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.

No serious ones. Obviously the rules were written for the physical game, and special Cyberboard issues do not lie within their purview. If such an rule is necessary from a manageability perspective, then it is necessary.

I do not, however, favor an optional rule that would allow players to shuffle retreated units. I do not think that the retreat penalties should be reduced from what they are in the rules.

I didn't mean to imply that it was only a Cyberboard issue.



I believe it is. We're effectively talking about having three unit states in the game:

1) Face up - known
2) Face down - unknown
3) Face down - known

I can't see any reason why the third state should exist, whether playing PBeM or on the table. The Revealed Units optional rule is a simple method of eliminating that third state.



I'm fine with that. The real reason I wrote the second option was to clarify the way that people have actually been playing in 70-odd recorded games in the BaM Ladder and BaM 2006 Tourney. We all thought that the second option was the actual rule.

I personally am going to advocate playing with the Revealed Units option in future.

I've never gone out of my way to prevent people from making up optional rules for the game. Wargaming has always supported a cottage industry of game variants, and that's fine. What it comes down to is that if you've bought the game, you can do with it as you please.

If the question, however, is whether I intend to change the official rules, the answer at this time is no, I don't. My own personal experience with the rule is not negative, and it is extensive.

While I completely agree with your argumentation, I'm not sure I would follow your conclusion. It's true that "technically", the third state is redundant. However, I don't think that in practice, turning a unit face down right after a retreat adds a "memory-element", since the follow up attack usually happens right after the retreat. This is true for face-to-face games, and cyberboard. Cyberboard even has the advantage for the attacker of "going back" a few steps and confirming the identity of the unit that retreated if necessary.

On the other hand, keeping retreated units face up until the start of a players turn would add some complication in cyberboard, because the player would need to remember that units have to be turned face down in the first place, and then switch to spectator view to confirm which units need to be turned face down again.

So while "technically" you are right, the procedure as it is in the rules now seems more streamlined and less error-prone for practical resons to me. I have been playing wrong too, but actually the rules are complete. If there is going to be another version, it should be made even clearer (e.g. mentioning in an example with a retreat that shuffling is NOT allowed at that moment) that shuffling is ONLY allowed at the start of a players turn.

I preferred the comment I read last night before the edit



Keyword being 'usually'. Let's say you maneuver attack at the start of your turn, and your opponent's cavalry enters an area with several other units. Then you do various other things, and at the end of your turn you maneuver attack that area from another direction. That would be a memory element, right?

Or let's say you're pushing a cav up the road, and you're interrupted by a phone call. You come back, and see two face down units, but don't recall which is the cavalry. Is it bad form to ask? If you do ask, is there any rule requiring the other guy to tell you? Of course a nice guy will tell you, but everybody isn't a nice guy. Do we want the nice guys disadvantaged?

Speaking of nice guy / bad guy stuff, let's say you retreat a unit into an area with 5 other units. Is nice guy going to put the face down cav at one side, slightly offset from the other units? Is bad guy going to stick it in the middle of the other units so it will be harder to remember?

If there were any tangible benefit whatsoever to having a unit in a face down known state, I'd be willing to discuss that. But nobody has advanced one. The best I've heard is it isn't burdensome.

Well, it certainly isn't burdensome to leave known units face up until shuffling time, either. And that way does have the advantage of avoiding all sorts of issues.

I've got no problem with memory games per se. Playing concentration with your kids can be fun. But when playing a wargame, I want to think about strategy and tactics. If I'm in the role of a general, I theoretically have staff officers to jot down details. I do not want memory elements in a wargame.



The F8 key is your friend. You need to check regularly to see what units you have revealed, because they become revealed for various reasons. That's true regardless of which method of play you're using.



I disagree.



There's a very good reason why everybody who wasn't personally taught by Bowen has played this incorrectly. Units start out face down so that you don't know their identity. You turn them face up to reveal their identity. There is a natural and intuitive connection between 'face up known' and 'face down unknown'.

So when people read that units can be turned face down at the end of a retreat, they naturally conclude that the unit gets to be unknown again, assuming other unit(s) in the area.

There is no tangible reason to break that connection. It simply makes the game awkward to no purpose.



I'd counter that it would be simpler to state at the outset that units may be turned face up for various reasons at various times, but they only turn turn face down again at the point in the game where the player is allowed to shuffle.

But neither you nor I have any say in that matter. It's Bowen's game, and he'll do as he thinks best.

i think this part of george's argument is particularly strong.

I understand that - I changed my mind, but I admit not being 100%-sure about either view



Yes, it would.. The question is: is there a point in doing "various other things" instead of following right away with another attack? How many "other things" can you do with 3 CPs and free road movement anyway? Enough to warrant a rule change that could be only the tip of the iceberg? See further below for an explanation...




Ok, but why stop there? Suppose the unit stays face up. What is there to stop the bad guy from just covering all the units with his hands or by putting the box cover over them? There is no rule against that either. The main rule here is probably: pick your opponents wisely and don't forget that it's all about fun!




Yes, it avoids some, it doesn't avoid others (see above).




Oooooh - now this is where it is getting iceberg-ish! So you don't want any memory elements in the game? Then why should units that have been face up at one point and have not been in a locale together with other units since then be put face down? They would have to be kept face up too, and not only until the start of the next round, but until they can be shuffeled with other units again, right? Where would you draw the line? This is getting very messy...

