Rules interpretations

[Reknoy]

It's so funny that this issue has generated such discussion.

In the 12+ years I've played this game, I can't recall that the issue of control of an area and city was ever in question.

I mean to say, if a fleet was holed up in or ships were being built in a city, the owner NEVER left it without a garrison.

Likewise, the owner of a minor NEVER left the capital without a garrison.

Likewise (after a few econ phases in some cases), every capital (in most MPs) had at least a militia in it.

Likewise an invading power (particularly in Russia and Spain) NEVER left a depot without a garrison.

It's something of a "duh" factor.

Someone asks me, do you garrison cities and depots that you care about?

I answer, "Duh!"

(this, by the way, coming from someone who is repeatedly wrong)

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by gdpsnake
As you say bivouaced over a huge area - just where are the men?

It just doesn't matter. It is not relevant at the scale of EiA. This is the point I am trying to get across.

I'm curious, since feudal corps can't detach, do you say they can garrison a city from the area too (do double duty)?

Yes absolutely. It'd be pretty strange if they couldn't.

Since you staunchly hold onto 7.3.3.3.2 as justification for corps to garrison a city while in the area do you agree that 7.3.3.3.1 allows those other units to do so as well? The rule verbiage IS the same for both rules.)

Yes absolutely, the presents no conflicts.

In game terms, it's a harder concept to grasp over a month. What day do the cossacks enter? Does the timing work out with the arrival of a fleet? I say yes, it's possible. There are many historic examples of small units investing lightly defended targets and disabling shore batteries for fleets irrespective of the "larger armies" billeted all over the place. (D-DAY ranger regiments, paratrooper drops in enemy territory, special forces etc.)

But again it just doesn't matter. That you would allow a cossack to do as you describe to me is just another reason why it's plain the rules should not be interpreted "your" way. It's nonsensical both historically and as a game mechanic, and creates strange situations not well covered in the rules.

His post refererred to rule 7.3.3.5.1 which contradicts 7.3.3.3.2 and others and is one 'quirk' I mentioned as an example of problems with the rules. I don't believe corps can garrison depots by being in the area. Rule 7.3.6.2 specifically contradicts by saying "...the player controlling the garrison FACTORS..."

Why does it contradict? Doesn't 7.3.3.3.2 allow factors in a corps to garrison? It fails to mention depots but from the precedeing rule and evidence in 7.3.3.5.1 is not the intent there? And if it isn't, then what does it matter anyway? If 7.3.3.5.1 says corps can garrison depots then that's good enough.

So if one argues he can garrison his depots with corps in the area (Or on top of the depot) then I say he must follow rule 7.3.6.2 and either the corps fights and the status of the depot is per 7.5.2.14 or the corps destroys the depot and MUST follow rule 7.3.6.2 and surrenders (or that part which does not retreat into a city surrenders and NO FIELD COMBAT can be fought. The player could not therefore, destroy the depot and fight! After all, if the commanders ordered the destruction of his supply depot, doesn't that sort of admit "I'm going to lose this battle so I must apply scortched earth policies!" Well, that policy doesn't work very well if you then fight and lose your standing army!!! No, you fight to protect or preserve your base of supply - you destroy only if you intend withdraw so I say 7.3.6.2 applies!

Strictly speaking you are correct, and I don't think I'd dispute this line of logic. Doesn't have all that much to do with what we're talking about except to underscore that allowing corps to garrison depots does not in fact cause any problems with the rules.

So spice it up and try playing the game with my intrepretations, but watch out for the irregular unit slipping into the ungarrisoned depot and destroying it! OR sneaking into your cities to scuttle blockaded fleets or damage your economy in capitols - after all, isn't that what raiding is all about? It's not about controlling the city but damaging the economy! I like to use irregulars this way - much more fun and challenges players to actually protect their depots/cities with garrisons.!

Well considering that you need to have unbesieiged factors to damage someone's economy and doing what you are suggesting the "irregular" forces would simply be somehow beseiging themselves in the city... but to be honest I can't imagine a player who would willfully leave his provincial capitals ungarrisonned (except maybe right at the very beginning of the game), or his major fleet bases unprotected by sizable forces. It's not sensible not to garrison for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that if you happen to lose a field battle outside a given city your enemy wont have to siege it to gain control (if you didn't detach a garrsion).

