I assume this prevents a player from shuffling his pieces during a turn, so if a cavalry unit retreats into a local with another, unknown unit, and this loacle is then manuever attacked, the attacking player deserves to know whether the cavalry, or the unknown unit blocks the MA.

But, does this only allow a single shuffle each turn? Or, may a player shuffle the units in each area as needed?

The rules explicitly say that you reveal units when retreating, and then turn them face down after the retreat.

The way I've always played (and seen it played) is that you can shuffle face-down units in the same location any time you want. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point to having them face down.

I see that your rules citation is correct though. There doesn't seem to be an explicit reference to shuffling other than at the start of the turn. Hopefully Bowen will clarify, but I assume this is an oversight and that we've been playing the game as he intended.

There is no limit to the number of shuffles a player may perform in a turn, only when they may be performed. The rules do mean what they say about the shuffle being performed at the beginning of the turn. The reason behind that limitation was to avoid any possible confusion that might result from the possibility that pieces that had been moved being shuffled together with pieces that had not. Your example of how this limitation can be significant is correct.

A unit is not prevented from retreating multiple times during the enemy turn, or from retreating from one maneuver attack and then blocking another, right? It seems to me that, when a piece is moving to block an attack, it's not relevant whether it's already retreated once during the turn, and therefore the attacking player would not have the right (or any reason) to know whether the blocking unit was one which had retreated earlier.

Given a unit that moves 3 locales up a road into the reserve of a new locale: if it is then shuffled with other units that started the turn in that locale, it's impossible to confirm that the unit won't move any farther.

I understand that the phasing player shouldn't be able to do shuffles other than at the start of his turn. The non-phasing player is a different story.

Let's say an Austrian cavalry maneuver attacks along the road from 2 to 3. The French player reveals a cavalry, which retreats to area 6, where it is turned face down again and joins another French unit that was already there.

Now the Austrian cavalry makes another maneuver attack along the road against area 6. If the defending player can't shuffle the two units now in 6 reserve before using one of them to block, the game changes radically from the way I've played it, or any of my opponents have played it.

Is that what you're suggesting, Bowen? Or is it only the phasing player who is limited to shuffling at the start of their turn?

If the rules are literally correct, and the only shuffling allowed is at the start of a player's turn, I don't understand why units are turned face down at the end of a retreat. It would seem more straightforward to just leave them face up until they can be shuffled.

Ah, I understand now.

Yes, I agree with George. I've always played that after retreats, it's permissable to shuffle units, too. Indeed, it would make a rather big change to the game, I think, to stick to the wording of the rule. I hope we've been playing in the spirit of it.

The rules mean what they say about when units can be shuffled. The non-phasing player is not permitted to shuffle his units after a retreat. Arguably it would be better if retreated units were left face-up until the end of the turn, but that isn't the rule as it stands.

I would argue that it would be better if retreated units were permitted to shuffle. What's the benefit of preventing that?

At every other point in the game where you're supposed to know the identity of a face down unit, it gets turned face up. This ruling would be particularly awkward in CyberBoard, where move files sometimes mysteriously generate a mismatched game state warning.

Until such time as this gets cleaned up in the official rules, I strongly suggest that players always adopt one of the two following optional rules when playing :

Revealed Units (optional rule):
Units that are turned up for any reason, including retreats, may not be turned face down until the beginning of the owning player's turn.

- or -

Defensive Shuffle (optional rule):
The defending player may shuffle face down units which occupy the same location before responding to a maneuver attack.

One option or the other should be selected before bidding for sides!

Note that either option satisfies the stated intention of avoiding the prospect of a unit moving twice in its turn. I believe the first option (which seems to be Bowen's intent) would be very advantageous to the Austrian, while the second (which is how I, and everybody else I know, actually play) favors the French in most circumstances.

Here's an excerpt from the text transcript of my current tourney game:

"2-cav in 2 moves along road to 3 and maneuver attacks 6. French 2-cav retreats to 11, and Austrian enters 6 and maneuver attacks again. One French unit blocks, and Austrian enters the approach."

My French opponent retreated his cavalry to 11, then shuffled it before blocking my second maneuver attack, so I have no idea whether or not the blocking unit is his cavalry. This is perfectly fine with me, because I did the same to him in our last game when I had the French. In other words, we are playing (de facto) our current tourney game with the Defensive Shuffle option in effect.

I'm one of the more experienced players around, and have never previously heard anyone suggest that defensive units can't be shuffled. The fact that Bowen apparently plays it differently than the rest of us goes a long way towards explaining the French bias that exists in ladder play.

Not being able to shuffle is one of the penalties for retreating.

From a simulation perspective, I think that if the retreat penalties have a problem, it is that they are too mild. Given this, I think that making retreats less painful would make the game worse as a simulation.

From a game perspective, most people (though not all) seem to find it easier to win with the French. Given the fact that the French generally do most of the retreating, I think that reducing retreat penalties would be bad for game balance and would make the game worse as a game.

Do you have any philosophical objection to the Revealed Units option, Bowen?

I have no problem accepting** the idea that units can't conceal themselves during a retreat. I'll think of it as hot pursuit. But if I'm supposed to know the identity of a unit, I think it ought to be face up.


**I've got no problem playing with the Revealed Units option in future games, but I certainly wouldn't think of changing the way we play during the game that's already in progress.