One of the "unwritten" rules in the game is that units are revealed for their action and then they are immediately turned face down as soon as the action is over (e.g. cavalry maneuver assault along a road, bombardment,...). This admittedly adds some memory element to the game, but if you don't want that at all, why not just play with open units? Or keep units open once they have had contact with the enemy? Those would be possible variants, but different games.



True - that was my reason for the first version of my post.



As I said - the other connection is that units are always face down at the end of their action. These two unwritten rules are in conflict with each other. In my opinion, messing with the second one has a greater impact and the potential to become messy. But that's my opinion.




True - so let's just enjoy this tremendous game as it is right now and wait for his final decision (if it is not already a few posts above this one). In any case, I competely dislike rules variants and prefer to play games as they were intended by the designer. But again, that's just my taste..

I tend to dislike variants, too, and employ them only if I feel strongly about the issue in question.

There is some precedent for optimism on this one. Back when the BaM ladder began, Dick Jarvinen posted a 'suggested optional rule' on his page. I had written that rule, which allowed cavalry to continue to an approach in the area they started in, so long as it was crossed by a major road, at no cp cost.

Pretty much everybody in the ladder adopted that option, which went against the official BaM rules of the day but seemed eminently logical. Earlier this year, when Bowen released an updated rule set, cavalry continuation became official.

Like any option, it would be necessary for both players to agree to it, otherwise the rules as published would be in force. I personally hope all my future games will be played using this new option, and I will recommend that others do the same. I'm optimistic that with widespread acceptance it may eventually be adopted into a future release of the official rules.

The rules are, in fact, explicit about when revealed units are turned face down. With the exception of bombarding artillery, it's exactly as you wrote (bombarding artillery, however, must remain face up until the end of its turn).



Me, too. But to do that in this case, I'd have to know if Bowen has a photographic memory. If he does, I'd have to use George's 'Revealed Unit' variant to be playing the same game.

Conceptually, I much prefer the actual shuffling rule (that only Clark seems to have noticed) to the three-card-monte routine we've all inadvertently adopted. I'm less happy to be increasing the degree to which differences in player recall ability will become a play variable.

I've used the correct rule twice now: as a midgame correction to an ongoing pbem game and in a ftf game yesterday. It has a better "feel" than the mixmaster approach. The risk/bluff calculus is changed. Austria will, I believe, catch a bit of a break, which is fine: they were due.

But that's not even the case here. As I wrote above, memory is much more of an issue in cases where only one unit occupies a locale. No one talks about leaving those units open once they have been revealed. They could stay there for the whole game, beign "known" but face down at the same time. Would you insist on keeping them face up too, if your opponent turned out to have a photographic memory? Or dou you accept some memory element as being a part of this game (and other block games)? In the case of retreating units, the "memory task" is extremely easy compared to lone units.

And especially in cyberboard, none of these "cases" is an issue at all, since a player can always go back a few steps and verify the identity of a unit if he wishes so (at least once we all adopt the correct rule) - be it a retreated unit or a unit that has been sitting alone in a locale. This even eliminates a memory element that exists in face to face games.

You're absolutely correct that there have always been memory elements with units that are alone in area, Ben. And it hasn't been a burden, and nobody has been bothered by it. If a cavalry or an artillery is alone, I think we're all going to remember that until it joins up with other units.

I've played since the game was released without having a problem that a few units were face down and known. What precipitated my change of view was the discovery in this thread that I'm supposed to have face down known and face down unknown units mingling in the same area at the same time.

That is a very different situation. Up until now, if I moved that face down but known cavalry into an area with another unit, I gave it a shuffle and that was that. If I do so now, those units are going to coexist in different face down states through the remainder of my turn, and the entirety of my opponent's turn.

But if I'm supposed to know what the unit is, there wouldn't be any harm in leaving it face up, would there? If we agree it's supposed to be known, what's the harm in formalizing that by leaving it face up?

My stated intention with the optional rule was to avoid having units in a face down known state, so I'll re-word the option to better accomplish that goal:

Revealed Units (optional rule):
Units that are turned up for any reason, including retreats, may not be turned face down until such time as they are eligible to be shuffled with other units.

So, with consistency of application off the table, let's turn the focus back to what purpose is served by having face down units in both known and unknown states.



Bowen's stated design intent isn't impacted whatsoever by leaving known units face up. So we are left with the question of whether we wish to play a memory game or not.

The option I've offered does nothing to alter the play of the game assuming there is a level playing field in terms of memory. The option would have zero impact between two players with photographic memories.

But the good guy / bad guy situations and ethical dilemmas I touched on in an earlier post probably need to be addressed if you don't use my option. If you get distracted by that phone call, and don't remember which of the face down units is which, what should happen? You're supposed to know, but you don't. With my option in place, there is no dilemma.

So it comes down to this: do you or don't you want memory to be an important element in your wargame?

The only case I was making was that memory will play a larger part in the game. How could it not? The Universal Shuffling Error obliterated one category of memory exercise because pieces that were supposed to stay separated were illegally mixed together.

As the rule keeps them separate until the start of the owner's turn, the pieces can supply useful information that wasn't available before. If you can remember which piece was which. Even I feel compelled to at least try.



I'm not insisting on doing anything except following the rules as written, regardless of the state of my opponent's memory.

If my opponent and I were using George's variant, I would insist revealed units be kept face up until the start of the owner's next turn.



Is that a serious question?



My experience is otherwise. But in my experience, there are no easy memory tasks.



I completely agree with you here.

Yes, you could go back a few steps in CyberBoard every time to verify the unit's identity. Or you could just leave it face up, and nobody would have to waste their time doing so.