If one uses the 'double duty' concept then why are relieving force battles fought with different rules than a Field battle? Under your concept if a corps can garrison the city and area at the same time then why can't factors in a city garrison be with the corps for a full field battle.?

Um becuase one component of the force is BESEIGED inside a city. Thats the whole point of a relieving force combat. A corps clearly cannot be "outside" the city if it is in fact, beseiged inside it. The rules are quite clear on sieges.

Ultimately, players can choose to play any way they agree beforehand but I hope my arguments show the faulty logic of double duty especially referring to 7.5.1.2. Men can't be two places at once. The rule CLEARLY states forces in the city are not involved in field combats in the area and double duty implies they are in BOTH places.!

Sure, they are in both places, therefore they take part in the field combat. Factors form the corps are only "inside" the city if they need to be. The individual men no doubt cannot be in both places, but since each factor is 1000-2000 men and turns are a month long there is huge amounts of "leeway" and trying to reduce the game to some sort of accounting nightmare buys you nothing.

I simply find the play more challenging and depictive of the age the way I choose to intrepret these garrison rules. And yes, cities are seperate areas in my mind, And yes, why make it easy?!

If you can find one historical example of cossacks doing what you describe I might agree with you. But probably still I wouldn't because WHY BOTHER! There are plenty of very good reasons to detach garrison factors most of the time, without adding in some trickiness about corps somehow not preventing "irregular" forces form waltzing into and capturing strategic forts and population centers, or corps in an area not bothering to provide manpower to fortification, especially of vital ports. Since going to ALL the effort of playing "your" way nets you only two very sneaky tactical possibilities that would never work agianst anyone but a total novice who you should be helping instead of taking advantge of anyway, I ask you why, why play it your way?

There is simply no compelling reason to go to the extent of createing the extra rules and tracking constantly the status of all corps WRT to position in a region when the bulk of the time it is largely irrelevant.

It adds nothing to the game. But I find it interesting that you are constantly trying to point out "problems" with "my" interpretation that invariably boil down to being "problems" with YOUR interpretation

[Reknoy]

I'll be interested to see how cossacks play out in the game.

In reading the rules you never fully get a grip on just how much they can do. Though I know little about them historically (except recalling some large numbers during Nappy's campaign), I'm guessing that their ability to move all across Europe is ahistorical.

Every time I played France and geared up for war with Russia (and vice versa), I always had to plan especially for cossacks. I would gear up cav corps and hunt the cossacks down.

Further, I would make Crimea and Georgia (at least) a primary objective to kill production.

Love those cossacks!

[Ragnar]

Let's try to refocus this discussion on the what-if scenario. So suppose Soapy is right about 7.3.3.3.2? What does this mean for our intepretation of any and all mention in the rules of the word "garrison" ?

Does it now read as: "Any counters placed on that depot or city plus any cossack, guerilla, freikorps or corps counters placed in the surrounding area (guerillas don't garrison depots)" ?

Please give me any awnser you like but remember 2 things:
1) you cannot give an awnser that leaves a question about who would be garrison and who not when looking at a hypothetical position on the gameboard.
2) you cannot give exceptions to the general principle without quoting additional rules (taking 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 as a base).

I'd really like a straight awnser to this, for without pinning down what we're talking about we cannot really continue this discussion.

regards,
Ragnar

[Le Tondu]

This thread is a good example of what commonly happens in wargaming. One gamer has an interpretation of a rule that contradicts the interpretation of another rule that an opposing gamer has.

How do you solve these disputes?

If no GM is available, I role some percentage die. Otherwise, too much time is wasted arguing.

If a GM is present, his decision is right even if he is proved later to be wrong. Adjustments can easily be made for the next game and the past is the past.

I type all of this because we're there to wargame, be friends and have fun. What else is there?

[Capitaine]

Okay, time for me to throw my hat into the ring on this debate. I am 100% , unequivocally behind the interpretation of gdpsnake on this matter. Any other reading implicitly adds words that are not present and actually uses the famous wargame false ploy of "but in real life...". Ah, but it's a game, not real life. It makes little difference what could happen under the rules, as long as you have a means to defend against it. And you do (regarding these cossack raids into cities): Garrison your cities properly at all times. It had to be done in the era, so it must be done in the game as well.

