Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

Commands & Colors: Napoleonics» Forums » Rules

Subject: Cavarly Retire and reform rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ivano Rosa
Italy
Ferentino
Frosinone
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
What happens if the first hex is occupied by a friendly leader?

1) The Cavalry Retire and Reform is NOT allowed, the Friendly Leader stop the movement and thus the Cavalry cannot retreat two hexes. The Cavalry Retire and Reform is allowed if the Friendly Leader occupy the second hex.

2) The Cavalry Retire and Reform is allowed if the Friendly Leader occupy the first hex. The cavalry stop the movement in the first hex.

3) The Cavalry Retire and Reform is allowed if the Friendly Leader occupy the first hex. The cavalry with the leader must retreat another hex.

which is the right answer? I guess 1), is there a word from Mr.Borg regard this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Cairo
United States
Brookville
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Playing Wargames Since 1976 (image from Rand Games Associates)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are asking about a case where the cavalry is refusing melee from infantry, then I think Case 3 applies. This is a voluntary action, not a combat result.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Retire and Reform is NOT Retreat and isn't treated as such. You must retire the full 2 hexes in order to be able to perform this action.

In order to be able to retire, the hexes have to be unoccupied. If a leader is in the first hex, the cavalry cannot select that spot and must go the other route if able. If this is also blocked, then Retire and Reform is not an option here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dippel
Germany
Rheinhausen
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
I am from Bavaria
badge
King Ludwig II of Bavaria
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
What about, using the official FAQ on ccnapoleonics.net
before posting such questions whistle

http://www.ccnapoleonics.net/Rules/FAQs/leaders.html

And yes, this official FAQ are the offical words from Richard
so Brian is wrong with his answer

So the answer 2 of the OP is right!!!!!
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Bayernkini wrote:
And yes, this official FAQ are the offical words from Richard

Where is the source located.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivano Rosa
Italy
Ferentino
Frosinone
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Thanks for quick replies and for the link!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dippel
Germany
Rheinhausen
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
I am from Bavaria
badge
King Ludwig II of Bavaria
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Quote:
Where is the source located.


The source on the FAQ is about Mail contact between Alessandro or me and Richard whistle
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Bayernkini wrote:
Quote:
Where is the source located.


The source on the FAQ is about Mail contact between Alessandro or me and Richard whistle

Perhaps you should list that then. It doesn't even state that on the FAQ that I can find.

And GMT should update the rules to call it a Retreat then.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dippel
Germany
Rheinhausen
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
I am from Bavaria
badge
King Ludwig II of Bavaria
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Brian, all CC sites from Alesandro, have an official support status.
ccancient.net, and ccnapoleonics.net. supported by GMT,
samuraibattle.net from Zvezda and
at last, Richard itself support the new ccbattlecry.net website,

So all stuff about rules/FAQ on these websites are official, because
we checked the upcoming questions with the game designer staff or (mostly) direct with Richard!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Patterson
United States
Iowa City
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll accept the ruling, and it does make some sense that Retire and Reform functions like Retreat. Unlike Evade in C&C:A, for example, a player whose opponent has R&R'd can take ground, making it analogous to retreat. But while I know (and presume Brian knows) about CCNapoleonics.net, I'd presume that GMT would at least maintain parallel FAQ, as there's nothing in the 2nd edition rulebook that says either that R&R is, practically speaking, retreat or that the provision for a leader stopping a retreat applies to R&R.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy N
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why wasn't this addendum to the rule put in the 2nd edition rule book?

ColtsFan76 wrote:
And GMT should update the rules to call it a Retreat then.


I'm with Brian here. It should be called "Retreat(if there is a lone leader behind you) And Or Retire And Reform"
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Crespi
Italy
Bologna
Bologna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi guys,
as Michael said I've recevied the permission from GMT Games to setup "Official Websites" for both Ancients and Napoleonics.
I've listed them here on BGG.
This is the link about C&C Napoleonics
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/weblink/88463/ccnapoleonics-net...
After reaching CCN webiste you can see FAQs section and search for desired answer.
http://www.ccnapoleonics.net/Rules/FAQs/
My website is also listed on GMT website (ONLINE RESOURCES)
http://www.gmtgames.com/p-413-commands-colors-napoleonics-2n...
Maybe I should ask GMT Games to give more relevance to C&C .net websites? Adding "Official webiste" note?

With the help of some kind users I'm keeping updated sections on websites, in particular answering FAQs (publishing official answer directly from Mr Borg).
On my side I could modify and change FAQ sections to be more clear.
Or even post FAQ answers here on BGG.
I'm open to suggestions and would like to know your opinions about that, so that I can make C&C websites even better.

