20, 2022, 11:52:21 AM
The intent is precisely as written expanded here with reasoning:

a) you can't deploy that way, but you can move into it as any move which was a move involving the SuG - so where I considered the cards had been spent on the SuG.
b) therefore not part of a TuG a SuG move as that is simply tagging along



FWIW, I would have reasoned from (a) that a TuG a SuG move was a "move involving the SuG" and come to the conclusion opposite to (b).