Re: [eia] Responses to combined movement question

[jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Thank you for checking that out, Kyle.  Although I concede to the official 
interpretation of the combined-movement rule, it makes me feel better that 
others out there share my misgivings about it.  I would favor a house rule 
similar to the one Ragnar used in his game, but I realize that it would 
probably come down to an "Us vs. Them" vote, depending on who would benefit, 
and I don't want to go there.

-JJY

Quoting Kyle Haidet <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>    Hi guys.  Below I have included my post to the EiH email list as well as
> the full text of all 4 responses.  For those who just want to skip to the
> conclusion, all 3 respondents agree that mine is the correct interpretation
> of the written rules.  However, one of them says he disagrees with the rules
> as written and has made a house rule to suit JJ's interpretation.  If you
> like, you can read for yourself.  (Heck, you could even join the Yahoo-group
> and reply if you want.)
>    Does this settle the dispute as far as you are concerned, JJ?  If there
> are any future replies to this thread, I'll let you know.
> 
> kdh
> 
> ---Kyle wrote:
> Rule 4.11 (similar to 4.9 in EiA) reads: "Major Power Allies may declare that
> their Naval and Land Phases or just their Land Phases, or just their Naval
> Phases, will be combined for the remainder of the turn, with movement of all
> their forces being conducted in the order of the Major Power Ally moving last
> in each phase. The enables Major Power Allies to move and attack together. If
> desired write down combined movement declarations and reveal them
> simultaneously."
> 
> A friend of mine claims that this language entails that if France combines
> movement with other countries in the land phase, then it loses its choice of
> when to go.  My position is that France still retains its choice of when to
> go, but all allies must still go together whenever the last of them would
> go.
> 
> Here's an example of what I mean.  Suppose France is allied with Russia and
> they elect to combine movement.  My friend's position is that France no
> longer gets to choose when it will go in the land phase and must simply go at
> the same time as Russia (i.e., first).  My position is that France still
> chooses when to go, so if France chooses to go last, then France and Russia
> will both go last.
> 
> Who is right?  Any help will be appreciated.
> 
> -Kyle.
> 
> 
> ---Some guy named Jeroen wrote:
> 
> Kyle,
> 
> In the EiA rules you would be right because the
> sequence in EiA clearly states that first France
> chooses when he moves and then combined movement is
> determined.
> 
> In EiH it is the same (look footnote 47, it gets
> explained there).
> 
> Jeroen.
> 
> ---Then a big-wig named Ragnar chimed in:
> 
> Hi Kyle, 
> 
> Originally I agreed with your friend: You combine during the 
> political phase and France can pick France's order, not that of Fr/Ru.
> However, taking a closer look at (EiA) rules 7.1 and 7.1.2 and especially the
> order they are written in, I think that you're slightly more in the right.
> Reluctantly, though. 
> 
> FWIW: in my ftf games we ruled that such an advantage as you propose is
> simply outrageous and not allowed, basically taking your friends point of
> view. 
> 
> It's just one of those things..
> 
> Ragnar
> 
> ---Then a guy named Bob replied to Ragnar:
> 
> ??? I don't understand why you consider it outrageous. Consider the identical
> example, but with Russia allied with Spain rather than France. Russia can
> choose to combine with Spain in April (moving last), and then move
> independently in May (going first). Russia, in effect, gets a double move
> against any opponent (except a dominant France).
> 
> That is certainly intended and allowed in the Rules as Written. If Russia
> gains this benefit from an alliance with a puny country like Spain, why can't
> it benefit equally from an alliance with France?
> 
> 
> ---Finally, Ragnar responded:
> 
> Well, it depends on who was winning the game at the time it comes up. IIRC,
> it was France at the time, so... 
> 
> I did say that I agree with your point of view, albeit marginally, but I
> never tried to change the ruling. Basically we tend to go with whatever we
> agreed earlier, if only not to complicate matters too much.
> 
> Ragnar
> 
> 
> ---That's all so far... 
>              
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia