Nate Ellefson on Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:41:10 -0500 (CDT)

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

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

My opinion:  In cases where a player isn't at war there should be a
great deal of leniency extended to revising orders in the event of a
legitimate error.  In cases where two sides are at war, and an error is
both a legal move and has been acted upon by the opposing player, the
error should stand as submitted to the list.  This case would include
any movement of forces within any reasonable proximity to the error.
People in this situation will need to be very careful.  In cases where a
player is at war, errors that are well away from areas where there are
opposing forces, or where opposing forces can't make a meaninful
response to the error, changes should be permissible.  Though I'm aware
that the decision has already been made, I would have come down in favor
of letting Joel correct his error, as there clearly is precident for
letting that happen.  But in future, this standard is what I would vote
on applying.

As to reusing rolls, I don't believe that should ever be permissible.
In addition to creating circumstances where the player will know what
the result of an action will be before he takes it, it will also be true
that players will only seek to reuse rolls that are favorable to him.
Though again I would have voted to let Kyle keep this rolls, in future I
would strongly advocate a strict policy against ever reusing rolls.

Any chance we can forge consensus on these issues before the August


> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Joel Uckelman
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 12:09 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> 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.
> > 
> >     Kushanz Ali will remain at Kiev.
> >     The Inf. Corps that originally moved to the space W. of 
> > Ekaterinoslav will move to Ekaterinoslav instead and lay 
> siege.  (F/4-, the roll was 4)
> >     The Cav Corps that originally moved to the space W. of 
> > Ekaterinoslav will move to Ismael instead.  (F/4-, the roll was 4)
> >     I will make my siege roll at Ekaterinoslav.
> > 
> > kdh
> I agree to the changes here, in this case only because the 
> forage effects are minimal. I am still opposed to keeping 
> rolls of any sort when the moves they accompany are changed 
> retroactively.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list