REKNOY,
You said:
"A corps can be in a city and can garrison it for port gun purposes."
And for other purposes too, like control and economics.
Thus you hit on the whole reason for 7.3.3.3.2 being in the rules!
16.0 requires FACTORS in a city for control. 16.0 defines a garrison in a city as well. 7.3.3.3.2 again just allows corps to garrison without the need to present factors!
Otherwise, without 7.3.3.3.2 corps could not garrison a city while inside the city considering the definition and rules of garrison- obviously faulty logic!
SO BY DEFINITION a corps can control/garrison a city because the factors of the corps ARE IN THE CITY!
SO TURK feudal corps can garrison!
SO Corps with guard factors only need not convert to regular factors!
For the camp followers of double duty, how in the world they can intrepret 7.3.3.3.2 to mean corps in an area? It never mentions location but 7.3.3 DOES MENTION LOCATION SPECIFICALLY IN A CITY! and 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 are SUB rules of this rule. They take the rules out of context of being in the city.
At least thats what I read. Double duty followers just keep citing the rule as if it stands alnoe and isn't UNDER 7.3.3.
SNAKE
Rules interpretations
Moderator: MOD_EIA
As we know, 7.3.3 only concerns detachment in the LMS, not the post combat segement. Your reference to the detachment rules for the LMS are patently off base.
Capitaine,
Ok, to be exact one could say that 7.3.3 is more or less specific to the LMS and that 7.3.3.1 - 7.3.3.5.3 are more general, but that hardly means I'm "patently off base".
This is the only section describing detachments and it is referrred to by number (7.3.3) or name (detaching) in several other (distinct) places in the rules. I agree you can't detach any ol'time you like, but the statement that 7.3.3 only refers to the LMS would seem to be somewhat presumptous.
regards,
Ragnar
I disagree 7.3.3.3.2 says that factors that are a part of a corps may act as a garrison without detaching. There is no mention of what position the corps is meant to be in WRT "in" or "out" of the city (probably because it doesn't matter).Originally posted by gdpsnake
AN EXAMPLE: 16.0 control definition is quite clear " ....FACTORS IN A CITY = CONTROL..." 7.3.3.3.2 says does not answer this question. Where is your rule to prove control other than 16.0?
So therefore forn the purposes of control, having a corps in the area is enough because factors form that corps can be acting as a garrison without being detached.
If you can find a reason why my way of interpreting somehow doesn't work (i.e. is broken) then by all means point it out. Everything you have brought up I have shot down.
Originally posted by gdpsnake
7.3.3.3.2 again just allows corps to garrison without the need to present factors!
You are still unreasonable equating "factors" with "garrison counters"
SO TURK feudal corps can garrison!
Just not if the city is too small right? It has to move in the city, right? How does it fit? And we have to assume your "vice-versa" thing is valid in the rule concerning moveing FROM cities.
If it can't fit, what's the common sense explanation?
WHAT ?!
SOAPY SAYS:
"Therefore you can assume that an otehriwse vacant city in an area with a corps in it can be considered "garrisonned" and "controlled" for whatever purposes are required by the rules."
That's exactly what I mean "ASSUME?!" When the rules clearly state what constitutes control (read the definition AGAIN in 16.0 SOAPY! [city has factors] I didn't find ANY OTHER DEFINITION OF CONTROL!)
No assumption there about control. Precise and obvious. Now please quote a rule that actually says a corps in an area controls the city?!? Don't use 7.3.3.3.2 either because that says garrison and NO DETACHED FACTORS. And you have to control in order to garrison. It also didn't say detached TO a city OR from a city! Again no location on 7.3.3.3.2. Find me a rule to support your IN THE AREA assumption.
I found a rule to support my IN THE CITY assumption in 7.3.3 which is SPECIFICALLY talking about units in a city! AND 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 are SUB RULES. IF they meant a corps in an area, why put the rule here and not somewhere else to support location in an area like 7.3.3.4.
SORRY that contains that movement rule about leaders that you say can't happen in the movement phase because units can't move into cities - they only end up there as a result of other rules and not 'movement' related. "Leaders MAY only be moved into a city with the corps counter."
SOAPY SAID: "WRT to Cossacks, the rules say they may be in a city for garrison purposes."
I'm sorry, where do the rules state that? The only thing I see is 7.3.3.3.1 which says they may also be used to form all or part of a city garrison. Where does it state their location MAY be in the city?!
The only location assume for this rule comes from 7.3.3 which is talking about UNITS IN CITES.
