I reread the rules and as discussed it is not cristal clear . From one UK's leading referee's explanation a general when it wants to join an UG must do so frontally or to the back of a file , so not on the side, and conform 100 % to the 1 BW frontage of the base. Is it correct ? and what if the general reaches only half the width can it shift half a base on the principle of "joining friends" .
Usually we played that if the general just touched even by the corner of it's base a file, it joined the file ( KISS principle )
A clarification on the forum might be interesting as up to my knowledge every Belgian, french and greek players do play it differently so as if the general touches the file it's in the file or ..not :)
It is not precisely defined in the rules.
A general that is attached to a unit must be aligned to either the front or back of a file. This is clear.
My interpretation is if moving away from the UG, then they cannot exceed the movement distance from their starting position. If joining the UG then they must end up in a position aligned to the front or back of a file to become attached to the UG without exceeding their movement distance. There is no half base width shift for generals.
I have no particular problem if it is played differently. It rarely makes a difference and when it does, as long as a player is not being ridiculous then I don't mind. Relax guys, it is only a game. If you have to take it that seriously, take a good look at yourself.
Richard
A thing I've sometimes had to pull people up on is that a general moves to a specific file and that the move is to either the front or the back of the file which is where you'd measure it to.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 18, 2025, 07:41:34 AM
A thing I've sometimes had to pull people up on is that a general moves to a specific file and that the move is to either the front or the back of the file which is where you'd measure it to.
okay it is how i see it too.
But then does it really matter ?
As in front or back you can claim it to fight in the file?
Is joining the file not enough for the general to join the file/UG ?
Where the general's base physically is affects whether they are in command range of UGs - so whether they are front/back affects this; it isn't just about fighting in the file when front/back make no difference as you say.
I thought the interpretation of this was that you worked out exactly where the general would be when he joined the file (when aligned at front or back of file) then measured the move from his current position to that new location and only moved there if it was within his move distance. In other words a "strict" interpretation. Have I been doing it wrong all this time?
Quote from: daveparish on March 18, 2025, 10:32:11 AM
I thought the interpretation of this was that you worked out exactly where the general would be when he joined the file (when aligned at front or back of file) then measured the move from his current position to that new location and only moved there if it was within his move distance. In other words a "strict" interpretation. Have I been doing it wrong all this time?
I think you have been doing it as (strictly) intended.
Okay, so as i read it the general must join a UG at the back or the rear.
So a general can do maximum 5 MU to the UG and the 1 MU to join alligned to the file.
If a few mm are missing he is not alligned and cannot join,same for 1/2 base width ?
The base moves as per general rules, so joining from the side directopn means the base has got to make a turn, usualy at the end of the move all within the 6 MU allowed.
As generals may be based on round bases (all my generals are) how is this done?
what if there is no space to put the base of the general, in front or back (see 11.2)?
Did not find anything in the rule for the general to be in front, back, allgned with a file ?
I think (may be wrong!) that Generals don't have a facing, so no need for turns etc - just work out where the general would be (either back or front of file) and measure the straight line distance (for the corner that has to travel the furthest if he is having to change angle). I think this might mean you could put the general's "side" edge against the back of the file if you really needed to (but that might be a more controversial interpretation!!)
Indeed generals have no facing. Doubt there is anything written about their facing in the rules at all though.
I rather suspect we're getting some overthinking here and looking for things which are neither there nor needed.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 18, 2025, 03:12:09 PM
Indeed generals have no facing. Doubt there is anything written about their facing in the rules at all though.
I rather suspect we're getting some overthinking here and looking for things which are neither there nor needed.
YAy good, o was afraid of the interpretation some might do.
And i think of more of these :
So to sumerize, a general to join a UG, it has to be front or back bases, touching the rear or front edge of that base is enough?
He cannot join from the side of a base?
If I were pushed for a strict ruling at a comp I would say that to join an UG the generals move must be able to get the base into proper alignment with a front or rear base to be part of a file.
Like a ruck in rugby it is not permissible to enter from the side ;)
So if I understand it correctly:
No joining on the flanks/sides
The general joins either to the front or the rear
Corner to corner first is not enough ?or is it ?
As some have round bases generals, strict application to reach the full 1 BW of the file is not applicable even if it should ?
No universal half a base shift or universal half a base shift ?
For a general on a round base, you would have to mark 4 points at 90 degree intervals around the base. You would have to move one of these points into contact with the centre point of the file's front or rear edge.
OR you could rebase them so they comply with the rules as written.
Quote from: LawrenceG on March 19, 2025, 10:15:14 AM
For a general on a round base, you would have to mark 4 points at 90 degree intervals around the base. You would have to move one of these points into contact with the centre point of the file's front or rear edge.
OR you could rebase them so they comply with the rules as written.
Why not just allow for simplicity and nice dioramas 8) and adapt ?
We have let people use round bases for years . We can stick to the rules but should have reacted sooner
My main interest ( and a french player asked me to clarify things ) : is touching the large 1 BW front and rear OK , do we have to be real strict , what about the 1/2 base universal shift and if it does not apply to generals why as it is universal :) so we can close the matter . Some people need it written black on white without the door open to interpretation .
Quote from: LawrenceG on March 19, 2025, 10:15:14 AM
For a general on a round base, you would have to mark 4 points at 90 degree intervals around the base. You would have to move one of these points into contact with the centre point of the file's front or rear edge.
OR you could rebase them so they comply with the rules as written.
though the intro part of the rules says a round base is acceptable.
Quote from: LawrenceG on March 19, 2025, 10:15:14 AM
For a general on a round base, you would have to mark 4 points at 90 degree intervals around the base. You would have to move one of these points into contact with the centre point of the file's front or rear edge.
OR you could rebase them so they comply with the rules as written.
NOWHERE does it say this in the rules.
A general can be on a round base. To align with the front or rear the round base merely has to touch the centre point of the front or rear edge of the file. (Slightly less distance may be required than on a square base). Measuring the command range is taken from the base (slightly less distance may be than on a square base). The two effects would tend to cancel out and are pretty minor.
I REFER BACK TO MY EARLIER COMMENT - relax people and play the game.
Richard
The only bit of the original question that hasn't been answered (I think) is whether generals can do a half base shift to align into position. The text for half base shift says "all moves" rather than "all moving UGs" (or similar words). So I think that Generals can do that shift - which would often slightly extend their movement range when joining an UG.
Colour me surprised! (I would have seen that as very cheese-y if someone had done that to me)
UNIVERSAL HALF BASE SHIFT
4.C:1. All moves (prompted and outcomes) may always include up to a ½ BW shift sideways to a) move around friends, b) align or join to friends to make a block or supporting file, c) move
around any type of terrain, d) avoid a table edge or, e) avoid non-charging enemy if doing a break off, run away or skirmish.
A general is not joining friends to make a block or supporting file so b) does not count. So a general cannot use a universal half base shift (as I have said previously in this discussion).
Richard
Sorry, I missed you saying that, apologies. Must say that feels like the more sensible conclusion
time to update the claries, and perhaps the PDF edition with the claries?
Quote from: Jilu on March 20, 2025, 09:39:03 AM
time to update the claries, and perhaps the PDF edition with the claries?
I agree. As I wrote earlier but it seem to have disappeared , some people will always ask the referee : where is it written ? In 10 days I have been asked that question twice, once at Athens, once at Chanier
Quote from: badhabum on March 19, 2025, 10:45:51 AM
Why not just allow for simplicity and nice dioramas 8) and adapt ?
We have let people use round bases for years . We can stick to the rules but should have reacted sooner
A round base would fit within a square base of side equal to the diameter, so you can keep your dioramas.
You just need some unambiguous way of defining the orientation of the notional square base if you don't physically represent it.
Quote from: badhabum on March 20, 2025, 09:56:49 AM
Quote from: Jilu on March 20, 2025, 09:39:03 AM
time to update the claries, and perhaps the PDF edition with the claries?
I agree. As I wrote earlier but it seem to have disappeared , some people will always ask the referee : where is it written ? In 10 days I have been asked that question twice, once at Athens, once at Chanier
I will even add that, at Chaniers this weekend, when I explained this part to my opponent and said it was explained to me during a game (at Rueil 2024) by RJC himself, my opponent (not the most gracious of all, to be honest) replied : "I do not care who it was said by, if it is not written black ink on white paper, it has zero value".
So it is a reality that some (and thankfully few) people will not read further than the rules, it is not a fantasy out of "overcreative minds".
Let me add to this that I will be the first to agree that the spirit of the rules should prevail, but that requires that the spirit is clear for everyone, which is not nearly as easy for non-English natives as one might think at first glance. Many such people understand English correctly but lack the ability to grasp the fine print (and they know that as well!), which hampers their ability to read through the printed material. This is not a criticism of the people who wrote the rules either, these sorts of miscommunications are as inevitable as the heat death of the universe. Therefore, it is not incomprehensible that they will cling to the written letter as that is something where they can be as sure as anything that they have it correctly, with as little interpretation as possible.
So thank you to Richard for this much needed (at least on the continent) clarification, and I second Jilu in thinking it would help to add it to the claries.
Best,
Antoine
Quote from: LawrenceG on March 20, 2025, 10:17:18 AM
Quote from: badhabum on March 19, 2025, 10:45:51 AM
Why not just allow for simplicity and nice dioramas 8) and adapt ?
We have let people use round bases for years . We can stick to the rules but should have reacted sooner
A round base would fit within a square base of side equal to the diameter, so you can keep your dioramas.
You just need some unambiguous way of defining the orientation of the notional square base if you don't physically represent it.
It is not necessary to define the orientation of a general on a round base as I have previously indicated.
Richard