Please let me know and sorry for bothering you about this.
Cheers
Alessandro - C&C Series website admin
7 
 Thumb up
1.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Crespi
Italy
Bologna
Bologna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ciao Ivano,
this FAQ from CCNapoleonics.net website should answer your qeustion
Quote:
Does a friendly leader in one of the two hexes that cavalry need retire into block the action? For instance, in the example on page 16 of the rules, if there was a friendly leader on either of the two wood hexes, can the cavalry retire and reform?

A cavalry without an attached leader may Retire and Reform one hex onto a hex that contains an unattached friendly leader (i.e. a leader alone in a hex). The leader is immediately attached to the unit and the cavalry unit does not have to retire and reform its second hex.

So your 2nd option is correct.
Alessandro
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Yes, I am aware of the cc---.net sites. It just rubbed me the wrong way someone coming in here with what I perceived as an arrogant attitude and chastising us for not using their site.

The rules clearly state one thing and appears contradictory to this ruling. If Richard stated this, I am fine with that. But I think sources should be quoted instead of some nebulous communication that may or may not have been had in an email.

As an example, the Memmoir 44 FAQ maintained by rasmussen clearly states in it that all answers have been reviewed and approved by Richard. at the very least, Alessandro, to give yourself more authority, quote the message and date of the ruling by Richard.

Beyond that though, publishers usually take control of the game and rulings may not always line up with the designer's intent. I don't know the specific relationship set up between GMT and Richard, but DOW sometimes, and FFG frequently, ruled against Richard in their respective games.

Since nothing has been mentioned in the 2nd edition rules, I am not even sure GMT would be aware of this "change." As a parallel, from 2nd Edition to 3rd edition Ancients changed the Evade procedure to incorporate this concept of letting a lone friendly leader stop an evading unit after 1 hex. But an evade in Ancients also lets you go only 1 hex if that is the only option to you.

So the procedure is different in Ancients on a couple fronts. It was updated about a year before Napoleonics came out (my save date on 3rd ed. Ancients says 2009 while Nappy says print date of 2010). It seems to me if GMT wanted the same procedure, it would have been clearly spelled out in the original rules, but at least by the 2nd edition update. So I don't quite buy the answer yet.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that a reference to the CC___.net FAQs should be pointed out to players in some significant, noticeable way—if that's where the official answers are. A note in the next edition of the rules and/or a link on the GMT website would do. (Update: I see that that GMT links to these sites through the Resources section of each game.)

I also agree that if Richard Borg endorses the FAQs as "designer's intent" (at the very least) that should be appear in the headers of the FAQs. References to dates questions were asked and answered would be nice, but a notice that the FAQs have Richard Borg's endorsement (and the publishers, too, if it can be obtained) would suffice for me. It would put players at ease that what they're reading has been reviewed by the designer.

Still, I see no problem with asking and answering questions here (or on consimworld, for that matter), either. Not everyone is aware that the .net sites are the "go to" places for rules queries. If a real chestnut is wrangled here, there's no reason why the ruling can't be settled by Richard here (or in an e-mail) and the answer shared here, consimworld, and the .net site.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivano Rosa
Italy
Ferentino
Frosinone
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I'm compiling an "unofficial" BIG FILE for the next (i hope soon) 3rd Printing that correct everyhting....... I'll send the files to Tony C. in the hope he read carefully.

If you are curios what i mean for "everything", here an example:

Commands & Colors: Napoleonics Highlights:

Reduced units Units reduced to single blocks may not be able to battle due to terrain dice reductions.

De Laborde is wrong, missing leader name in the first/second scenario, etc...

or to add the boxes with numbers (with nice era fonts) in the bottom left of the map to hold the victory banners. In our thousand play, we often forgot the score and we must count (chaos in the battle)... with this little change you only see the "number".


I'm working with 1st Printing materials... why first edition? I've opened the box of the second printing to see immediately that the "Ranged Fire Chart" has stil errata in leader Flag/Leader (if i remeber correctly.... can anyone confirm that is still missing "apply one retreat - Note 7)?

I've about 18 pages of FAQ/Changes... most cards must be reworded... i'll then pass to 2nd Printing and i see the changes and merge my works with the new rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dippel
Germany
Rheinhausen
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
I am from Bavaria
badge
King Ludwig II of Bavaria
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Quote:
It just rubbed me the wrong way someone coming in here with what I perceived as an arrogant attitude and chastising us for not using their site.


I have nearly same feeling with some posts here , because
if the players would do only a little own work, before posting any here,
and use the search function, then they can find this thread already

(Search keys "retire leader retreat" - time to find it, less than 2min)

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/9498212#9498212

in which the answer was already given (without knowing of the existence of ccnpoleonics.net) and referred then to the official FAQ on ccnapoleonics.net.

