Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Sekigahara: The Unification of Japan» Forums » Rules

Subject: Can you move through your own Siege without stopping? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Nick Clinite
msg tools
mbmb
Rules pg.6 wrote:

7.3.2 Movement and Enemy Units
Moving blocks must stop when they encounter enemy units unless
enemy units can be Overrun (7.4).


What if those enemy units are in a castle under Siege?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
islan wrote:
Rules pg.6 wrote:
7.3.2 Movement and Enemy Units
Moving blocks must stop when they encounter enemy units unless
enemy units can be Overrun (7.4).

What if those enemy units are in a castle under Siege?

In a siege, the besieged blocks control the castle, not the location containing the castle, so I think moving blocks do not have to stop.

EDIT: crossing that out because it's incorrect; this was answered by the designer here.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Clinite
msg tools
mbmb
Though it doesn't really say 'encounter enemy controlled space', it says 'encounter enemy units'?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
islan wrote:
Though it doesn't really say 'encounter enemy controlled space', it says 'encounter enemy units'?

Yeah, my argument would be that you're not encountering enemy units, because they're hiding in the castle.

(I agree that a literal reading of the rule sounds like the moving units have to stop, but I don't believe that was the designer's intent.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thibaut Palfer-Sollier
Norway
Oslo
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think they have to stop. The reason is that the besieged units may very well want to declare that they are outside of the castle.
As the opportunity to be declared inside or outside of the castle only happens at the beginning of a combat, they have to stop to let the besieged units have this opportunity.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tublefou wrote:
I think they have to stop. The reason is that the besieged units may very well want to declare that they are outside of the castle.
As the opportunity to be declared inside or outside of the castle only happens at the beginning of a combat, they have to stop to let the besieged units have this opportunity.

That seems reasonable, but 8.9.6 says besieging blocks can move away, and the besieged blocks don't get an opportunity to interfere with that; why would blocks moving through be any different?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex
Canada
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Decision regarding the position of the defending army (inside or outside the castle) is only determined when the battle occurs.

So, although no definitive answer is provided in the rulebook, I believe (and always played) you have to stop.

Edit: Ninja’d ninja
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thibaut Palfer-Sollier
Norway
Oslo
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
That seems reasonable, but 8.9.6 says besieging blocks can move away, and the besieged blocks don't get an opportunity to interfere with that; why would blocks moving through be any different?

The blocking only happens when entering the area. Never when leaving.
As moving through is enter then leave, the blocking happens on the enter.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
afafard wrote:
Decision regarding the position of the defending army (inside or outside the castle) is only determined when the battle occurs.

I don't think that statement is consistent with 4.3 or 8.9.6, though.

You guys could be right--I've misinterpreted this rulebook before--but it'll take a clarification from the designer to make me agree with you.

EDIT: I am wrong; the designer answered the original question here.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thibaut Palfer-Sollier
Norway
Oslo
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A friend is calling the castles "tolls".
Very accurate naming I would say.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugues Richard
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
What matters in life is not the triumph nor the struggle but the triumph by tie breaker.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
tublefou wrote:
I think they have to stop. The reason is that the besieged units may very well want to declare that they are outside of the castle.
As the opportunity to be declared inside or outside of the castle only happens at the beginning of a combat, they have to stop to let the besieged units have this opportunity.

That seems reasonable, but 8.9.6 says besieging blocks can move away, and the besieged blocks don't get an opportunity to interfere with that; why would blocks moving through be any different?

Same as blocks that have retreated to another battlefield where the battle already happened this turn : they can move away on their next turn and enemy units don't get an opportunity to interfere. Blocks moving in though have to stop.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oninohugo wrote:
kuhrusty wrote:
That seems reasonable, but 8.9.6 says besieging blocks can move away, and the besieged blocks don't get an opportunity to interfere with that; why would blocks moving through be any different?

Same as blocks that have retreated to another battlefield where the battle already happened this turn : they can move away on their next turn and enemy units don't get an opportunity to interfere.

Wait, what? 8.8.5 says you execute that new battle immediately.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugues Richard
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
What matters in life is not the triumph nor the struggle but the triumph by tie breaker.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
8.8.5 Retreats into Combat
Quote:
It is possible for a retreat to cause another battle (or Overrun). If so, execute that battle immediately and resolve its consequences. The retreating blocks are the attacker for this new battle. If the retreating force enters an existing battle, the retreating blocks are added to the forces in conflict. It is possible for a retreating force to join a besieged force inside a castle and exceed, until the next time combat is declared, the stacking limit of the castle (see 8.9.6). This would in effect change the siege into a battle.

8.1 General rule
Quote:
Combat occurs after all movement. Combat must be declared in every location on the board where opposing pieces appear together. These declarations are made one at a time by the phasing player, with combat resolved immediately following each declaration. Combat will be a battle or a siege, the latter if either of the forces is inside a castle. After combat is resolved in a location, a new location is selected, until all such locations are resolved.


