Leader bonus and CX
- Thread starter geezer
- Start date
serpico
Member
Why would you want to stack if only the leader wanted to move 8mfs? The squad could CX and move 6mfs itself....unless the squad wanted to avoid the CX penalties? :nuts:
Not sure you can do that once you declare double time already stacked (leader and MMC).....because your intention is imparting that extra movement to the MMC as a combined move.
One other thing you could do is move a leader/MMC stack 6mfs, then Leader declares Double Time and you only get 1 extra mf when you declare at the end of the move, so 7mfs....this would suggest your idea isn't allowed?
Interesting question though......
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,652
- Reaction score
- 5,634
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
The squad, alone and not carrying more than 2PP can declare double time at the beginning of its MPh and spend 6MF.
The leader can accompany the squad during these 6MF and use the remaining leader bonus 2MF alone (this would not be different from normal move, with a leader accompanying a squad for 4MF and spending 2 more MF separately).
The leader can accompany the squad during these 6MF and use the remaining leader bonus 2MF alone (this would not be different from normal move, with a leader accompanying a squad for 4MF and spending 2 more MF separately).
Yes, you are correct. This may certainly be a viable tactic if you need the squad to move 6 MF and the leader to move 1/2 additional MF. As indicated in the answers, you can do the same by moving them separately, but then you need to CX the squad. If you want to achieve it withouth making the squad CX, then doing it as you suggested is the right thing to do.
James Taylor
I love women with brains
A. Ole is correct... it is a legal move.
B. There are plenty of reasons to do just this, (Being CX is not exactly a desirable situation). I did it AT LEAST twice in games at ASLOk.
C. If this is a rules change then it is news to me, because I've been doing this for years. (This is probably the whole "The MPh versus Its MPh clarification right? Whether it is s a change or not depends on how you were playing it before.)
JT
B. There are plenty of reasons to do just this, (Being CX is not exactly a desirable situation). I did it AT LEAST twice in games at ASLOk.
C. If this is a rules change then it is news to me, because I've been doing this for years. (This is probably the whole "The MPh versus Its MPh clarification right? Whether it is s a change or not depends on how you were playing it before.)
JT
Treadhead
Senior Member
You mean you've been misunderstanding the meaning of "starts and ends the MPh" [emphasis added] for years?James Taylor said:
Well, that and whoever owns right to change the rules.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am wondering how the understanding comes about that a particular rule or statement is somehow "wrong"?
I mean, the original statement was clear enough; I wonder what reasoning concluded that the original statement did not actually intend the thing so clearly stated.
Not picking on you JT.
Regards,
Bruce
I agree that this specific move was not legal between the 95 and 2005, but it was legal before 95 (when "its" was changed to "the" to remove some sleaze, and at the same time added some problems).
The J6 errata was introduced to still prevent the sleaze but at the same time remove the problems.
No general answer, but the most usual case is a discussion here (or on the ASLML in the past) revealing that a rule is ambigious or has other problems...
I assume you by "original" means after the '95 errata.
In that case, the rule prevented a a leader-bonus stack from declaring double time after having moved 5 or 6 MF, it prevented the stack from gaining road bonus. It prevented a stack from using its 6th MF if one MMC got broken/pinned or otherwise prohibited from moving, after the 5th MF - and it prohibited the move discussed in this thread.
Neither of those restrictions were in the original rule (edit: well, maybe the first, I don't really remember), but was introduced as a side effect in 95, and neither was intended, at least AFAIK.
James Taylor
I love women with brains
No prob, Bruce.
I'm just telling you what I think the reality on the ground was/is.
I couldn't give you the history on the rule that Ole has... but I can tell you that after you attend ASLOk and get *showed* how to play the rule you go with it.
Same thing with Motion Attempts.... up until Gary Fortenberry decided that motion attempts were a "The MPh" thing everyone was playing "Its MPh". I tried to pull the Fort thing a couple years before him, but got peppered with tomatoes and beer cans. (Ok, not really, but figuratively). When Fort did it he was a somebody at AH and so the change in play was *official*. After Fort's departure Perry made a correction to reflect how it had been played (and should be played IMHO.)
So yeah... basically the *wrong* understanding comes about because in the past players have made their own decisions to correct rules they felt were broken. Games don't wait for the rulebook to catch up... they keep happening and players use their own *house* rules. Sometimes these *house* rules become widely adopted when they make sense across the spectrum. Sometimes they get pitched when something is done to fix the rulebook.
This is just another example in a long line, right?
JT
James Taylor
I love women with brains
Something not being said here:
Players get tired of the rules flip-flopping back and forth. I have heard MANY, MANY players express frustration at this phenomenon.
Sometimes when that happens, they just agree to play it a certain way and to hell with the RB.
*shhhhhh* I've even been involved in an ASLOk final where this happened.
JT
Ralph Malf
***** Veteran
I think the move is legal due to this eratta for section A4.12 from the MMP website. (My emphasis on three words in the paragraph.)
A 4.12: replace entire section with “Any Good Order MMC
which begins the MPh/APh and ends its MPh/APh stacked
with a leader of the same nationality in the same Location, at
the same level (2.8), and with the same Wire/ entrenchment/
panji/paddy status is eligible for a two MF bonus during that
MPh/APh, provided it expends all its MF while moving in a
combined stack with that leader, and does not expend any of
its MF to mount, ride, or dismount any form of conveyance."
So, in the original example, the MMC did start and end its MPh with the Leader, and the MMC did expend all of its MF with the Leader. The Leader just continued on after the MMC could go no further.
Wow! That is a HUGE change from what the rule originally seemed to say.
I do think it is now more consistant with A4.2, which says units moving as a stack can break up and move individually.
I guess I'd better spend some time putting the sticky eratta in my rulebook.
Rick
A 4.12: replace entire section with “Any Good Order MMC
which begins the MPh/APh and ends its MPh/APh stacked
with a leader of the same nationality in the same Location, at
the same level (2.8), and with the same Wire/ entrenchment/
panji/paddy status is eligible for a two MF bonus during that
MPh/APh, provided it expends all its MF while moving in a
combined stack with that leader, and does not expend any of
its MF to mount, ride, or dismount any form of conveyance."
So, in the original example, the MMC did start and end its MPh with the Leader, and the MMC did expend all of its MF with the Leader. The Leader just continued on after the MMC could go no further.
Wow! That is a HUGE change from what the rule originally seemed to say.
I do think it is now more consistant with A4.2, which says units moving as a stack can break up and move individually.
I guess I'd better spend some time putting the sticky eratta in my rulebook.
Rick
As I wrote in my previous post, it is not such a HUGE change from the original rule. The HUGE change was done in '95 errata, and the J6 errata changed the rule to some middle ground between the original rule and the post '95 rule.
For the record, the original rule said: "Any Good Order MMC which begins and ends its MPh/APh stacked with a leader ... is eligible for a two MF bonus"
The '95 errata changed "its MPh" to "the Mph", while the J6 errata then changed it to "Any Good Order MMC which begins the MPh/APh and ends its MPh/APh"
IMHO, the post J6 rule is the one which best captures the probable original intention, and is the most intuitive as well.