So the question is, which players are the "arrogant" ones, those which simple refuse such work and threads/answers
or those (like me) which try to arouse such players to do such work first.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivano Rosa
Italy
Ferentino
Frosinone
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Caesar wrote:
Ciao Ivano,
this FAQ from CCNapoleonics.net website should answer your qeustion
Quote:
Does a friendly leader in one of the two hexes that cavalry need retire into block the action? For instance, in the example on page 16 of the rules, if there was a friendly leader on either of the two wood hexes, can the cavalry retire and reform?

A cavalry without an attached leader may Retire and Reform one hex onto a hex that contains an unattached friendly leader (i.e. a leader alone in a hex). The leader is immediately attached to the unit and the cavalry unit does not have to retire and reform its second hex.

So your 2nd option is correct.
Alessandro


Wow.. nice work, i've added it to my list of "preferiti" !!

As i said in previous post, i've "played" only the 1st Printing, and the FAQ section in the site is very very uncomplete.... unless in the second Printing most tactics cards and rules has been rewrited (i hope so)..

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivano Rosa
Italy
Ferentino
Frosinone
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Bayernkini wrote:
If the players would do only a little own work, before posting any here,
and use the search function, then they can find this thread already

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/9498212#9498212

in which the answer was already given (without knowing of the existence of ccnpoleonics.net) and referred then to the official FAQ on ccnapoleonics.net.

So the question is, which players are the "arrogant" ones, those which simple refuse such work and threads/answers
or those (like me) which try to arouse such players to do such work first.


Sorry for my poor English...


I agree with you Michael but after many years i suppose to see a file in the GMT website...

I've time to read every posts here and CSW.. (actually i'm at page 3 of this section of this forum and post 1171 of CSW), and i discover the great site of Alessandro now..

This question unfortunately come in the game i'm currently playing..

What about other players? In most cases the official answers from Mr.Borg are "different" from the strictly implement of the rules and common sense (squares for example)...

in this case the Cavalry must retreat 2 hexes... so the rules as written forbid the Retire and Reform (it is my logic, where i'm wrong?)..... how many players that no read posts here or CSW play the game "wrong"?.

[EDIT] For now i've seen 6 questions about La Grande Manoeuvre.... for what? for the word "strategic" in the card. Common sense says that all cards says "move" and this card says "strategic move" = this card is different so no movement restriction, otherwise what is the rationale to add "strategic"?.

I'm curious, has been deleted the word "strategic" in 2nd Printing?

Ivano
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Bayernkini wrote:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/9498212#9498212

in which the answer was already given (without knowing of the existence of ccnpoleonics.net) and referred then to the official FAQ on ccnapoleonics.net.

In which the same discussion is had as here. People read the rule book and give the same answer as given here. Those threads change nothing. If anything, it shows GMT should have been aware of it even longer and done something about it if they had wanted it this way.

Quote:
So the question is, which players are the "arrogant" ones, those which simple refuse such work and threads/answers
or those (like me) which try to arouse such players to do such work first.

So you continue to insult and expect to be listened to. My advice is to let Alessandro handle it. All you are doing is "arousing" my disdain for semi-official 3rd party sites.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Lowell
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems like nothing new for him:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/14446669#14446669
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Minot
North Dakota
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bayernkini wrote:
What about, using the official FAQ on ccnapoleonics.net
before posting such questions :whistle:

http://www.ccnapoleonics.net/Rules/FAQs/leaders.html


That would be easier if the FAQ could be compiled a printable format (i.e .doc or .pdf) that we could access easily, print out, and have handy when we play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thom Brennan
United States
Louisiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I think we can all agree that an "official" rules clarification and errata sheet from GMT would be very nice to have.

In the meantime (I'm being hopeful), I would think we all benefit from making it easy for folks to get quick, polite answers to their questions, regardless of their posting location. Newcomers to the game may not be aware of the official site. It's easy to come across the wrong way when you only use written communication as you lose all the subtleties of body language, tone of voice, etc. Toss in language differences and you pretty much have a recipe for not coming across the way you intended.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Titan Lord
United States
California
flag msg tools
Im with you on this Brian. Based off of just reading the rules I agree with your answer. Faq or no Faq that's how I play it too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Titan Lord
United States
California
flag msg tools
as to Michael: why be so harsh? this site is to learn and have fun. sometimes rules can be read a hundred times and they just don't seem to click. What seems obvious to some, is confusing to others. That happens to all of us gamers. Then a question regarding it is posted here and people answering help make it click. Sometimes I post here simply because I don't have time to check all sorts of other FAQS or postings. So to you I say: lighten up...its only a game...
5 
 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.