Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Washington's War» Forums » Rules

Subject: Lone General Retreating into Lone Enemy General rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Fr. Shawn Tunink
United States
Kansas
flag msg tools
I recently had the following situation occur:

British general was defeated and lost all his CU's
The only retreat was to a space with an American general with no CU's and no
American PC marker.

Per 9.61.A the space is a legal retreat since it contains neither an American CU nor an American PC marker.

Neither general would seem to be captured since neither has a CU with him.

Yet, 7.4.A indicates that although a lone general can move through a space with a lone enemy general, he can't stop there.

So, what happens?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Every Man a (K-State) Wildcat!
badge
"Just get that sucka to the designated place at the designated time and I will gladly designate his ass...for dismemberment!" - Sho Nuff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The British general is captured. It is illegal for him to end his movement in the same space as another general, so it is as illegal to end there as it is a general with combat units.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Shaw
United States
Kennesaw
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Can we get a rules reference? Not doubting; would like to have something to point to besides the Geek. cool
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fr. Shawn Tunink
United States
Kansas
flag msg tools
If it would be illegal for the general to retreat onto another lone general then why do the rules indicate only that is illegal to retreat onto a space with an American CU or an American PC? That would seem to imply that a space with an American general is legal.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guatemala
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you would have to apply Movement rules besides Retreat rules to this case. As Judd Vance said.

7.4 Restrictions on Movement
The following restrictions apply to movement at all times:
A. In order to enter a space containing an enemy CU, a General
must be moving with at least one friendly CU. A General
moving without a CU may move through a space containing
an enemy General without accompanying CUs, but may not
stop in that space.

So, lone enemy Generals can't share the same location. So, it´s an ilegal move. So, the British General is captured by a small but devoted force of local rebels. Shame on him.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Boyes
United States
Bothell
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
inefable urlik wrote:
I think you would have to apply Movement rules besides Retreat rules to this case. As Judd Vance said.

7.4 Restrictions on Movement
The following restrictions apply to movement at all times:
A. In order to enter a space containing an enemy CU, a General
must be moving with at least one friendly CU. A General
moving without a CU may move through a space containing
an enemy General without accompanying CUs, but may not
stop in that space.

So, lone enemy Generals can't share the same location. So, it´s an ilegal move. So, the British General is captured by a small but devoted force of local rebels. Shame on him.


Retreat is not Movement in most wargames. Movement rules don't govern retreat. Similarly, in most wargames Advance After Combat is not Movement.

In Washington's War Reinforcement may be allowed to spaces to which Naval Movement is not allowed. Reinforcement is not Movement.

What often makes sense to us gamers is not what the rules specify.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex N
United States
Metuchen
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Richard,

Those are good points you made and I am in agreement only because in the cases you raise, those wargame rules will explicitly state when retreats override movement rules.

In the case of Washington's War no such retreat override is stated for lone generals. As a result one should defer to the Movement requirements for lone generals. It would be a mistake to assume what the designer would have wanted without asking him directly. The way it stands now, there are no explicit rule contradictions in having the lone general surrender when he retreats onto another lone general space.

Alex
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Stacking Rule is important to this conversation.

I came here tonight with the OP's very same question, except it was Washington retreating sans forces into a lone Burgoyne (ouch - my opponent was unusally on top of his game). After a dozen or more plays and being very familiar with the rules/errata, I was still a tad stumped over this situation.

After our own rules interpretation, I gave up Washington for captured.

Why? First, the above posts demonstrate there's a need to clarify para 9.61.A. which taken on its face seems clear enough. Yet rule 7.4.A does muddy the waters. However while I agree with Alex that no retreat override exists, the front sentance for para 7.0 reads,
"Movement only occurs...when Generals have been activated...".
It also provides exceptions to 'movement' only for interceptions and retreats BEFORE battle. So one could deduce that, retreat does NOT equal movement.
Thusly our interpretation is, para 7.4 does NOT apply to retreats during battle.

So discarding para 7.4 as noise, why didn't I stick by the clear-as-day wording in para 9.61.A to save Washington's butt?

The reason is in the Stacking Limits rule on page 4, and even this can be interpreted two ways: It says,
"Except during the resolution of a battle, no space may contain Generals and/or CUs of both sides."

My opponent and I went a round discussing the definition of 'resolution' of a battle. I suggested that 'resolution' included the retreat (as can be inferred by para 9.2, Step 6). But I eventually conceded, recognizing that the situation of having two opposing Generals on the same space would exist AFTER battle resolution no matter how you define it, and thusly is forbidden per the stacking limits. So I handed-over Washington, only due to this rule.

I would love to hear your thoughts on our interpretation. Either way, if there is ever a new version of the Errata, I propose this situation be clarified.

Thx,
bgm1961
1 
 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.