Chris Babcock <cbabcock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> 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.
Here is a direct quote from Edi: "It will be the same rules as the last
version since they did not have the time to even consider a rewrite or a
clean up."
>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 rules are not changing. We all know about that and wish it could be
clarified, wait until the next version. Key is that this game is supposed
to be "low priced", they're looking for volume and new players. But that
put the emphasis on SPEED and CHEAP.
>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.
Yeah, it seems I've talked about that one off and on since the early
1990's..... ;-)
>Coast specification in sup****ts is a whole other can of worms...
>Chris
Agreed.
Jim-Bob
|
