Disorder caused by a 'required extra move'.

[Alan Charlesworth]

Hi Phil

This is all about one simple principle. Namely there are those on this forum who think it is heresy to ask any questions about the rules and that so called gentlemen should figure it all out for themselves in private and not discuss any issues publicly.

Also I don't see that trying to understand how to get the best out of the rules makes anyone a 'rules lawyer'.

If that view is upheld then what topics can be discussed on this forum?

Regards

Alan Charlesworth

[Phil]

My objection is not to the discussion, but to the tone of the discussion. There's an element of 'I'm right, so you must be wrong' about several of the contributions, as well as a snide tone. I'm not prepared to tolerate that sort of thing.

Each person here is entitled to respect (for them as a person, and their opinions) and must, in turn, respect others, whether or not they think the other is right*. Anyone who can't abide by that won't be posting here for long.

*By definition, the only people who are absolutely right, in discussions about BP (or HC), are the authors. And, if you knew them, you'd know that they change their minds at times, and alter things. If you think a rule isn't clear, or don't like the way a rule plays, or don't understand why it is the way it is, change it to work the way you, and your group, think it should. I don't recommend changing rules 'mid-game', but a good time to discuss things that didn't work very well, and think of changes, is over a pint in the pub after the game.

Phil (moderator)

[Big Al]

Phil, why don't you just lock the thread and put an end to it all. Then there'll be growing animosity and everyone will just calm down and carry on. It's unusual for these things to happen in the first place, let alone spill over into other threads.

[Phil]

Phil, why don't you just lock the thread and put an end to it all. Then there'll be growing animosity and everyone will just calm down and carry on. It's unusual for these things to happen in the first place, let alone spill over into other threads.

I'm hoping to avoid that. But I will if I think we need to.

Phil

[Big Al]

Phil, why don't you just lock the thread and put an end to it all. Then there'll be growing animosity and everyone will just calm down and carry on. It's unusual for these things to happen in the first place, let alone spill over into other threads.

I'm hoping to avoid that. But I will if I think we need to.

Phil

Well, to be fair, we don't usually have any problems and even this thread was only warm, really. I don't think it'll be necessary.

[carvel2]

Can my big stick be grissini wrapped in palma ham ?

[Phil]

Oo-er missus!

[Big Al]

Can my big stick be grissini wrapped in palma ham ?

Be careful, Carvel. That's the second reference you've made about Parma Ham in the same thread. It might be considered Spam if you're not careful!

[paulsmodellingworkshop]

Can my big stick be grissini wrapped in palma ham ?

Carvel! trust you to lower the tone

I am assuming you have already asked Mrs Carvel?

[rigolgm]

Phil - I'm sorry to post another serious comment on what has become a slightly argumentative thread (not helped by me, maybe). I'll keep this very on-the-level and brief. I hope it's helpful.

There seems to be nothing in the book that says Retiring troops become Disordered automatically.

There is a Break Test table on page 72 where most, but not all, Retiring situations also require troops to become Disordered. Also the Retiring Units rules on page 73 specifically describe exceptional circumstances when Retire can cause Disorder - only when a Retire AND a formation change are needed at once (I guess there wouldn't be this description if Retires automatically caused Disorder anyway?)

All of the above robustly suggest to me that basic Retires don't result in Disorder. Evades are treated exactly as Retires, so Evades won't automatically cause Disorder either.

Mike F