"All such locations" refer to previously said "new locations" in the same sentence meaning: there's no battle in already selected locations where combat already occurred this turn, only in new locations. For the same reason, there’s a siege situation but no siege battle when a beaten army retreats in their castle. Otherwise, stack in pincer would bounce of the same 2 locations till depletion. Matt streamlined Japan to only 3 main roads but not to the expense of realism where a general would be caught silly retreating from location A to B to A to B to A without ever thinking "lets hide in the forest, head for the mountains or stop inbetween" at some point.
The phrase "It is possible for a retreating force to join a besieged force inside a castle and exceed, until the next time combat is declared, the stacking limit of the castle" wouldn’t be needed if battles would always trigger when retreating to a contested location. It also means that blocks retreating to a siege standoff will be considered in the castle, even if exceeding the limit of 2 blocks, and not be able to move freely next turn – as would be blocks retreating in an already resolved field battle.

Edit: There's a FAQ here answering that particular situation
Quote:
Blocks retreating into a siege situation that has already been declared this turn join their side but do not fight this turn. If their side is besieged, they join inside the castle. In this way it is possible to temporarily violate the castle stacking limit but only until the next round of combat declarations.
If you retreat blocks into a siege that has not been declared yet, and you are the besieged party, then when you declare combat you must fight a battle. Reason: the new blocks arrived outside the castle, and the old blocks must fight alongside them. If that battle is lost, you are welcome to retreat any 2 of your blocks back to the castle.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oninohugo wrote:
8.8.5 Retreats into Combat
Quote:
It is possible for a retreat to cause another battle (or Overrun). If so, execute that battle immediately and resolve its consequences. The retreating blocks are the attacker for this new battle. If the retreating force enters an existing battle, the retreating blocks are added to the forces in conflict. It is possible for a retreating force to join a besieged force inside a castle and exceed, until the next time combat is declared, the stacking limit of the castle (see 8.9.6). This would in effect change the siege into a battle.

Well, you know, I would've put a different part of that passage in bold. The part you bolded is saying you don't fight a siege battle twice in one turn, but it sounds like you're reading "it is possible ... to join a besieged force inside a castle" as "it is mandatory," and I'm not sure that's correct.

Oninohugo wrote:
Otherwise, stack in pincer would bounce of the same 2 locations till depletion. Matt streamlined Japan to only 3 main roads but not to the expense of realism where a general would be caught silly retreating from location A to B to A to B to A without ever thinking "lets hide in the forest, head for the mountains or stop inbetween" at some point.

No way, I don't buy the "realism" argument. If 20,000 dudes can be routed from the field, melt into the woods 20 miles away, and reform into an effective fighting force under the enemy's nose in half a week, why can't they do that when they're in good order, before being routed? And if they can hide in the woods after losing a battle at location A, why is it necessary for them to retreat to B first??

Oninohugo wrote:
The phrase "It is possible for a retreating force to join a besieged force inside a castle and exceed, until the next time combat is declared, the stacking limit of the castle" wouldn't be needed if battles would always trigger when retreating to a contested location.

No, that's when it would be needed--when sieges offer an exception to the rule about enemy units fighting when they're in the same location.

Oninohugo wrote:
Edit: There's a FAQ here answering that particular situation

Is that from this unofficial FAQ, or something else? (It doesn't look like that has links back to the designer's actual answers, and that's what it would take to get me to agree with your interpretation. Same goes for the FAQ's "if you retreat blocks into a siege that has not been declared yet, and you are the besieged party, then when you declare combat you must fight a battle" bit; that sounds like an invention of the FAQ's author.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugues Richard
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
What matters in life is not the triumph nor the struggle but the triumph by tie breaker.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Be enlighten by the logic behind the rule by reading the designer notes at the end of the rulebook (last page) and before sterile refute, a lil research wouldn't hurt.

mcalkins wrote:
Adam is right about the card replenishment in a siege (draw even if the castle has not been taken). Also draw cards for losses in an overrun, just like a battle.

Guessing your next question...
You can retreat into a siege. The result depends on whether combat has been declared there this turn. If so, you can overstack a besieged castle legally, until next time combat is declared in the location.

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/694827/seiges-besieged-and-...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An aside: look, man, repeatedly posting & deleting causes errors when people try to reply to your deleted posts, and it repeatedly triggers subscriptions. Post once, and then hit the "Edit" link when you finally settle on your sickest burn. (I do think your 9:54 version is the best of the four I saw, but leave it this time!)

Here's the reply I wrote to your 6:51 version, but I'm quoting your 8:33 version because the bewildering spray of abuse was so funny:

Oninohugo wrote:
If you can't take anyone's word for it, why write to everyone here? If impervious to the logic of point to point movement and retreat rules for the degree of abstraction in this game, why waste your time making sterile refute? If you think the FAQ is fake, write to him directly or take a minute to search the forum. You can always hope to be answered on a question he already did 7 years ago or be enlighten by the logic behind it, found in the designer notes of a rulebook you should read at some point (last page).

mcalkins wrote:
You can retreat into a siege.

