Help - my head hurts!

And I’ll also add my ten-penneth Haardrada....which takes it up to 20p.
(hey, with a few more comments and it might even reach a full £1  )

The Bad Going Movement rule in the last paragraph on page 12 says:-
“A group move by road or across bad (not rough) must be in or into a column unless entirely by Psiloi, ”

Everyone assumes that the “unless entirely by Psiloi” applies to the “group move”.
But what if “unless entirely by Psiloi” is meant to apply to “in a column”?
After all, the “unless” bit immediately follows the word “column”, and not “group move”.
On other words, Psiloi are an exception and don’t need to be in a column in bad going to move as a group.

Of course, all this is pure rule lawyer knit-picking.
It doesn’t matter what the rule says or how we individually interpret it.
The consensus of the DBA community is that the entire group must be Psiloi, and that’s what matters.



Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter

So Stevie you seem to have changed your mind. But let’s unpack your thinking. Everything may group move through BG in column with the exception that Ps don’t need to be in column. So it is not the group move that is the problem it is the requirement to be in a column. Camels may group move through the same terrain because it is not BG and so also don’t need to be in column. Hence there is nothing stopping the combined group move of Psloi and Camels across the common terrain of dunes because the group moving through the BG not in column IS entirely Psloi. The camels are not moving through BG and so can also be not in column and the group is therefore OK because it is across the same terrain.

So from your argument the Cam/Ps group move is legal unless you add the additional interpretation that all elements must be in exactly the same terrain for exactly the same considerations as each other. In which case any Psloi will have to stop a group move across BG on exiting the BG unless each element does so at exactly the same time. Indeed a column group moving across BG would have to exit that BG one element at a time. Which I would observe is not the consensus of the DBA community.

So clearly the logical extension of the No interpretation is crazy while the logical interpretation of the Yes interpretation only challenges one possible interpretation on one word and doesn’t lead to any other repercussions. Now you can see why my head hurts. This is not only a case of Barkerese meets real world but Barkerese contradicting Barkerese and I can see both sides of the argument.

Oh I do feel your anguish Paddy.
And what you, I and Haardrada say does indeed make sense.

If the Bad Going Movement rule in the last paragraph on page 12 had said:-
“A group move, unless entirely by Psiloi, by road or across bad (not rough) must be in or into a column.”
...then there would be no problem.

If it were written like this, then it would clearly be indicating that the “unless” applies to the group move.
But instead the “unless” immediately follows the word “column”, implying that is where the “unless” applies...
...but the DBA community insists that “unless” be applied to the “group move” at the beginning of the sentence.
(and for all I know they may be right)

　　“A group move by road, or across bad (not rough) must be in or into a column.”
                  ↑                                                                                             ↑
　  　"unless entirely                                                                        "unless entirely
　　       by Psiloi?"                                                                                by Psiloi?"

So we have two choices:-
　　We can simply follow the crowd,
　　Or we can try to persuade the crowed that they are wrong.
　　(and believe me, I have tried many, many times in the past!...
　　...not on this particular issue, but on several others  )
　　
The truth is neither Phil Barker nor the play-testers ever conceived of what would happen when Ps and Cm moved together.
Or maybe they did, and they thought that “unless entirely by Psiloi” would cover the situation.



Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter

I was going to leave this question alone as the opinions were sticking to the rule and the rules formality and if I continued I've seen such things evolve into shouts of Heresy!

Therefore,being the Heretic I am, I agree with You and Paddy...maybe it was missed in play testing like other situations that have surfaced...so how are they put right...if at all? Does this question go forward to FAQ as an ammendment or is it put on the pile to possibly surface in an ammendment in a future rule update while meanwhile lingering as a house rule?