> No rule update, which is both good and bad.....
I thought that Edi had been consulted on an update, but I could easily
be wrong.
Is it possible that they fixed the example of the sup****t into the
opposite coast of an adjacent province? There is some ambiguity in the
2000 rules where the description suggests that a unit can sup****t a
fleet into either coast of an adjacent province regardless of whether
the coast itself was adjacent to the province occupied by the
province of the unit offering sup****t. The wording does not preclude
the alternate interpretation and the example names the adjacent coast.
Edi has related that the wording is a result of miscommunication among
Calhammer, himself and a technical writer from Hasbro, but that doesn't
stop some people from insisting on the erroneous interpretation. (Duck
and cover.)
The judge, in particular, exhibits the worst possible set of behaviors
in this situation. It insists upon a coast specification in the
sup****t, but does not re****t an error if it is not specified. Instead
it supplies a 'random' coast, which is not actually random but rather
the first order in its list. It happens that the judge not only does
not have the correct interpretation of the rule, but it also supplies
the 'illegal' coast as its default order for the most common situation
- MAR, LYO or WES into SPA.
Coast specification in sup****ts is a whole other can of worms...
Chris
|
