Diplomacy Going Back Into Print?!

The question is, will it have the same rulebook or do we get another
"update"
of the rules?

Lucas

On Jan 4, 6:17 am, "David E. Cohen" <david_e_co... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good news for the Hobby:
>
> It seems a bit strange that someone just stumbled across this, rather than
> there being some official announcement, but a preorder option for Dip is
> evidently available at Funagain Games:
>
> [url]http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=018474[/url]
>
> Interesting box cover, and it looks from the description (315 total pieces,
> including SC ownership indicators) that each country may get 15 of each unit
> type (17x7 of the ownership counters, 15x7 armies and 15x7 fleets equals
> 315).
>
> The map, from what I can see of it, seems attractive, but odd.  The province
> borders are altered, though the *relationships* of the provinces seem
> correct.  It is difficult to tell from the small picture available.
 >> Stay informed about: Diplomacy Going Back Into Print?! 

> 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 support into the
opposite coast of an adjacent province? There is some ambiguity in the
2000 rules where the description suggests that a unit can support 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 support. 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
support, but does not report 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 supports is a whole other can of worms...

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: Diplomacy Going Back Into Print?! 

L.B.Kruijswijk.RemoveThis@inter.nl.net writes:

No rule update, which is both good and bad.....

Jim-Bob

>The question is, will it have the same rulebook or do we get another
>"update"
>of the rules?

>Lucas

>On Jan 4, 6:17=A0am, "David E. Cohen" <david_e_co....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Good news for the Hobby:
>>
>> It seems a bit strange that someone just stumbled across this, rather than=

>> there being some official announcement, but a preorder option for Dip is
>> evidently available at Funagain Games:
>>
>> [url]http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=3D018474[/url]
>>
>> Interesting box cover, and it looks from the description (315 total pieces=
>,
>> including SC ownership indicators) that each country may get 15 of each un=
>it
>> type (17x7 of the ownership counters, 15x7 armies and 15x7 fleets equals
>> 315).
>>
>> The map, from what I can see of it, seems attractive, but odd. =A0The prov=
>ince
>> borders are altered, though the *relationships* of the provinces seem
>> correct. =A0It is difficult to tell from the small picture available.
 >> Stay informed about: Diplomacy Going Back Into Print?! 

Chris Babcock <cbabcock.DeleteThis@cox.net> 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 support into the
>opposite coast of an adjacent province? There is some ambiguity in the
>2000 rules where the description suggests that a unit can support 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 support. 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
>support, but does not report 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 supports is a whole other can of worms...

>Chris

Agreed.

Jim-Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Diplomacy Going Back Into Print?! 

>>> No rule update, which is both good and bad.....

The old AH Dip forum, where I had set forth 15 or 20 rules issues to be
looked at/fixed, is about to be set to read-only, and will eventually be
deleted. AH/Hasbro/WotC is replacing it with a forum in its new "Gleemax"
bulletin board. The new Dip forum is
http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=756 . I have gotten myself
named a "Forum Lead", and will either get them to port those threads (and
others) over (they are looking into it--technical issues may prevent it), or
I will start the threads over myself. At least this way the issues, and the
views of a cross-section of the Hobby on them, will be "in front" of the
people who will be remaking the game in the future.

By the way, I would encourage people to join the forum, and talk Dip there.
The more interest the public shows in the game in view of AH/Hasbro/WotC,
the more interest AH/Hasbro/WotC will have in it...
 >> Stay informed about: Diplomacy Going Back Into Print?!