Rules analysis:

(1) ALL units are moved individually. Once it is done moving its move is finished, just as if it had completed its move or entered combat. When its move is finished, it cannot EVER move (including detach points to a garrison) until its own next movement phase (unless as a result of combat or w/d into a city).
Support: 7.3.2, 7.3.2.1 (corps "ceases movement" when (a) it enters an area w/ unbesieged enemy; (b) when it consumes its movement allowance; or (c) when the unit's move is declared "over" before it consumes its allowance. If its movement allowance is consumed upon moving into an area, it may NOT detach garrisons to cities in that last area b/c its movement CEASED upon expending all its allowance to move into that area, not AFTER it entered it, even though detachment costs 0), 7.3.3.3.2 (just says corps themselves may be a garrison, not just "factors" -- this is not stated earlier in the garrison section -- and has no "extra" meaning or significance).

(2) Other than the combat phase retreat into a city, there is no action a corps can take during an opponent's move, including but not limited to detaching/absorbing garrisons. 7.3, 7.5.1.1.

(3) You may NOT detach garrisons to a port city to provide harbor defenses during another player's turn. Every one of your units' moves ended in your turn (see above) and if you construed the rules otherwise, there would be no need for 6.3.3.3 to specify the need for a garrison in that port city. It could simply say garrison in the city or corps in the area. Garrison decisions must be made in the phasing player's turn. 7.3.3 The combat retirement into a city is a special aspect of combat where, by virtue of that combat, a corps can retire. It is an exception, NOT the general rule.

[gdpsnake]

SOAPYFROG,
Let's see if I understand you.

1. You say that corps counters can't move into cities during the movement phase. You quote the fact that there is no specific rule that says corps can move into cities.
I pointed out 7.3.4 last sentence (vice-versa) but you say that only allows for corps to move out of the city.
I point out 7.3.3.4 NOTE: leaders can only move with corps into cities. But again you say corps can't move into cities. They can end up there as a result of combat, set-up or reinforcement but they can't move into a city in a movement phase.
Problem is, I can't find any rule that specifically allows ANY units to move into cities, not cossacks, not corps, not friedcorps, not guerrillas. The only 'movement' during the movement phase is therefore area to area and/or detach/absorb.

2. You say ANY units in an area can garrison a city. 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2. (your previous post). So my cossack in an area ALSO garrisons the city. I suppose if a corps with a single militia factor could garrison everything in the area then so could irregular factors.

3. You say it's silly that a cossack could move through your area (with a corps) into your city and gain control despite 16.0 definition of a city/port. Or even do the move. Is it less silly if your corps contains one militia factor and I have 5 cossack factors? Still, I admit, IT would be silly if one can't move into cities in a movement phase anyway.

RAGNAR, that's what soapyfrog has stated or I misunderstand him.

As for me, here we are. I don't agree that any units in an area are also garrisoning a city. I believe 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 IMPLY those units are already in the city and so may be garrisons in addition to the 'description' of 'what is a garrison' in 7.3.3.3. I maintain that a city or depot is either garrisoned with some kind of units in the city (or on the depot) OR it is not garrisoned as garrisons are described in the rules.

I also believe ANY units may enter cites in the movement phase because ALL these rules are listed under the heading of Land Movement Phase. AND, if the units could get into the cities at other times, why not movement? The rules specifically say it costs zero movement points in 7.3.4

At least, it seems, the two camps in opposition have completely logical 'workings of the game' if you view the movement and garrison rules together (No movement into cities=can garrison from area OR Movement into cities=garrison IN the city)

Both could work but which was intended?

I ask because I'm going to the convention in Ohio and hope I might "run into" Rowland, Pinder, Zwart, Taylor or the matrix computer team and ask them directly. Seems the developers of the game could answer these questions we all find central to the workings of the game (even if many claim to always garrison the important places! Gee everyone must always have more factors than they need! I must be doing something wrong, LOL!)

Till this gets an answer, guess it's a 'house rule' to decide on.

SNAKE

[Capitaine]

gpdsnake, on your other thread about Wynter's post, you are incorrect that a unit that expended its last movement factor (0 remaining) to enter an area still has "movement potential". Nowhere is this concept stated in the rules nor must it be inserted by implication.

Rule 7.3.2.1 makes this clear when it specifies the terms of "ceasing movement", and rule 7.3.1.3 makes it clear that a "map area" (not city) generally requires one movement point be expended "to enter". It does not say that the point is expended once the area is "entered" (past tense).