SO a cossack ALREADY IN THE CITY may form all or part of a garrison.
And if you DO mean this, than you must mean that 7.3.3.3.2 means a corps MAY be in a city too?!
Please show me they rule that says "Cossacks may be in a city for garrison purposes." I can't find it.
SOAPY SAYS: "In short you can "place the cossacks in the city" if you like, since it doesn't really matter.
WHAT? When? You say units CAN'T move into cities in the movement phase so when can I "place him in the city IF I WANT?!?! During another player's movement turn?!?!
Please clarify this statement!!
SNAKE
"Therefore you can assume that an otehriwse vacant city in an area with a corps in it can be considered "garrisonned" and "controlled" for whatever purposes are required by the rules."
That's exactly what I mean "ASSUME?!" When the rules clearly state what constitutes control (read the definition AGAIN in 16.0 SOAPY! [city has factors] I didn't find ANY OTHER DEFINITION OF CONTROL!)
No assumption there about control. Precise and obvious. Now please quote a rule that actually says a corps in an area controls the city?!? Don't use 7.3.3.3.2 either because that says garrison and NO DETACHED FACTORS. And you have to control in order to garrison. It also didn't say detached TO a city OR from a city! Again no location on 7.3.3.3.2. Find me a rule to support your IN THE AREA assumption.
I found a rule to support my IN THE CITY assumption in 7.3.3 which is SPECIFICALLY talking about units in a city! AND 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 are SUB RULES. IF they meant a corps in an area, why put the rule here and not somewhere else to support location in an area like 7.3.3.4.
SORRY that contains that movement rule about leaders that you say can't happen in the movement phase because units can't move into cities - they only end up there as a result of other rules and not 'movement' related. "Leaders MAY only be moved into a city with the corps counter."
SOAPY SAID: "WRT to Cossacks, the rules say they may be in a city for garrison purposes."
I'm sorry, where do the rules state that? The only thing I see is 7.3.3.3.1 which says they may also be used to form all or part of a city garrison. Where does it state their location MAY be in the city?!
The only location assume for this rule comes from 7.3.3 which is talking about UNITS IN CITES.
SO a cossack ALREADY IN THE CITY may form all or part of a garrison.
And if you DO mean this, than you must mean that 7.3.3.3.2 means a corps MAY be in a city too?!
Please show me they rule that says "Cossacks may be in a city for garrison purposes." I can't find it.
SOAPY SAYS: "In short you can "place the cossacks in the city" if you like, since it doesn't really matter.
WHAT? When? You say units CAN'T move into cities in the movement phase so when can I "place him in the city IF I WANT?!?! During another player's movement turn?!?!
Please clarify this statement!!
SNAKE
Originally posted by Capitaine
Ragnar, you are patently WRONG about 7.3.8, "one of the most common misconceptions of the game" I have seen. The fact that nonbelligerent forces may have to vacate the pertinent forage area (7.3.8.4 -- the point 7.4.1.1 had in mind) in the midst of a counter's move doesn't change the basic rule I have stated. Those STEP FOUR "forces" are simply moved to an adjacent areas automatically, not as movement. Once those forces are vacated, the original movement is concluded with forage based on the corps situation AFTER the STEP FOUR forces have left. THEN, if 7.3.8 is applicable, movement continues and forage FOR THAT CORPS is determined after the nonbelligerents have left the area.
Going waaaaaay out on a tangent to find the nonexistent chink in the armor, aren't you?
Wow...
I'm sorry, but I don't comprehend the basis of your objections. Your interdiction does not seem to indicate that you have read what you are objecting to.
Nonbelligerent do NOT have to leave the area "in the midst of a counter's move". 7.3.8.3 and 7.3.8.4 come AFTER all of a Major Power's forces have already moved (7.2.8.2). This is (I presume) to allow any allies of the power attacked to assess the battle they might be about to be in.
So you agree that rule 7.4.1.1 requires you to finish any 7.3.8.4 reactions, but you somehow fail to see that 7.3.8.4 is preceded by 7.3.8.2 which requires that you "move all your forces"? I am lost in the endless maze of your logic.
What you percieve as being the correct procedure may be an excellent way to do it, but it's not as it was written.
Ragnar,
"So the Feudal corps can detach to take the city."
Is this a mistatement? 10.1.3.4 does not allow this.
As I described earlier, the feudal corp can garrison the city by being in the city (Very few one spire cities) after combat OR choose to withdraw into the area and therby make a deliberate decision NOT to garrison. See my previous post to MECHANIC.
SNAKE
"So the Feudal corps can detach to take the city."
