Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Commands & Colors: Ancients» Forums » Rules

Subject: More: Move Fire Move rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Hannibal Barca
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I should be thankful that my girlfriend plays all these wonderful games with me but I find that she actively tries to break the rules for all of them.

While I would look at the Move Fire Move card and use it to move, ranged fire, and then move again, she thinks outside the box and sees the word "optional" on the card and in the faq and uses it to activate a bunch of light units that are adjacent to my own forces and order them to close combat.

In the official Faq, it says:

"Q: Are the normal rules for ranged fire at work here?
A: Yes.
When a light unit moves in the first part, it only will roll 1 combat die. An auxilia unit, if it moves 2 in the first part, may not do range combat. Because the first move is optional, if a unit does not move in the first part, it may roll 2 range combat dice."


AND

"Q: When playing a Move Fire Move card is the fire optional?
A: Yes
Fire after the unit's first move is optional. Note a unit may not fire or close combat after its second move."


So the official faq states, the first move is optional, the ranged fire is optional, and that a unit may not close combat after 2 moves, which in this instance there were no 2 moves, there were 0 moves. It sounds like she is right, but she won the game on this move and so I feel I must ask:

Is using Move Fire Move to activate a bunch of light units adjacent to the enemy to close combat acceptable?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Watkins
United Kingdom
Reading
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
no, move fire move explicitly does not allow any close combat
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Donnelly
Canada
Comox Valley
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
The card says "units may move, may then fire..." It says nothing about close combat, and we have certainly never played that it allows CC.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hannibal Barca
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SkookumPete wrote:
The card says "units may move, may then fire..." It says nothing about close combat, and we have certainly never played that it allows CC.


This is how my girlfriend / opponent justified it... The fact that the card says nothing about disallowing close combat means it's allowed. I argued the nature of the card is just what it says, "Move Fire Move" and so you can't close combat but she will brook none of it unless it's spelled out in the rulebook / official faq.

Also in the official faq as I quoted above, it says:

"Q: When playing a Move Fire Move card is the fire optional?
A: Yes
Fire after the unit's first move is optional. Note a unit may not fire or close combat after its second move."

So the official faq says the "Fire" is optional and that you can't close combat after your second move... but it doesn't specify that you can't close combat after your first.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doesn't the word "fire" imply ranged combat only? Get her a dictionary.

The mention of no close combat after both moves is likely there to clarify that the "fire" is the only combat a unit may perform that turn. Otherwise, some people may think the fire part is a bonus attack and still try to perform a normal attack.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Doum
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hannibal Barca wrote:

This is how my girlfriend / opponent justified it... The fact that the card says nothing about disallowing close combat means it's allowed.


Aha! The problem is revealed. This arguement, that the rules don't say that you can't do something, is never valid in wargames, or most other games.

Simply point out the the rules don't say that you can't just remove your opponents Leader when you want to, Doesn't mean that you can. (Use your imagination for non-gaming examples.)

Concentrate on what the rules allow. Not on what they don't prohibit.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hannibal Barca
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AllenDoum wrote:
Hannibal Barca wrote:

This is how my girlfriend / opponent justified it... The fact that the card says nothing about disallowing close combat means it's allowed.


Aha! The problem is revealed. This arguement, that the rules don't say that you can't do something, is never valid in wargames, or most other games.

Simply point out the the rules don't say that you can't just remove your opponents Leader when you want to, Doesn't mean that you can. (Use your imagination for non-gaming examples.)

Concentrate on what the rules allow. Not on what they don't prohibit.


Great point, and I will bring that up. Thanks for the posts everyone.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff King
United States
Annandale
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
I had to break out my game and have a look...

I don't know if you're playing with a different edition than mine, BUT
right in the middle of my M-F-M card it says
Quote:
Order units may not Close Combat.



So there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And the typo is on the card too-- it really does say "order units" and not "ordered units.'

That is an addition made the second edition cards, which had a number of clarifications.

It would seem that Richard Borg played CCA with your girlfriend and realized he had to close some loopholes.


(And if she really wants to play, "anything not specifically mentioned does not count," just look for loopholes in the marriage service....)


But even without that addition, the first edition cards are clear (at least for anyone who isnt' trying to stretch the obvious.) It lays out your options one at a time-- you may move, then you may FIRE, then you may move again. You don't have to move before you fire. You don't have to fire before you move a second time. But there's no feasible way a person should be able to construe "close combat" out of the sequence on either edition's card text.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Boersma
Australia
Clyde North
Victoria
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sounds like she had a hollow victory... now the question needs to be asked... do you tell her???
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hannibal Barca
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kduke wrote:
And the typo is on the card too-- it really does say "order units" and not "ordered units.'

That is an addition made the second edition cards, which had a number of clarifications.

It would seem that Richard Borg played CCA with your girlfriend and realized he had to close some loopholes.

(And if she really wants to play, "anything not specifically mentioned does not count," just look for loopholes in the marriage service....)

But even without that addition, the first edition cards are clear (at least for anyone who isnt' trying to stretch the obvious.) It lays out your options one at a time-- you may move, then you may FIRE, then you may move again. You don't have to move before you fire. You don't have to fire before you move a second time. But there's no feasible way a person should be able to construe "close combat" out of the sequence on either edition's card text.


Yep, I have the first edition and it doesn't mention that quote on the card. And you're right after referring to the card in question once again, the options are laid out: you may move, you may fire, you may move... but she is a semantics lawyer and in the heat of battle the definition of "may" comes up (It depends on what the meaning of the words "is" is) and there I am, wanting to roll dice, play my own cards, and get on with it to my turn, so I give up and let her have her way.

In a similar rules contention issue with a game of Tikal, I pointed out numerous threads on the interpretation of the rule on BGG, and she said, and I quote: "The first person who encountered this inconsistency in the rules posted his question on BGG and someone chimed in with their opinion that sounded ok and so every person playing the game since that question was posted has played wrong." Ha. She emailed Rio Grande to ask them their interpretation of the rule and whoever over there emailed back telling her she was wrong and, accepting defeat (not graciously), she complained about the rules for Tikal being poorly written.

Anyways, i've all the ammo I need on this card in this post. I was right, she was wrong. And i'll make sure she knows that. Now... about that marriage service...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Boersma
Australia
Clyde North
Victoria
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow... playing games with her doesn't sound too fun. Some people are too serious when it comes to games.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
True, but if he really pays attention, he'll learn what mistake not to make later.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Parker
Australia
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Great game design makes the complex simple, replayability maximum, and abstraction credible.
badge
It’s not how well you roll that counts but how well the dice suit the game.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hannibal Barca wrote:
I should be thankful that my girlfriend plays all these wonderful games with me but I find that she actively tries to break the rules for all of them.


Yes the 2nd edition rules as others have said, on the last page in the card descriptions, states in no uncertain terms: "... units may not close combat".

The questions you must ask yourself before telling your girlfriend this are: Is the badabing badaboom good? Or is the make-up badabing badaboom better?

My advice, marry this girl
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
My advice, marry this girl


Were you paying attention? Get past the "she plays wargames" part and note the effect and style.

Actually, I think he's given ample reason to move very slowly in that direction.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hannibal Barca
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kduke wrote:
Quote:
My advice, marry this girl


Were you paying attention? Get past the "she plays wargames" part and note the effect and style.

Actually, I think he's given ample reason to move very slowly in that direction.


Ha... no, no, she is really a great girl. She is a lawyer when it comes to interpreting rules in games, and stubborn when she thinks something should be a certain way... but then i've yet to meet a woman who isn't. My posts here are in good natured jest about her manner.
 
 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.