Also, you are correct that corps may garrison (if they have not "ceased movement") either by detaching factors, or moving the entire corps into the city (providing it has not "ceased movement" by entering the area first). 7.3.3 provides the general rule for for garrisoning, speaking of "detaching". Rule 7.3.3.3.2 merely notes that the "detachment" may include the corps itself w/o detaching "factors".

In further support of the need for corps to "move into" cities is the following rule, 7.3.3.4, which states that the ONLY way for leaders to enter a city is to be moved into one with a corps counter.

The bottom line on garrison detachment is that it MUST be done from an area when your corps has at least 1 point of movement remaining. If it used its last point to enter an area, it may not detach any factors (up to and including the entire corps) until its next turn, unless it is attacked in an enemy turn and can use the retirement rule.

Garrison detachment (factors or corps) CANNOT take place in the last area moved into by a unit expending its final movement point to enter.

[Reknoy]

Originally posted by Capitaine
The bottom line on garrison detachment is that it MUST be done from an area when your corps has at least 1 point of movement remaining. If it used its last point to enter an area, it may not detach any factors (up to and including the entire corps) until its next turn, unless it is attacked in an enemy turn and can use the retirement rule.

Garrison detachment (factors or corps) CANNOT take place in the last area moved into by a unit expending its final movement point to enter. [/B]

I'm not sure I follow. Where does it state that you can't drop garrisons on your last move? I would reason you are still in the "Land Movement Step" -- I think they capitalized it so that it's clear that, during 7.3, you can drop garrisons. Why would it matter if you just ran out of moves or if you just started and had not yet expended any moves?

Just asking for clarification. Thanks.

Reknoy

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by gdpsnake
Problem is, I can't find any rule that specifically allows ANY units to move into cities, not cossacks, not corps, not friedcorps, not guerrillas. The only 'movement' during the movement phase is therefore area to area and/or detach/absorb.

Yes precisely... and the reason why you cannot find rules to that effect is becuase according to my reading of 7.3.3.3.2 it doesn't matter.

You say ANY units in an area can garrison a city. 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2. (your previous post). So my cossack in an area ALSO garrisons the city. I suppose if a corps with a single militia factor could garrison everything in the area then so could irregular factors.

Certainly, but since my corps and your cossack cannot cohabit in an area without fighting unless the cossack is beseiged, there is no conflict. A cossack that moves into an area containing an enemy corps must declare an attack or continue movement. A corps that ceases movement in the same area as an enemy cossack must beclare an attack, and that cossack may either withdraw, fight, or retreat inside the city.

3. You say it's silly that a cossack could move through your area (with a corps) into your city and gain control despite 16.0 definition of a city/port. Or even do the move. Is it less silly if your corps contains one militia factor and I have 5 cossack factors? Still, I admit, IT would be silly if one can't move into cities in a movement phase anyway.

If the corps is one militia factor (or even 1 guard factor) then 5 cossacks would have a reasonable chance of declaring an attack and winning... so roll the dice!

Both could work but which was intended?

I have no doubt that both DO work in that neither "way" is broken. Neither way generates insurmountable rules ocnflicts, though IMHO "my" way is less troublesome both when interpreting the rules and playing the game.

I ask because I'm going to the convention in Ohio and hope I might "run into" Rowland, Pinder, Zwart, Taylor or the matrix computer team and ask them directly.

Harry Rowland and Greg Pinder are going to be in North America this summer? Wicked... if so the would certainly be at WiFcon which I am going too. Neato, I've never actually met them.

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Capitaine
gpdsnake, on your other thread about Wynter's post, you are incorrect that a unit that expended its last movement factor (0 remaining) to enter an area still has "movement potential". Nowhere is this concept stated in the rules nor must it be inserted by implication.

I think you are out to lunch here... a corps with 0 movement left is mathematically still capable of making a zero-cost move. Additonally detaching factors requires no movement points... so I think your line of reasoning is faulty.

In fact YOU are adding implications to the rules by saying you must retain "movement potential" (in the form of remaining movement points) to do something that requires no movement points, something that is nowhere stated or even very loosely or obliquely implied by the rules.

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Capitaine
Any other reading implicitly adds words that are not present and actually uses the famous wargame false ploy of "but in real life...". Ah, but it's a game, not real life. It makes little difference what could happen under the rules, as long as you have a means to defend against it. And you do (regarding these cossack raids into cities): Garrison your cities properly at all times. It had to be done in the era, so it must be done in the game as well.