Is this a mistatement? 10.1.3.4 does not allow this.
As I described earlier, the feudal corp can garrison the city by being in the city (Very few one spire cities) after combat OR choose to withdraw into the area and therby make a deliberate decision NOT to garrison. See my previous post to MECHANIC.
SNAKE
I am definitely regretting my part in all of this -- what a waste of the time of people who clearly are competent gamers.
Capitaine, for any of my "closet" references, etc. I am sorry.
PLEASE, however, refrain from the insults. It's so belittling of this process.
I will grant you that myself and others have all made comments and used tones that, in electronic format, came off poorly.
I would simply ask for an end.
Capitaine, for any of my "closet" references, etc. I am sorry.
PLEASE, however, refrain from the insults. It's so belittling of this process.
I will grant you that myself and others have all made comments and used tones that, in electronic format, came off poorly.
I would simply ask for an end.
SOAPY, SOAPY, SOAPY,
"The corps is a collection of factors, not a single indivisible entity, so the wording does not exclude the possibility that part of the corps could be in garrison for any purpose required by the rules."
BUT you've already VEHEMENTLY SAID that you don't have to detach any factors and "That part of your corps IS NOT in the city." MANY MANY times in this forum.
IF part of your corps was "IN garrison" then that part MUST be detached from the whole since it's a part?!
AND that part in garrison would not be available for field battles in the area BECAUSE factors in cities CAN NOT PARTICIPATE in field combat.
Please be consistent and not change your position so much.
Is part of the corps in the city for garrison purposes or not?! And when is it in the city? Corps can't move into cities in the movement phase according to you and if you're not detaching factors, when is the part in there?
Perhaps you mean that "part of the whole" is like a corner of the corps counter is in the city?! But you said corps can't move into cities in the movement phase so when is that part of the corps counter in the city?
Or are you saying that you can garrison with a part of a corps that doesn't have factors? Which part would that be?
You said you don't detach factors (7.3.3.3.2) and can still garrison. So what part (men/factors/mechanism/) is in the city?
I'm really confused by your logic position changes now. Please refer to rules that specifically say things and not assume so much.
SNAKE
"The corps is a collection of factors, not a single indivisible entity, so the wording does not exclude the possibility that part of the corps could be in garrison for any purpose required by the rules."
BUT you've already VEHEMENTLY SAID that you don't have to detach any factors and "That part of your corps IS NOT in the city." MANY MANY times in this forum.
IF part of your corps was "IN garrison" then that part MUST be detached from the whole since it's a part?!
AND that part in garrison would not be available for field battles in the area BECAUSE factors in cities CAN NOT PARTICIPATE in field combat.
Please be consistent and not change your position so much.
Is part of the corps in the city for garrison purposes or not?! And when is it in the city? Corps can't move into cities in the movement phase according to you and if you're not detaching factors, when is the part in there?
Perhaps you mean that "part of the whole" is like a corner of the corps counter is in the city?! But you said corps can't move into cities in the movement phase so when is that part of the corps counter in the city?
Or are you saying that you can garrison with a part of a corps that doesn't have factors? Which part would that be?
You said you don't detach factors (7.3.3.3.2) and can still garrison. So what part (men/factors/mechanism/) is in the city?
I'm really confused by your logic position changes now. Please refer to rules that specifically say things and not assume so much.
SNAKE
Capitaine, mon Capitaine ...
Lies, most foul have left thy fingertips. :p
"7.4.1.1 FORAGING PROCEDURE: A die is rolled for each foraging corps as it completes movement.."
Thou seemest to have erroneously added a word to add credibility to thy viewpoint. "Ending movement" and "ending its movement" are very different things.
Ragnar
Originally posted by Capitaine
Not "a presumption" my friend, but a hard and fast RULE of the GAME. See 7.4.1.1 "FORAGING PROCEDURE: A die is rolled for each foraging corps as it completes its movement..."
Lies, most foul have left thy fingertips. :p
"7.4.1.1 FORAGING PROCEDURE: A die is rolled for each foraging corps as it completes movement.."
Thou seemest to have erroneously added a word to add credibility to thy viewpoint. "Ending movement" and "ending its movement" are very different things.
Sure, corps forage while they move, such is only common sense. The actual forage roll, however, is rolled during the supply step. This is merely a remark referring rather clumsily to the fact that the lowest forage value of all areas travelled must be taken as the base to roll against.Originally posted by Capitaine
Also pertinent is 7.3.1.4 "FORAGING WHILE MOVING: Although the rules are covered in the Supply Step, foraging (7.4.1) is performed while corps are being moved."
I believe we'll have to leave it here. If anything, it seems that whoever wrote the **** rulebook was somewhat confused about when to roll those dice. Why else would they have printed so many misleading rules? Does anyone have a "ADG Greg Pinder original" set of the rules for comparison? It might prove helpfull...Originally posted by Capitaine
Next?
Ragnar
Re: WHAT ?!
Originally posted by gdpsnake
No assumption there about control. Precise and obvious. Now please quote a rule that actually says a corps in an area controls the city?!? Don't use 7.3.3.3.2 either because that says garrison and NO DETACHED FACTORS. And you have to control in order to garrison. It also didn't say detached TO a city OR from a city! Again no location on 7.3.3.3.2. Find me a rule to support your IN THE AREA assumption.
And I'll say it again... "factors" does not mean "detached factors" so a corps may control a city without detaching any of it's factors (because of the rule you don't want me to mention). Because a factor can be in a corps or on the map. Just saying "factors" does not in any imply that they have been detached or are other wise not part of a corps.
Are you going to tell me (and I know Capitaine would!) that because "factors" is plural in the Gloassary that 1 factor is not sufficient for control, and that you need more than 1?
I found a rule to support my IN THE CITY assumption in 7.3.3 which is SPECIFICALLY talking about units in a city! AND 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 are SUB RULES. IF they meant a corps in an area, why put the rule here and not somewhere else to support location in an area like 7.3.3.4.
No it doesn't, it talks about moving units into cities, and I do agree that you could interpret this to mean that corps can themselves mvoe into cities in this phase though it seem to be primarily referring to detaching factors etc. However this STILL does not conflict with my reading of the rules.
I'm sorry, where do the rules state that? The only thing I see is 7.3.3.3.1 which says they may also be used to form all or part of a city garrison. Where does it state their location MAY be in the city?!
And I'll say agian it really doesn't matter. 7.3.3.3.1 allows them to act as a garrison and it's never really relevant at any other point whether they ar in or out.
And if you DO mean this, than you must mean that 7.3.3.3.2 means a corps MAY be in a city too?!
I have never disputed that a corps might find itself inside a city (or that it might even move there, just that the rules on that point are VERY unclear). I have maintained only that most of the time it just doesn't matter.
But I am repeating myself and it's all been said before.
Originally posted by gdpsnake
Ragnar,
"So the Feudal corps can detach to take the city."
Is this a mistatement? 10.1.3.4 does not allow this.
Well, please remember that I consider "detaching" to be synonymous with "moving into a city". So the word missing here would be "itself".
I'd also like to remark that 10.1.3.4 only restricts the detaching of feudal factors. Naturally, I couldn't possibly have meant that.
-
Zen Mechanic
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:01 pm
I go away for a few hours and there's two new pages?
Well, since I don't have a copy of the rulebook handy I won't go through all the detail right now, but I did miss the "occupy/control" part of the after-seige rule. Let me ask a slightly different question then:
After combat in a land area containing an empty city, could a feudal or an insurrection corps control that city
(a) if it could fit into the city
(b) if it is too large to fit into the city.
If the answer is not (a) and (b) we have an absurdity (i.e. if it is only (a), as some people have suggested). Why couldn't a feudal corps conquer an EMPTY city even though it can't fit into the city? Doesn't make ANY sense.
Or for that matter, what if a feudal merely walks into an unoccupied area, say with 2 movement points left to avoid controversy? Could they conquer/control a 1-spire city if the feudal was 9-strength?
Please note that I think the rules are unclear, and that no-one is "right" on the double-duty. I'm just trying:
(a) to have a fun and playable game; and
(b) to somewhat model reality, after all this is a historical game.
Now, on to a mis-interpretation of what I said:
(1) Corps moves through three spaces, has three movement points, city in this third area;
(2) corps has not said if it is force-marching yet;
(3) therefore, corps could be considered to STILL have movement left, as it has not yet decided to force-march or not;
(4) corps drops factors into said city;
(5) corps can either then:
(a) continue moving (force-marching);
or
(b) say "I'm not force-marching, I'm done"; and
(6) stop in the city.
(7) corps then can be supplied, either through paying (if it didn't force-march) or by foraging (either case).
Thus, Capitaine's interpretation of the rule HAS to be read as follows:
If you are a cavalry-symboled corps or have force-marched you cannot drop factors into a city in the last area you have moved into, if you have used all your movement points to enter that area.
The only way to argue the opposite is to declare that you're force-marching prior to starting your move, which is not in the rules (as far as I know).
Plus, I mean really, on a reality-basis it's stupid to not let a corps detach factors into a city in the last move - see the following absurdity:
you can detach factors into a city in the last area you move into (assuming you use all your movement points) IF AND ONLY IF you fight a battle in that area. If you DO NOT FIGHT A BATTLE you CANNOT.
So, expending MUCH more "energy" allows you to do something (detaching) which you CANNOT do by expending far less "energy" (i.e. not fighting a battle). Why not "pretend" you're fighting a battle and drop the factors in then? It's just silly.
ZM
*edited for hitting tab/space when trying to line things up*
After combat in a land area containing an empty city, could a feudal or an insurrection corps control that city
(a) if it could fit into the city
(b) if it is too large to fit into the city.
If the answer is not (a) and (b) we have an absurdity (i.e. if it is only (a), as some people have suggested). Why couldn't a feudal corps conquer an EMPTY city even though it can't fit into the city? Doesn't make ANY sense.
Or for that matter, what if a feudal merely walks into an unoccupied area, say with 2 movement points left to avoid controversy? Could they conquer/control a 1-spire city if the feudal was 9-strength?
Please note that I think the rules are unclear, and that no-one is "right" on the double-duty. I'm just trying:
(a) to have a fun and playable game; and
(b) to somewhat model reality, after all this is a historical game.
Now, on to a mis-interpretation of what I said:
Right - you do your move, then you forage. We're not disagreeing here.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I said:] The force-march example is another absurdity: Take your average non-french infantry corps, full to the brim with militia. You move it three areas and forage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Cappy said:]Hold it right there. You don't forage UNTIL your unit has CEASED its movement. (7.4.1 -- "When a corps ceases movement it may elect (or be forced) to 'forage'." You may only roll for forage AFTER you've ceased movement of that counter per 7.3.2.)
I'm just giving an alternative here, I'm not actually saying you move, forage, move again - I'm saying picture two alternative scenarios, one where you move 3, one where you move 4.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I said:]But wait - let's assume you want to force-march that infantry corps, and move it one further area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Cappy said:]Hold it right there again. You CAN'T decide to force march AFTER you've ceased movement and rolled for forage. Your counter's move is OVER whenever you stop moving it. Force march must be done in the land movment segment. See 7.3.1.2. Forage rolling accounts for forced marching. See 7.4.1.2.3. How in the world did you get the notion you can force march AFTER your counter has ceased its move? Once you've rolled for forage, your counter's move is OVER. DONE. FINISHED. No turning BACK
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I do not mean that you drop factors after foraging. Let me try again. Picture this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I said:] Now you CAN drop off militia in that city, with the same corps. Same corps, same movement allowance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[You said:] Nope. Because your movement was over once you stated the unit was done moving and rolled for forage.
Note also in this regard, too: Rule 7.3.2.4: "Movement may be ended earlier -- there is no requirement to move any counter nor for any counter to expend its full movement allowance."
(1) Corps moves through three spaces, has three movement points, city in this third area;
(2) corps has not said if it is force-marching yet;
(3) therefore, corps could be considered to STILL have movement left, as it has not yet decided to force-march or not;
(4) corps drops factors into said city;
(5) corps can either then:
(a) continue moving (force-marching);
or
(b) say "I'm not force-marching, I'm done"; and
(6) stop in the city.
(7) corps then can be supplied, either through paying (if it didn't force-march) or by foraging (either case).
Thus, Capitaine's interpretation of the rule HAS to be read as follows:
If you are a cavalry-symboled corps or have force-marched you cannot drop factors into a city in the last area you have moved into, if you have used all your movement points to enter that area.
The only way to argue the opposite is to declare that you're force-marching prior to starting your move, which is not in the rules (as far as I know).
Plus, I mean really, on a reality-basis it's stupid to not let a corps detach factors into a city in the last move - see the following absurdity:
you can detach factors into a city in the last area you move into (assuming you use all your movement points) IF AND ONLY IF you fight a battle in that area. If you DO NOT FIGHT A BATTLE you CANNOT.
So, expending MUCH more "energy" allows you to do something (detaching) which you CANNOT do by expending far less "energy" (i.e. not fighting a battle). Why not "pretend" you're fighting a battle and drop the factors in then? It's just silly.
ZM
*edited for hitting tab/space when trying to line things up*
Originally posted by gdpsnake
BUT you've already VEHEMENTLY SAID that you don't have to detach any factors and "That part of your corps IS NOT in the city." MANY MANY times in this forum.
Can you quote me on that? I have never said that part of the corps is not "in" the city (just not detached), only that the corps as a whole is not "in" the city and therefore still "field forces".
IF part of your corps was "IN garrison" then that part MUST be detached from the whole since it's a part?!
AND that part in garrison would not be available for field battles in the area BECAUSE factors in cities CAN NOT PARTICIPATE in field combat.
Why must that part be detached form the whole to be considered as a garrison? There is no requirement for that.
And why couldn't they participate in field combat? The corps is not "inside" the city, so it fights in the field in it's entirety. That the corps could also be acting as garrison in accordance with 7.3.3.3.2 is not important since it had to detach no factors to do so.
Please be consistent and not change your position so much.
My position has budged only far enough to allow for existence of your position.
Is part of the corps in the city for garrison purposes or not?! And when is it in the city? Corps can't move into cities in the movement phase according to you and if you're not detaching factors, when is the part in there?
It doesn't actually matter. If you can find me a reason why it is important to know which particular factor or factors from the corps are acting as garrison then let me know!
Soapy,
Please take the time to reply to my post on page 10 (and ignore Snake for now because you've both been repeating arguments for some time -no offense intended Snake). I'm only trying to confront you with the consequences of the choices of your interpretation, thus trying to show you that my interpretation is -despite the need to bother with the minutiae of detaching all the time- at least simpler than yours.
We cannot, however, compare the two without having a complete overview of the results of both viewpoints. If, after this has been done, you still think the need for an easier game outweighs my objections, we can agree to dissagree.
regards,
Ragnar
Please take the time to reply to my post on page 10 (and ignore Snake for now because you've both been repeating arguments for some time -no offense intended Snake). I'm only trying to confront you with the consequences of the choices of your interpretation, thus trying to show you that my interpretation is -despite the need to bother with the minutiae of detaching all the time- at least simpler than yours.
We cannot, however, compare the two without having a complete overview of the results of both viewpoints. If, after this has been done, you still think the need for an easier game outweighs my objections, we can agree to dissagree.
regards,
Ragnar
Re: Re: Re: Re: Right, can we get down to business again?
Originally posted by Ragnar
If you believe it to be divisible, please quote me the rule that allows you to do so, preferrably complete with the procedure used to show the division.
What do you mean divisible? Do you mean in terms of my interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2? I mean 7.3.3.3.2 IS the rule that "allows" it, inasmuch as it is not a "division" of the corps more an explanation of it's capabilities.
1a) What part of the rules can you quote that alows this choice? (usually, your religion points at the word "may" in 7.3.3.3.1&2)
Exactly.
1b) How do you make this status of "non-controllong" visible on the board?
I'm thinking it will be a rare event, but you can use any convention you like, really. Notation on paper and announcement would probably be best. Can you imagine if you had to do that all the time? Bad... so unless otherwise stated you give control of the city to the corps in the area in the absence of a specific garrison.
7.3.8.4 only requires other forces to leave an area if a combat was actually declared. Declaring a siege is not the same as declaring a combat. In fact, the decision to roll for a breach or not has not yet been made..
Er... whatever, point being, the forces in question are required to leave before a conflict occurs.
Well, as I said before, I don't care that they are also still "field forces"...
You cant not care about the "field forces" definition and only care about the "garrisons" defninition. Clearly Field Forces are required to move before the conflict you are positing occurs. So there is no problem. The corps counter is by NO definition a "garrison" (and therefore a "field force"). It is only permitted to ACT AS a garrison by the provisions of 7.3.3.3.2.
Which brings us back to the earlier issue of exactly what part of your corps is inside the city and how you are going to show this on the map.
And I'll say again it doesn't matter... it really doesn't. It's not something that is ever required to be specified by the rules (and I am not going to quote the entire ruleset to support my view, all the relevant portions have been mentioned).
The ability of a corps to act as a garrison regardless of it's position in or out of the city inherently gives it the ability to do all the things a garrison can do and yet still be considered "outside" the city for all other purposes required by the rules. My holy grail is 7.3.3.3.2!!
-
Zen Mechanic
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:01 pm
An attempt to reply to Snake
Firstly, anyone know of an online source of the rules? I won't be able to check a rulebook until either I get home or Wednesday, when I play Turkey again (thus the feudal references)
An attempt to respond (please be aware I've edited a lot of this for space):
*****EX 1: SOAPYFROG moves his corp into the provence of Denmark containing Copenhagen and stops. [snip]
ONE MUST HAVE FACTORS (ACTUAL COUNTERS) IN THE CITY TO CONTROL THE CITY.
Or do you argue that you can garrison a city you can't control?
ANSWER: We play that you don't need to drop factors into the city to control it. Being in the area is enough. I agree that the rule is ambiguous, but our interpretation prevents stupid things like not being able to flush British fleets out of the 1-spire ottoman cities, or e.g. take control back of the capital of Military Border with a full insurrection corps.
*****EX 2: Soapy argues with EX 1 above and says my corps in the area can be all or part of a garrison, see 7.3.3.3.2. OK.
My corps enters the area. Soapy argues that his entire corps can fight so by definition, THE STRENGTH FACTORS OF THE CORPS IN THE CITY MUST RUSH OUT AND FIGHT IN THE FIELD BATTLE. Heck his whole corps strength COULD be in the city (7.3.3.3.2 says ALL or part) so the whole corps in the city must be allowed to rush out of the city to fight the field battle.
BUT THE COMBAT RULES 7.5.1.2 SPECIFICALLY FORBID UNITS IN CITIES FROM JOINING A FIELD BATTLE IN THE AREA! SO WHAT PART OF SOAPY'S CORPS IS IN THE CITY DOING GARRISON DUTY?!?! because that part MUST be excluded from field combat!
*****EX3: Soapy has a corps in the area and a strength factor in the city. BY HIS intrepretation of 7.3.3.3.2, ALL OR SOME of his corps may also be in the city! (LANGUAGE TEST: MAY does not mean MUST but doesn't exclude COULD!) SO WHAT DOES ONE DO SOAPY? DOES A PLAYER have to DECLARE WHAT PART of his corps, if any, is in the city in EX 2 or EX 3 everytime the situation arises?. I could say yes, part of my corp is in the city according to 7.3.3.3.2.
ANSWER to 2 and 3: As Soapy alluded a few million pages ago, a Corps in an area is a quantum unit, until it has to declare where it is, it is in both areas simultaneously. As soon as you need to know precisely where it is (for a field battle) it goes to that area. In the combat step you declare if the corps is EITHER in the city OR in the area. Prior to that time, it is in BOTH areas. As actual garrison counters explicitly cannot fight in the battle, they are always in the city. Once you are forced to make a choice, the corps then declares it is either in the city or the area. The only time you have to make a choice is in the land combat step.
The point to "double duty" is that a corps is (typically) a very large organization, made of divisions, regiments and batallions. Artillery batallions are "implied" to be in Infantry corps, for example. Is is so inconceivable that a few battalions or even a division of infantry could be stationed in the city, but be ready to move out when the skirmishers announce that the enemy is nearby? Contrast that to a city garrison, a unit which is not a "flexible" unit, and only has one function. I argue that it makes sense that a corps (even a 1-strength corps) can be both in the city and in the area simultaneously. I mean really, there are only so many whores to go around, people have to share.
*****EX4: GLOSSARY DEFINITION OF A FIELD FORCE: Land forces excluding guerillas (unless attacking) NOT in a city or port. Obviously, units in areas are field forces NOT in a city!
[snip]
CLEARLY!! WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION!!! Cossacks, friedkorps and guerilla factors MUST BE IN THE CITY TO FORM ALL OR PART OF THAT CITY'S GARRISON. The definition of the glossary term is clear! THESE FACTORS MUST BE PLACED IN A CITY, PORT OR ON A DEPOT!
ANSWER: You are not wrong here - I have always argued that the rule is ambiguous. However, as an aside, I always thought that cossacks/etc. had to be with a corps to beseige a city. Other than rampaging a little bit, I didn't think a cossack could stay (not be) in a city, unless it was being besieged itself. I would argue that it makes no sense for cossacks/etc. to be part of a garrison in the same way a corps is - when was the last time cossacks fired port guns, historically? I think the definition was written in that manner to allow cossacks/etc. to be part of a garrison when beseiged, but I'm not certain.
*****EX5: A totally guard factor corps can not garrison a city because ONLY REGULAR INFANTRY, NOT GUARD INFANTRY can garrsion.
ANSWER: if the whole corps could fit into the city, then it could be beseiged and be part of the garrison. If you didn't have the glossary definition of "garrison" none of those units would be able to garrison the city in a siege, which would be silly.
Similarly, "double-duty" would allow a guard or cavalry or feudal or insurrection corps to be in BOTH the city and the area until it was necessary to declare precisely where you were.
