At the start of the game, I can summon my first figure anywhere I like. e.g. Norsca.

If, in my next turn, I want to move/summon this figure somewhere else (i.e. NOT summon another figure from my reserve), can I summon this same figure anywhere on the board?

Do I:

a) remove him (leaving me with no one on the board) and then summon him anywhere I like? e.g. Badlands.

b) or am I forced to summon him to a space adjacent to where he's being summoned from? i.e. Troll Country.

I can find rules references to suggest that I am allowed to place a figure next to the space where he was (in effect, moving him one space around the board), but nothing that forces me to.

Angelic Despot said:

The answer is (b).

Once you place the very first figure on the board, you must follow normal move/summon rules.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, but could I ask you to elaborate a bit more?

b) does seem to be the opinion held by everyone else in my group, but it doesn't seem obvious to me.

Is what you're saying clear to you because of a line in the rules I've missed? Or to a FAQ? Or is that just the way it was 'obviously' intended when the rules were written and that's the way everyone plays?

Or are you following the normal move/summoning rules by removing your last piece when you summon him somewhere else, and thereby freeing yourself up to put him back on the board anywhere you like?

The rules state that Move, Summon and Place are synonymous.

Neither of these imply that you are first REmoving something, then REplacing it.

So if you wish to Move your figure from Norsca to Troll Country, then you can do that by Summoning him there. Following normal rules, as you say.

The "removing" substep you speak of does not exist. There is no way you can remove a figure without either killing it in battle or using some Chaos Card which lets you remove them.

Not that I think this will make a difference to your answer, but I was suggesting that the removing of a figure happen simultaneously with the placement of another, not as a pre-placement sub-phase.

Anyway, both of you seem fairly convinced that it's not possible, and this matches views of both of my friends that I was playing with when this issue came up. And no one else has posted here to support any other interpretation of the ruling.

So; thanks both of you for your thoughts.