| William Jaffe on Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:05:26 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| RE: [eia] Still disagree with Mark & Mark |
I'm fine with that, just so we can get on with things. Bill Jaffe Playing Wargames since 1958, and 18xx since 1829... billj6203@xxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MALabbett@xxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:56 AM To: eia@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [eia] Still disagree with Mark & Mark I have read and re-read sections 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.6 and 6.3.1 (and 10.8) to see if there is an interpretation. My reading of the rules as they stand are unclear so I borrowed from my legal training (many years ago) in English Common Law. Using the golden rule of Statutory Interpretation (and it really is more of a guideline) if you change the first word of the fourth line of 6.2.6.1 from "fight" to "attack" then it resolves the problem. However I cheerfully admit that I am not a Law Lord... If you guys are unhappy with this then may I suggest rule 10.8 [Settling disputes]applies. Each side rolls one die and the winner sunks one additional ship to decisively win the struggle. You can even justify this on the grounds that Edinburgh in Late May would have 17-18 hours daylight as it is at nearly 56 degrees latitude, so a tight battle could go on just that little bit longer until one side breaks . Cheers Mark L _______________________________________________ eia mailing list eia@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia _______________________________________________ eia mailing list eia@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia