Just to be through about is, the Model House Rules covers these various
problems in several different Rules, all from Section IV of the MHR which
can be found at
http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/id7.html . For those
unfamiliar with the MHR, the asterisked Alternatives are those which, in the
opinion of the Editor of the MHR (the writer of this email) may be in
conflict with one or more editions of the rulebook, though as stated in the
MHR, others may feel that additional Alternatives are in conflict. The
rules are as follows:
(3) Omitted Specification of Coast in Movement, Support or Hold Orders of
the Subject Fleet:
For a fleet located in a province having two coasts, an omitted
specification of the coastal location of that fleet in an order for movement
of that fleet to or from, for holding in, or for support from that province
will:
*Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order if legal movement to or from only
one coast of the province is possible for the fleet.
(4) Inaccurate Specification of Coast in Movement or Hold Orders of the
Subject Fleet:
For a fleet moving to or from, or holding in, a province having two coasts,
an inaccurate specification of the coastal destination or location of that
fleet in an order for movement of that fleet to or from, or for holding in,
that province will:
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order if legal movement to only one coast
of the province is possible, or if the fleet is located in that province.
(5) Inaccurate Specification of Coast in Support Orders of the Subject
Fleet:
For a fleet located in a province having two coasts, an inaccurate
specification of the coastal location of that fleet in an order for support
by that fleet will:
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order.
(6) Omitted Specification of Coast in Orders for Support of a Fleet:
An order for support of a fleet to, from or for holding in a province having
two coasts, in which there is no specification of the coast of the province
will
*Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order if legal movement to only one coast
of the province is possible for the fleet being supported, or if the fleet
being supported is located in the province.
Alternative C: be a valid order for support of the fleet being supported,
from, to or in either coast.
(7) Non-Corresponding Specification of Coast in Orders for Support of a
Fleet:
An order for support of a fleet to, from or for holding in a province having
two coasts, in which the coastal specification does not correspond to the
coastal specification of the order for the unit being supported will
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order if legal movement to only one coast
of the province is possible for the fleet being supported, or if the fleet
being supported is located in the province.
Alternative C: be a valid order for support of the fleet being supported to,
from or in either coast.
<tomas_ahlstrand RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155162108.429678.44140@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Eric Hunter wrote:
>
>> Sure, and bi-coastal provinces are a special class
>> of provinces with special rules. When a Fleet is
>> moved to, or built in, a bi-coastal province it
>> moves to, or is built in, one of the coasts. Can
>> F Lvn move to StP or StP/SC? Sure, but it CANNOT
>> move to StP/NC, and if it moves to StP, it is
>> placed on the South Coast side, not the middle, or
>> the North Coast side. Therefore the coast is
>> significant in bi-coastal provinces.
>
> That the coast is significant is hardly a matter of contention. When F
> Lvn moves to Stp (sc), it moves to Stp. It is this its ability to move
> to Stp that matters here. If a unit can move (without a convoy) to a
> province, it can support any hold in or move to that province: "[A
> unit] must be next to the province into which it is giving support, and
> must be able to legally move there itself."
>
>> > and hence it is consistent to rule
>> >> that the support fails. It's possible rule the
>> >> other way, as well, but neither ruling is bizarre.
>> >
>> > The ruling to fail the support is indeed bizarre. To take "there" in
>> > the quoted clause to mean something different than "to that province"
>> > is absurd.
>>
>> In your not so humble opinion.
>
> And belittling is the hallmark of humbleness.
>
>> >> Given:
>> >> English Fleet MAO-Spa/SC
>> >> French F Por S French Army Gas-Spa
>> >> French Army Gas-Spa
>> >> Italian Army Mar S English Fleet MAO-Spa/NC
>> >>
>> >> what happens? You could claim it's a 2-on-2
>> >> bounce, or that since the support doesn't
>> >> match the move order, Gas-Spa works.
>> >
>> > This is a different question.
>>
>> No, it is the same question about a different
>> bi-coastal province. Does the destination coast
>> matter when supporting movement to a bi-coastal
>> province? Make it F Mar S MAO-Spa/NC if you'd
>> like to take it to the next level, since now
>> F Mar is supporting movement to somewhere it
>> can't move to. If the province is all that
>> matters, then it is a bounce. If the "support
>> must match the movement order" rule matters,
>> then France occupies Spain. Which is it?
>
> I should have said that it involves a different question. - One
> question is whether e.g. a fleet in Lvn/Mar can support an action on
> the north coast of Stp/Spa. On this, all the rulebooks have been clear:
> it can (which is not to say that it could have benefitted the rulebooks
> to be clearer).
>
> The other question concerns coastal designations in orders to support a
> fleet moving to a bicoastal province, when the fleet can move to both
> coasts. On this, the pre-2000 rulebooks were unclear, giving three main
> lines:
> 1. coast is required.
> 2. coast is optional.
> 3. coast is disallowed.
>
> With 3 one has the further question what to do if a player nonetheless
> specifies a coast in a support order. Either a) it is treated as a
> misorder, or b) the coast is ignored.
>
> In your example, with 1, 2, and 3a, Gas-Spa succeeds, with 3b it is a
> bounce.
>
> The 2000 rulebook has a rule, something like "a support order must
> match the move order". Presumably this would clear things up, however
> probably some will argue along the line: "yes, but how much does it
> have to match?"
>
> Tomas Ahlstrand
> >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