I protest: YOU are saying "in real life" everythign had to be properly garrsionned and *I* am saying "who cares" the game works better "my" way. I merely brouught up real world concepts to counter those raised by the "no double-duty" crowd.

Secondly I do NOT add any verbiage to the rules that is not already there, I use only what is written. Interpreting it "your" way is what actually requires additonal "implied" rules, such as specific counter placements on the map, the ability to move "into" cities during movement, and so on.

(b) when it consumes its movement allowance

A corps movement allowance would not be consumed just becuase it had spent all it's integer movement points if there remained zero-cost moves that it was capable of doing. I can't think of a single wargame that takes the approach you are taking.

(3) You may NOT detach garrisons to a port city to provide harbor defenses during another player's turn. Every one of your units' moves ended in your turn (see above) and if you construed the rules otherwise, there would be no need for 6.3.3.3 to specify the need for a garrison in that port city. It could simply say garrison in the city or corps in the area. Garrison decisions must be made in the phasing player's turn. 7.33 The combat retirement into a city is a special aspect of combat where, by virtue of that combat, a corps can retire. It is an exception, NOT the general rule.

That the rules are poorly written and inconsistent is not in dispute, and is not a defence of the "no double-duty" argument.

Again I would like to point out that "my" interpretation does not somehow how exempt you from needing to garrison. I must say I find the whole "garrison or die" and "garrison properly becuase that's what they did historically" thing very funny. As though requireing lots of unneccessary counter-shuffling added fun and interest to the game...

You... still... need... to garrison... really...

[Capitaine]

I'm not sure I follow. Where does it state that you can't drop garrisons on your last move?

This is VERY CLEAR and as for Mr. soapyfrog, who claims that "a corps with 0 movement left is mathematically still capable of making a zero-cost move", I say you are badly mistaken. Also, many games have this concept; I'm sorry you don't play that way...

Anyway, the precise rules which dictate what I asserted above are: 7.3.2 "Each counter is moved individually.

So, once a single counter is moved, and its move has ceased, it is DONE. OVER. FINISHED. You understand? No game allows you to go back a fiddle with units already moved in the same phase. What planet are you on?

Secondly, we have 7.3.2.1 which says, "A corps must cease movement when it [1st] consumes its movement allowance or [2nd] when it enters an area containing an unbesieged enemy corps (not if the area contains only cossacks, freikorps, guerillas and/or garrisons)."

So, just as when a unit's move CEASES (is OVER, FINISHED, DONE) when it enters an area w/ enemy forces, it likewise CEASES when its movement allowance is consumed.

Per 7.3.1 and 7.3.1.3, a unit spends its MP's to enter an area. Meaning, of course, that its movement allowance is expended upon arrival IN that area. Once it is there, it has no movement allowance per 7.3.2.1 and its movement has CEASED.

Gee guys, I'm sorry if you don't read the rules and just play as you like regardless of clear, unambiguous language. I play this way exclusively. I'm not swayed by your extraneous "homecooking" with this game.

FWIW, the interpretation MAKES SENSE: A corps with just enough points to enter an area hasn't much latitude remaining to do anything else upon arrival. However, if you have one point left, or are continuing on through the subject area to another beyond, then you conceivably have the "logistical wherewithal" to pass by and detach troops to a city in that same area as you move through.

But rest assured, just as a unit cannot detach factors to garrison a city or depot in an area it has just moved into which contains enemy forces, neither can it do so having expended its movement allowance, per 7.3.2.1. Were this not so, the entire rule about "costing zero" to detach to garrison would be superfluous: The rule would simply say "a corps can detach [either itself or factors] to a city in the same area at any time, subject to these exceptions...." That is what you are arguing, and it would be simple writing. But it is NOT written that way, and for GOOD REASON. It is NOT the game.

God god, RTFM!!

[soapyfrog]

Er... so you are saying you need some movement points in order to drop a garrison, despite the fact the rules specifically state that it costs nothing (but only in the movement phase, all other phases that you are allowed to drop garrsions it's ok).

That is... truly... one of the most bizarre interpretations of the rules I have ever heard.

I'm afraid we will simply have to agree to disagree if you take that line.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Capitaine
This is VERY CLEAR and as for Mr. soapyfrog, who claims that "a corps with 0 movement left is mathematically still capable of making a zero-cost move", I say you are badly mistaken. Also, many games have this concept; I'm sorry you don't play that way...

