Art De La Guerre

[SteveR]

[Mike Bennett]

[Mike Bennett]

Duplicated

[Neep]

Mike, did you read through the discussion I linked to? You asked Gavin point blank about this and he gave you an unambiguous answer. And Dan participated at least in the start of the discussion. I quite agree that this should be in the errata. The post in the ADLG Technical Board folder describes a process where national refs promulgate ruling of and collect questions for the Rules Committee which issues rulings that are eventually incorporated into the errata. Reality falls a bit short of this, but this is still the forum of record, the rules committee did, sort of, speak, and we should find a way to all work together to keep everyone up to speed. Maybe someone should take notes.

[Mike Bennett]

[Andy Fyfe]

[babyshark]

[Neep]

Marc, FAQ stands for "frequently asked questions". It is essentially a cultivated "Q&A". Sometimes the questions are unequivocally answered in the rules but are so surprising that players constantly seek reassurance that they mean what they say. Other times the questions highlight an egregious lapse in the rules that needs to be filled with an erratum.
What you linked to is the errata. That is corrections to the text or sometimes corrections to the rules themselves i.e. changes. It is not a solution to a lack of clarity.

Overall the AdlG rules are good, the support plan is solid. But the execution is lacking. Rather than dwell on it, let me offer the following suggestions.

Have the rules committee publish once a quarter a "docket" of the questions that have come up that they will look at along with formal ruling on things they have decided. Then annually these would either generate an erratum, or be added to a second "Clarifications" document instead. I think the assurance of attention would make the discussion here much more focused and helpful.

[Hazelbark]

[Andy Fyfe]

[Hazelbark]

Thank you for the reminder


The Official confirmed ruling is:

The unit may no longer move if the ambush contains a unit when it is revealed at 1 UD.

[Andy Fyfe]

[Neep]

Dan, your post only muddies the waters.

It would be helpful to know what was said and who said it. Officially only three things are official, the French version of the rules, the errata, and published rulings of the DT rules committee. Anything else is opinion, often sound opinion, but as you yourself have noted elsewhere even the author's opinions are subject to correction or reconsideration.

I'm guessing you have always read this issue as written one way, and so took confirmation less newsworthy. I think that, right or wrong, there is a very natural alternative reading. There are two paragraphs on page 77. The third deals with the automatic detection of an ambush, either at 1UD in cover, or up to >29UD in line of sight. The fourth with voluntary revelation, and ends with a sentence permitting the opponent to continue their movement. The challenge is whether automatic detection ends the opposition's move and voluntary does not, or rather the last sentence should apply to both paragraphs together.

As best I can figure, the main considerations are that ending a move at 1UD prevents locking up a weak ambush in ZoCs or fleeing a strong one. (Or the annoyance of stopping a move 10's of UD's away ) The main reason for revealing during the opponent's turn is to avoid being outflanked by a diagonal approach. Both these can be worked around if everyone is on the same page.

But we are not. Because 3 1/2 years ago Gavin, talking with Hervé, insisted that movement continued after revelation, and per Andy this is the way the Madrid contest was arbitrated. So who should we follow?

Please DT, do better.

[Ramses II]

Not quite Neep. 
Paraphrasing that 3.5 year old thread, we said that a unit stops at 1UD when a real ambush is revealed. Otherwise if it is revealed at another point, the unit may continue its movement, but may not charge the unit(s) in ambush. 

So follow what Hazelbark has said above. 

[lionelrus]