Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Unhappy King Charles!» Forums » Rules

Subject: Lone Generals rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
The rule 8.2 says:

The owning player must remove to the Unemployed Generals Box any General (including a Subordinate or Subordinating General) who has no Brigades at any stage after placement unless otherwise provided.

I read this rule as follows: if the last Brigade under Subordinating General is removed due to desertion, the Subordinating General is also removed and the General he subordinated shows up in his place.

BUT. According to this thread on CSW it is not the case. So says The Author:

The three Brigades under Rupert count as under Charles's command (against his nine brigade maximum)- you are never alone with three brigades and a nephew. But if Rupert were to leave him the jig would be up for the Man Of Blood. The Royalist player might therefore choose to have one of Rupe's lads instead.

Either I am misinterpreting the rule, or misread what Charles says, or someone -- not me! -- is wrong.

Anyone help?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew J
United Kingdom
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
Invicta
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It looks like you're interpreting the rule correctly. If the only brigade directly under a subordinating general is removed then the general is removed but any subordinated generals (with attached brigades) remains behind (and therefore takes their place on the main map). Charles's quote seems to refer to the same thing - remove a brigade from a subordinate Rupert rather than the single brigade with the king or else the latter must be removed from the army*.

*edit: "if the subordinate is activated and moves away" (what I write didn't make any sense otherwise!)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grouchysmurf wrote:
The rule 8.2 says:

The owning player must remove to the Unemployed Generals Box any General (including a Subordinate or Subordinating General) who has no Brigades at any stage after placement unless otherwise provided.

I read this rule as follows: if the last Brigade under Subordinating General is removed due to desertion, the Subordinating General is also removed and the General he subordinated shows up in his place.

BUT. According to this thread on CSW it is not the case. So says The Author:

The three Brigades under Rupert count as under Charles's command (against his nine brigade maximum)- you are never alone with three brigades and a nephew. But if Rupert were to leave him the jig would be up for the Man Of Blood. The Royalist player might therefore choose to have one of Rupe's lads instead.

Either I am misinterpreting the rule, or misread what Charles says, or someone -- not me! -- is wrong.

Anyone help?


I think the words "who has no Brigades" include those of his subordinate. But if you read it differently follow your version. At this remove I cannot remember the derivation of this concept.
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martyn Smith
England
Bourne
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
"We don't see things as they are, but as we are." The Talmud
Avatar
mbmbmb
Charles Vasey wrote:
grouchysmurf wrote:
The rule 8.2 says:

The owning player must remove to the Unemployed Generals Box any General (including a Subordinate or Subordinating General) who has no Brigades at any stage after placement unless otherwise provided.

I read this rule as follows: if the last Brigade under Subordinating General is removed due to desertion, the Subordinating General is also removed and the General he subordinated shows up in his place.

BUT. According to this thread on CSW it is not the case. So says The Author:

The three Brigades under Rupert count as under Charles's command (against his nine brigade maximum)- you are never alone with three brigades and a nephew. But if Rupert were to leave him the jig would be up for the Man Of Blood. The Royalist player might therefore choose to have one of Rupe's lads instead.

Either I am misinterpreting the rule, or misread what Charles says, or someone -- not me! -- is wrong.

Anyone help?


I think the words "who has no Brigades" include those of his subordinate. But if you read it differently follow your version. At this remove I cannot remember the derivation of this concept.


+1 for, "At this remove..." Elegant phraseology... thumbsup
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
myrmex wrote:
Charles's quote seems to refer to the same thing - remove a brigade from a subordinate Rupert rather than the single brigade with the king or else the latter must be removed from the army*.


Charles says that the King is never alone, provided Rupert -- his nephew! -- is his subordinate, irrelevantly of how many brigades are under King's command; that is how I read Charles' comment.

Charles Vasey wrote:
I think the words "who has no Brigades" include those of his subordinate. But if you read it differently follow your version. At this remove I cannot remember the derivation of this concept.


Is this a convoluted way of saying my original interpretation was correct? Basically, my question boils down to: if general has no brigades under direct command but does have subordinate(s) who, in turn, has brigades under their direct command:

1. he is then
2. he is not

removed from the board and sent to the unemployed general box?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grouchysmurf wrote:


Charles Vasey wrote:
I think the words "who has no Brigades" include those of his subordinate. But if you read it differently follow your version. At this remove I cannot remember the derivation of this concept.


Is this a convoluted way of saying my original interpretation was correct?


No.


grouchysmurf wrote:
Basically, my question boils down to: if general has no brigades under direct command but does have subordinate(s) who, in turn, has brigades under their direct command:

1. he is then
2. he is not

removed from the board and sent to the unemployed general box?


And my answer was 2
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
All right, I get this.

Mind me asking another question?

Again, quoting the rulebook: The owning player must remove to the Unemployed Generals Box any General (including a Subordinate or Subordinating General) who has no Brigades at any stage after placement unless otherwise provided.

In context of your answer, what do the words, that I had bolded out, refer to?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Stimpson
United States
Westminster
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This has also caused me some questioning at times, but in principle, I think it more normal for the overall commander of a force on the march or in battle NOT to have units of his own (other than, perhaps, his own bodyguard, which would still have its own commander). So I believe it more reasonable, if you have a group of leaders such as King Charles, Prince Rupert and Hopton in a space, so long as Rupert and Hopton have brigades, the King need not have any of his own.
 
 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.