Re: [eia] dice re-roll policy

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
> Joel wrote:
> > I hadn't had a chance yet to register my objections; I agree with Mike. In
> > this case, I don't see how Prussia is benefiting from the error, since I
> > take it he was planning to besiege both cities come what may, but in
> > general I'm in favor of rerolls.
> >
> 
>     Well, I thought consensus was still within our grasp until I read this
> email from Joel.  Mike expressed a principle that I'm sure we all agree
> with, namely, no one should benefit from his own mistake.  As I said before,
> I'm sure we would all agree that Jim should re-roll if it can be shown that
> he has benefitted from the revisions he had to make to his orders.  So up to
> that point, it seemed like we were all on target for accepting a principle
> that re-rolls should be required only when failing to re-roll would benefit
> the one who made the mistake.
>     But Joel's email seems to make that consensus impossible.  He seems to
> be saying that he accepts that Prussia has not benefitted in any way from
> the revision of his orders, but Jim should still re-roll nonetheless.  (He
> didn't explain his reason for this position.)  If this interpretation of
> Joel's email is correct, then no consensus is possible on this issue.  That
> is a shame because if we can come to no consensus, then I fear that the game
> will occasionally get bogged down while we wait for Mike and Joel's approval
> to roll dice every time there is a die roll that might affect either of
> them.  (Speaking only for myself, I guarantee that I will not roll dice if
> there is a possibility that I will be forced to re-roll.  Luckily, though, I
> am not likely to have to roll against either of them in the near future.)

I think we've misunderstood each other. I agree that there's no reason for 
Prussia to reroll in this case, since he clearly was intending to besiege 
the two cities regardless of the siege rolls, and derives no benefit from 
the orders revision beyond making the orders legal. What I'm objecting to 
is allowing rolls to stand in cases in which it is not so clear whether 
knowledge of the rolls will affect the roller's actions.

-- 
J.


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