Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

The Guns of Gettysburg» Forums » Rules

Subject: Withdrawal start position rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kåre Dyvik
Norway
Stavanger
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In chapter 14, concerning withdrawals, the second last paragraph on p.11 reads: "A block which ends a mandatory withdrawal in its start position is reduced until eliminated".

Is this a strange way of saying "A block which cannot withdraw from its start position is reduced until eliminated"?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse Escobedo
United States
Rockville
MD
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't played in some time, but isn't it possible to rotate around a point and end up back at your start position? This wording would cover that scenario...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nappeto wrote:
In chapter 14, concerning withdrawals, the second last paragraph on p.11 reads: "A block which ends a mandatory withdrawal in its start position is reduced until eliminated".

Is this a strange way of saying "A block which cannot withdraw from its start position is reduced until eliminated"?

Yes, it means the block would be eliminated. This question came up in a previous thread and was confirmed to mean it is eliminated. Actually, it was my question as I had wondered if the block was reduced over a series of turns or was it reduced repeatedly in the current turn. The answer was that it is reduced in the current turn until eliminated.

I guess the wording might matter because reducing a block means consuming reduced blocks. So don't just pick up the eliminated block if it is a reduced-2 block. You need to reduce it. However, I don't think it makes a difference to play in actual practice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kåre Dyvik
Norway
Stavanger
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is not the reducing which puzzles me, but the wording of the withdrawal movement. If you end in your start position, that means you haven't moved at all, right? Or is it possible to move in a way that brings you back to your starting position, as LordJesse suggests?
I have only played this twice, so there may be obvious examples which escape me...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah. I can't think of any situation where you can move during a withdrawal and wind up back where you started unless it was a pivot like Lord Jesse described.

I think the wording is intended to capture any case where you are still in your starting position after attempting a withdrawal move. So it will include units that have no allowed moves for withdrawal as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The phrasing is not "cannot withdraw" so as to avoid any gamesmanship where a player elects not to withdraw.

If you go with "cannot withdraw" as the phrasing, we'd have arguments about whether a 0-step move constitutes a mandatory withdrawal. Ludicrous? Consider that a 0-step move can constitute an attack. So "cannot withdraw" is arguably incomplete.

However, the phrasing as it exists covers all such cases. Can't withdraw? Eliminated. Elect not to withdraw? Eliminated. Find some weird rules loophole allowing circular withdrawal? Eliminated. There are no loopholes.

---
I will note, however, that "reduced until eliminated" is needlessly complex. One can simply remove the offending block with the same effects; it does not alter the future availability or distribution of remaining replacement blocks for that command to do so.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kåre Dyvik
Norway
Stavanger
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you, that makes sense, after all. The word is: take the rules literally, as printed. They mean what they say.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rachel Simmons
United States
Los Altos
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lomn wrote:

I will note, however, that "reduced until eliminated" is needlessly complex. One can simply remove the offending block with the same effects; it does not alter the future availability or distribution of remaining replacement blocks for that command to do so.


I would by no means suggest that this was my finest hour of rules authorship. The problem was that I had never defined what it meant to "eliminate" a block except in the context of a 1-strength block, and needed it in no other context. Rather than define elimination in a more general way, I chose to explain it in terms of successive reductions. And so, there was a reason, but maybe not a good enough reason given that the net benefit of writing it that way has been questionable.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I suppose the thing I should have noted, then, is a reminder that a player is not required to expose his strength-2 replacement blocks (or, in the case where he is required to do so, it's because the final full-strength block of the command is being reduced, and so it doesn't matter whether or not that last strength-2 replacement sticks around). Certainly the downside of my "just remove the block" suggestion is that it disrupts the symmetry of 1-strength blocks, and could confused the player a few turns later when he wonders why he's got that spare block still sitting around, and where they screwed up along the way.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rachel Simmons
United States
Los Altos
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lomn wrote:
I suppose the thing I should have noted, then, is a reminder that a player is not required to expose his strength-2 replacement blocks (or, in the case where he is required to do so, it's because the final full-strength block of the command is being reduced, and so it doesn't matter whether or not that last strength-2 replacement sticks around). Certainly the downside of my "just remove the block" suggestion is that it disrupts the symmetry of 1-strength blocks, and could confused the player a few turns later when he wonders why he's got that spare block still sitting around, and where they screwed up along the way.


Players are also entitled to track losses by looking at the blocks removed from play due to reduction. These blocks are supposed to be kept face-up for that reason. There are other ways to ensure that players do not skip reductions, resulting in a false count of these blocks, besides the reduce-until-eliminated language, but it seemed simpler at the time to write it that way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
oystein eker
Norway
Unspecified
sola
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Kåre.

Thank you for a great battle, and congrats on a deserved victory as rebels. I think this case is solved. In short, we can just follow rules implemented in the illustrated example on top of page 12. We cant be do much wrong with that.



3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Clinch
United Kingdom
Bedford
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This happens when you are attacked in the rear.

Rebs declared an attack, whilst in position to both front and rear (obviously both can't attack due to doctrine and the Union should have withdrawn but were on Hold)

Rule 10 on page 6 Multiple Blocks in a position ...if a friendly block crossed the enemy rear, it is placed behind it. A block can NEVER pass through an enemy

Combat ensued and the defender lost (unsurprisingly)

Rule 14 (page 11) kicks in; first area crossed must be its rear.

Therefore, it is impossible to move as it can't pass thru the enemy and is reduced until eliminated.

Hope this nevers happens to you
Pete

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MLeis
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Little_Black_Dog wrote:
Rule 14 (page 11) kicks in; first area crossed must be its rear.

Therefore, it is impossible to move as it can't pass thru the enemy and is reduced until eliminated.
Page 10, right column: "If the defender is being attacked from the rear, use zero as the strength of the defender. Also, reverse the front of the defender."
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Clinch
United Kingdom
Bedford
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks - Good catch!

In our case it would still have been a reduction for the defender but at least they would have got away, but only one position which would have been adjacent to enemy resulting in another loss.cry

So, if all of the rear area's positions were occupied, then Withrdrawal would be illegal- then eliminated by reduction

cheers
Pete
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.