Anyway, the precise rules which dictate what I asserted above are: 7.3.2 "Each counter is moved individually.

So, once a single counter is moved, and its move has ceased, it is DONE. OVER. FINISHED. You understand? No game allows you to go back a fiddle with units already moved in the same phase. What planet are you on?

Secondly, we have 7.3.2.1 which says, "A corps must cease movement when it [1st] consumes its movement allowance or [2nd] when it enters an area containing an unbesieged enemy corps (not if the area contains only cossacks, freikorps, guerillas and/or garrisons)."

So, just as when a unit's move CEASES (is OVER, FINISHED, DONE) when it enters an area w/ enemy forces, it likewise CEASES when its movement allowance is consumed.

Per 7.3.1 and 7.3.1.3, a unit spends its MP's to enter an area. Meaning, of course, that its movement allowance is expended upon arrival IN that area. Once it is there, it has no movement allowance per 7.3.2.1 and its movement has CEASED.

Gee guys, I'm sorry if you don't read the rules and just play as you like regardless of clear, unambiguous language. I play this way exclusively. I'm not swayed by your extraneous "homecooking" with this game.

FWIW, the interpretation MAKES SENSE: A corps with just enough points to enter an area hasn't much latitude remaining to do anything else upon arrival. However, if you have one point left, or are continuing on through the subject area to another beyond, then you conceivably have the "logistical wherewithal" to pass by and detach troops to a city in that same area as you move through.

But rest assured, just as a unit cannot detach factors to garrison a city or depot in an area it has just moved into which contains enemy forces, neither can it do so having expended its movement allowance, per 7.3.2.1. Were this not so, the entire rule about "costing zero" to detach to garrison would be superfluous: The rule would simply say "a corps can detach [either itself or factors] to a city in the same area at any time, subject to these exceptions...." That is what you are arguing, and it would be simple writing. But it is NOT written that way, and for GOOD REASON. It is NOT the game.

God god, RTFM!!

I have read the manual, however I dont share your conclusion.
It doesnt say you must stop moving to detach factors.

[Capitaine]

soapy, I'm saying that THE RULES state that a unit's movement CEASES upon expenditure of its movement allowance. Since units are moved individually, and the detachment of factors would be another "move" after arrival in the "final area", I find your view in serious conflict with the rules. EVEN if the cost to detach is ZERO, having your move OVER (by exhaustion of allowance OR by presence of the enemy, per the rules), you may not take further steps.

Are you asserting that despite the presence of enemy forces in the same area, a newly arrived corps may still detach factors to garrison a city in that area? If not, on what language in the rule do you rely to distinguish between (a) enemy forces; and (b) no more movement left? The same rule deals with both situations EXACTLY in the same way!

Perhaps your opinion that the rules are not well written stems from your departure from their plain meaning on numerous matters. I have found little to no ambiguity in the rules.

(It is true that you may be confused by other games like "War & Peace and others games cities within hexes permit you to shift in and out of the fortress pretty much at will. That is not how I read the plain language of EIA rules.

[Capitaine]

It doesnt say you must stop moving to detach factors.

I agree. It doesn't say that. It says if you HAVE stopped moving ("ceased movement", to be precise), you cannot detach factors. Right?

Please, if there is a rule that can be construed otherwise, please show me? I really don't want a game messed up by a handful of players on a message board who've not been playing right...

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Capitaine
I agree. It doesn't say that. It says if you HAVE stopped moving ("ceased movement", to be precise), you cannot detach factors. Right?

Please, if there is a rule that can be construed otherwise, please show me? I really don't want a game messed up by a handful of players on a message board who've not been playing right...

I dont recall that either, however, I could of course be wrong =)

I see nothing wrong at all with moving a corp say 4 areas and dropping off garrisons in each area. After all, each turn is one month.

I will however take exception to ANY player that thinks they have a 'lock' on determining who has 'been playing right'

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Le Tondu


I type all of this because we're there to wargame, be friends and have fun. What else is there?

Well, maybe I was wrong about that.

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Capitaine
soapy, I'm saying that THE RULES state that a unit's movement CEASES upon expenditure of its movement allowance.

And I would say obviously my movement allowance is not expended if I have zero-cost movement that it is possible to execute.

3+0 is... 3! It is therefore within my movement allowance of 3.

This is a rathole. There is no logic that supports your viewpoint IMHO.