|
Related Topics:
| TBC Fast Package(1-70) - Any Class Free 2000G - Wow per level per level. Dear Sir or Madam Hot Sale!For all of our news and are some Special Package! We now provide measured by..
Will It Lead to Trouble!? Issue 4 Available NOW - Issue 4 of Will It Lead to Trouble!? hit the streets Chock full of stuff, including Science Fiction, Super Hero's; lots of letters; music ; live reviews; Nostalgia and a NEW GAME - Fighting Talk - enter PLUS could this..
judge: master and player issue - Hi, I am game master and a player in a game. Today I changed the deadline and got back an email with several moves in it, see below. This is not so bad this move as I noticed France's moves but as I am Turkey they don't really matter at the moment...
Changing New Game: GM/player to GM - I am new to this GM business. I have to GM a game for a group of friends, but it's my first time through. I created a game using the commands listed below and find myself also a player, which I don't wish to be. Two How do I..
Support loop - Hi, I'm new to the game, and so is everyone else that I'm playing with. We are playing at work during lunch, and we have a scenario that I can't seem to find an answer for. The moves in question are; Austria A Rum S Bul Austria A Bul S Rum..
|
|
|
Next: Notebook screens
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Mar 01, 2006
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:25 am
Post subject: Illegal move?
Archived from groups: rec>games>diplomacy (more info?)
|
|
|
I had these units:
F MAO
F Spain(nc)
I wanted to adjust their positions and issued these orders:
F MAO-Spain(sc)
F Spain(nc)-MAO
The judge decreed that this was a bounce. No other units were involved.
I know that a fleet on a particular coast is deemed to occupy the whole
territory but my orders involved separate coasts. So is the judge
correct, and if so, why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Nov 04, 2004
Posts: 106
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:14 am
Post subject: Re: Illegal move? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The judge is correct, two units cannot swap positions.
<mickdip DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141219549.118418.301930@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I had these units:
>
> F MAO
> F Spain(nc)
>
> I wanted to adjust their positions and issued these orders:
>
> F MAO-Spain(sc)
> F Spain(nc)-MAO
>
> The judge decreed that this was a bounce. No other units were involved.
>
> I know that a fleet on a particular coast is deemed to occupy the whole
> territory but my orders involved separate coasts. So is the judge
> correct, and if so, why?
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 08, 2004
Posts: 397
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Illegal move? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
That adjudication is correct. The only way two units could legally swap
provinces would be if one or both of them moved by convoy. For example:
F Lvn-Pru, A Pru-Lvn: Illegal
F Lvn-Pru, A Pru-Lvn, F Bal-Convoys A Pru-Lvn: Legal
<mickdip.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141219549.118418.301930@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I had these units:
>
> F MAO
> F Spain(nc)
>
> I wanted to adjust their positions and issued these orders:
>
> F MAO-Spain(sc)
> F Spain(nc)-MAO
>
> The judge decreed that this was a bounce. No other units were involved.
>
> I know that a fleet on a particular coast is deemed to occupy the whole
> territory but my orders involved separate coasts. So is the judge
> correct, and if so, why?
> >> Stay informed about: Illegal move? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 04, 2004
Posts: 106
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Illegal move? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> F Lvn-Pru, A Pru-Lvn: Illegal
>
> F Lvn-Pru, A Pru-Lvn, F Bal-Convoys A Pru-Lvn: Legal
Actually, I would probably rule the 2nd case a bounce also, going back to
the "unwanted convoy" rule. Even if those moves were all made by one
nation, the usual interpretation of orders is that a unit goes by land
unless either (a) its impossible for it to do so or (b) it is specified in
the order that its going by sea. Neither is the case here... I would want
to see something like A Pru-Bal-Lvn or A Pru-Lvn via Bal in order to accept
it.
-Adam >> Stay informed about: Illegal move? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 04, 2004
Posts: 106
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Illegal move? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Actually, I just looked this up and it seems that the 2000 rules have
clarified the issue, and I was wrong in my previous post, with the
assumption that its one nation making all of those orders, we assume the
intent is to convoy, so the orders are legal.
Damn me for not reading the updates and ignoring the 2000 post discussions
on rgd on these topics!
-Adam
"adam silverman" <agman1010 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:du8epf$ifi$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
>> F Lvn-Pru, A Pru-Lvn: Illegal
>>
>> F Lvn-Pru, A Pru-Lvn, F Bal-Convoys A Pru-Lvn: Legal
>
> Actually, I would probably rule the 2nd case a bounce also, going back to
> the "unwanted convoy" rule. Even if those moves were all made by one
> nation, the usual interpretation of orders is that a unit goes by land
> unless either (a) its impossible for it to do so or (b) it is specified in
> the order that its going by sea. Neither is the case here... I would want
> to see something like A Pru-Bal-Lvn or A Pru-Lvn via Bal in order to
> accept it.
>
> -Adam
> >> Stay informed about: Illegal move? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