Of course you can retreat into a siege; that was never the question.

To repeat:

kuhrusty wrote:
it sounds like you're reading "it is possible ... to join a besieged force inside a castle" as "it is mandatory," and I'm not sure that's correct.

In other words, if units retreat into a location where combat has already been resolved as a siege, are they required to join the friendly besieged force inside the castle, or may they choose to conduct a battle/overrun normally?

You and the unofficial FAQ say the former, but I don't think that's supported by the rules (and your idea that both players can end the combat phase with units in the same location without a castle definitely isn't); nor is it supported by quoting the designer saying you can retreat into a siege.

And, no, I'm not searching the forum for that; your interpretation is bizarre enough that, even if the designer agreed with you, I would house-rule it back to what the rules actually say, because it's cleaner, simpler, and makes more sense.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugues Richard
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
What matters in life is not the triumph nor the struggle but the triumph by tie breaker.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Red my own post and thought it was not up to BGG and my standards so I deleted it. Same for other versions I felt were way too pesky for the level of care I have for obstinacy and laziness. I was doing other things at the same time if you can imagine that. Now, if you think turning a defending army into a bouncing between 2 locations attacking army till melting while the original attacking general (now defender) doesn’t have to commit anything after the first battle is more logical than a standoff, go ahead and play your own thing. In a game were not fighting is the main mechanic, in a time and place where maneuvers, bait, skirmishes and positioning was elevated to mastery and where a battle could develop for years with minor casualties, a mere day standoff is surely unthinkable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex
Canada
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Guys, we are talking about edge cases that almost never happen.
As the defender you must favor retreats locations where there are no enemy units.
As the attacker, he must retreat to one location from which some of his forces came from.

I have not played that many games but still, I have yet to see any retreat into battle scenarios.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugues Richard
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
What matters in life is not the triumph nor the struggle but the triumph by tie breaker.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
afafard wrote:
Guys, we are talking about edge cases that almost never happen.
As the defender you must favor retreats locations where there are no enemy units.
As the attacker, he must retreat to one location from which some of his forces came from.

I have not played that many games but still, I have yet to see any retreat into battle scenarios.

There's few roads in this game so those cases are not that improbable. Thanks for reminding us of the retreating rules but the problem is, as I already said, a retreating force becomes the attacker if they retreat in an enemy occupied space. So if you have troops in my back and split your forces in front before moving in, you would have effectively trap me. If I have no cards to play or too few and you win the first fight, with the interpretation of the clown’s rules, you would do more dommage doing nothing in subsequent battles by killing a single block every fight than trying to kill more troops but giving me cards to fight back. Since defenders win ties and I have to retreat to where I came (being the attacker all subsequent times) I’m toast bouncing between your armies. Not only that but moving across Japan takes many days. If my force is large enough, i could travel from a spot to another and back multiple times, racking miles upon miles.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff K
United States
Garner
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:

To repeat:

kuhrusty wrote:
it sounds like you're reading "it is possible ... to join a besieged force inside a castle" as "it is mandatory," and I'm not sure that's correct.

In other words, if units retreat into a location where combat has already been resolved as a siege, are they required to join the friendly besieged force inside the castle, or may they choose to conduct a battle/overrun normally?


Yes, this is in fact a good observation. It is your choice, if you retreat into a location with a castle. Rule 8.8.5 says that you "execute that battle immediately and resolve its consequences" during a retreat that causes a battle (opposing blocks). That means it works like any other battle. The only difference here is that, in locations with a castle, you may elect to be in siege and violate stacking, with the provisions of 8.8.5. But note, this would only happen if the siege had already taken place. If it hasn't yet taken place, then you follow the rules normally (ie two blocks can go into siege OR fight a field battle.)

8.8.5 does not, in fact, require you to do anything, as Rusty noted. There is only one small instance where you get a choice. And Rusty has noted it. Note that there is no restriction that a block can only battle once per turn. Indeed, if there are enemy blocks together in a newly created situation (ie retreat), then there must be a battle, and 8.8.5 tells you that all blocks in the location are able to be added. Note it even says added to "forces in conflict" so as to be completely neutral about the situation. This would include those already in a siege, who are now added to the newly gathered forces. And yes, this would invoke 8.9.2: siege is declared "When combat is designated, and not before..." So you get a new decision about whether to go into siege or not.

I agree it is an odd rule, but they had to do something I suppose to clean up this edge case. I would probably prefer it if this location were off-limits, but that may invite some gaminess as there is NO other circumstance where retreat locations are "illegal." That caveat is just cleaner, which fits the whole elegance gestalt of the game.

The key is: don't get hung up on who was attacker, who is defender, who is in siege in each turn. There is no memory or ongoing effect of these things. There is no "memory" to siege, it can change every turn, and even in the middle of a turn. Each new conflict causes a reset and you re-designate the participants role at the outset. Treat each separately!
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.