Re: [eia] Turkish land phase, July '05

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barring the two of you working something out, my opinion is that both sets
of original orders (including the typo) and the original forage rolls should
stand.  I feel this way because a reasonable amount of time passed between
Joel's orders and Kyle's orders, and because it has not been our custom to
ask for changes after the game has moved on in a way that was affected by
those changes.  Kyle could choose to be generous and allow both sides to
redo their orders, but that would be up to him.

Again, that's just my opinion (not trying to get anybody miffed; sorry if I
did).

-JJY
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Turkish land phase, July '05


> Thus spake "Kyle H":
> >     Ok, here's the deal I'm willing to make.  If you get to change the
> > location of one of your corps after I've sent out my land orders and
rolled
> > for forage, then I get to rewrite my land orders while keeping my
previous
> > forage rolls.  I think that's only fair.
>
> Knowing your forage rolls beforehand will let you tailor your moves to
> avoid any foraging casualties. All I'm asking for is the opportunity to
> correct an error in my orders that occurred when transcribing unit
> locations from my map. I'm not gaining any advantage from this that I
would
> not have had in the absence of a typo. Knowing your forage rolls
beforehand
> will let you tailor your moves to avoid any foraging casualties. That's
> something you'd never be able to do normally. I don't see these as
> commensurate at all.
>
> -- 
> J.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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