Michael Gorman on 5 Dec 2003 19:51:32 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] Access

> It seems to me that, when considered temporaly, an access declaration in
> political phase could be a "response" to troop movement in the land phase,
> despite that the former comes before the latter in turn order.
True, but that's not how the game phases run, so it is also irrelevent.  The
game says there is an order to the land phase and I get to take advantage of
knowing before I make my move what everyone before me has done.  Hwoever you
want to image that in the real world, better spies, better mobility,
tendancy to seize the initiative, whatever, doesn't matter, the fact is
you're supposed to get to know certain things when you make certain
decisions.  With access moved, you lose foreknowledge you are supposed to
have the option of knowing when you make access decisions.

Yes, people have argued against forced access, I see no reason not to bring
it back up as the solution used to deal with the arguments made against how
the rules are written.  What is being proposed is a change to the rules, not
an enforcement of them.  Access is not in the political phase.  People in
our game are changing that to put it there and I am saying I think that is a
bad idea since it forces a model of access into place that I think is a poor
model.  So far, no one has agreed with me, but so far, I think I'm right and
have yet to see an argument that changes that belief.  I'll end up playing
with a what I see as a deffective rule as that's what everyone else seems to
want, but that hardly means I'm going to think the rule is any less
defective.  So I see no reason not to bring up how the rules as written can
be modified in an alternate fashion to still resolve the difficulties people
bring up with the access rules without having to put a dynamic decision into
the political phase and forcing it to be made in an awkward manner.


eia mailing list