I'm sure there are conventions in reading game rules--have to be--but "not all
that uncommon" doesn't make it. Yet I'm sure that the root of many rules
confusions is assuming that "this set of rules is like that set of rules". I am
quite literal-minded, don't try to read between the lines like some people,
maybe that helps me. It would really be a bad idea, I think, to try to write
rules for people who "read between the lines". Rules are like technical
writing, there shouldn't be any reading between the lines.

--- In eurobrit@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Agress" <kmagress@...> wrote:
>
> >Well, to me, if it doesn't say the unit must accompany the leader during
> its
>
> >**entire** move, why would you assume that?
>
>
>
> I'd say because it's not all that uncommon a convention for movement with
> leaders in games. You're correct that it's an assumption, but it's not at
> all surprising that it's one being made to me.
>
>
>
> > It's the assumption that creates the confusion, not the rules statement
> itself.
>
>
>
> It's both. The rule is not entirely clear either way. It could take either
> meaning. "I accompanied my wife to the party." Does that mean I went with
> her and we stayed together? Went with her but left separately? Stayed by
> her side the entire time? The only thing that's certain in the statement is
> that I made it to the party with her. Anything else you derive from that
> sentence is an assumption. If I want you to know that we left separately
> because I had to go catch a plane, then I need to add more to the sentence.
>
>
> >Yet I'll keep that in mind for further rules sets. When people become
> confused about what "or" means, just about any confusion is possible.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Is there a sentence in the
> rules you're referring to? Quoting the text of the rule from page 13:
>
>
>
> "Any armies accompanying leaders may move three
>
> areas and need not stop when entering a difficult terrain
>
> area. This is an exception to the normal movement
>
> rule. Moving across a strait still stops the leader and
>
> those with him. The armies must accompany the leader
>
> for their entire move in order for them to gain these
>
> movement advantages."
>
>
>
> The last sentence really implies that to gain any of the movement
> advantages, the armies have to remain with the leader for their entire move.
> Note that this is the version of the rules from the first FFG printing.
> It's fine if that's not the case, but I find the (incorrect) assumption
> that's being made to be pretty reasonable with that phrasing. The example
> that follows really reinforces the assumption:
>
>
>
> "Example: A leader starting in Bernicia with two armies
>
> may move to York and pick up two more armies and then
>
> continue with a total of four armies through (empty)
>
> Lindsey to Norfolk. The armies in York may not have
>
> moved prior to being picked up by the leader, nor may
>
> they continue moving after entering Norfolk."
>
>
>
> The fact that continuing to move would require an additional movement point
> for the York armies (Lyndsey-Norfolk-York) makes sense to disallow without
> the leader, but since the example doesn't say why specifically, it's an
> assumption.
>
>
>
> Note that I'm not generally saying the rules suck (they certainly don't).
> Just that for this particular rule, it's not hard to reach the wrong
> conclusion.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>