*****EX6: SOAPY says a TU fuedal corps CAN garrison from an area. YET, he argues that it's done through "detachments of factors" not represented in games terms that go into the city to man the guns. BUT RULE 10.1.3.4 SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS ANY "detachements" from Feudal corps.
A feudal can garrison a city, but what if the city is a 1-spire and the feudal is full? Or what if the city is a 3-spire and the insurrection corps want to garrison it? FUBAR? Thus the need for some sort of "double-duty" interpretation to prevent this "gameyness" (i.e. non-reality interpretation).
*****EX7: SOAPY argues that the corps in the area is garrisoning a city as well according to 7.3.3.3.2 because of 'detachments' that can be considered in the city and that these detachments are 'moving about' so all can be considered in both places at a time (double duty) OK.
RULE 7.3.3 SPECIFICALLY SAYS DURING A LAND POWER'S MOVEMENT PHASE so detaching/absorbing occurs then (and also as a result of some combat rules.) BUT IT AIN"T HAPPENING DURING THE NAVAL PHASE so how can you be detaching/absorbing factors during the NAVAL PHASE in order to fulfill the requirements of a garrsion to man the guns?!
ANSWER: I say that the corps is in both places without having to detach specific factors (easily seen in the 1-strength corps example, and the guard/cav/etc. example). Enough to fire the port guns and control the city, at any rate.
*****EX8: Rule 7.3.3.1.2 Detachments MAY NEVER EMPTY A CORPS!!!!!! So how under 7.3.3.3.2, could my corps in the area BE ALL inside of a city deployed in 'invisible detachments' from the corps counter IN THE AREA. SOAPY CAN'T DENY rule 7.3.3.3.2 as it is HIS BASIS for double duty. SO SOAPY, how does ALL of your corps garrison from the area since by definition ALL of the factors of the corps would be in the city and not in the counter (NOT ALLOWED BY 7.3.3.1.2!)
ANSWER: the problem is that both Soapy and myself (and we used to game together years ago FYI) agree that there is no rule stating how to know if you are in the city or not. We agree that unless being besieged it is impossible to know where the corps is just by looking at the map, barring some convention dreamed up by the players themselves. (e.g. corps counter upside-down is in the city, upside-right is in the area). How do you know, then, if the corps is IN the city (which is possible in certain instances) or not? You don't - therefore it's both, just like quantum physics. This does allow a corps to fire the guns and control cities, and I think that's reasonable, realilty-wise. My current group disagrees, and forces people to place infantry or militia(!) garrisons in ports to fire the guns, but not to control cities. A compromise. What the rules nit-pickingly say is less important to us than a more realistic simulation.
NO, IT'S OBVIOUS to me that 7.3.3.3.2 was written to avoid having to convert factors from regular to guard just to garrison with a corps, to allow for TU feudal corps to garrison (since they can't detach-even invisibly) and to avoid saying "you have a corps in the city but no factors, therefore you ain't garrisoned." OBVIOUSLY a corps counter could garrison a city but IT MUST BE IN THE CITY!
ANSWER: but how do you resolve the absurdity of a feudal being able to be "in" a 10-size city and not a 5-size city?
I say that "double-duty" doesn't hurt, doesn't fly in the face of reality, and is an easier thing to keep track of than some sort of homemade "in-city/out-of-city" convention.
I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, it is defensible. I think it does make sense that sometimes a corps would be entirely in an area or entirely in a city. I do point out the following problems with using it, however:
(1) one cossack factor could capture a capital city when 12 guard/infantry coprs are "in the area" (containing, say, 30+ cav factors between them). I call "nonsense" (first word was probably going to be edited".
(2) guard/cav/feudals and inssurection corps can't capture some cities if they have TOO MANY factors (not TOO FEW). I call bullnonsense again.
You then have to houserule these absurd results - which you don't have to if you use double-duty. Arguing "you should have left garrison there if you wanted to avoid that" doesn't make my scenarios any less valid.
I therefore say that double-duty makes the most sense, especially dealing with month-long turns and a strategic game like EiA. The non-double-duty makes less sense, imo.
Phew, that was long. I hope I was clear
ZM
An attempt to respond (please be aware I've edited a lot of this for space):
*****EX 1: SOAPYFROG moves his corp into the provence of Denmark containing Copenhagen and stops. [snip]
ONE MUST HAVE FACTORS (ACTUAL COUNTERS) IN THE CITY TO CONTROL THE CITY.
Or do you argue that you can garrison a city you can't control?
ANSWER: We play that you don't need to drop factors into the city to control it. Being in the area is enough. I agree that the rule is ambiguous, but our interpretation prevents stupid things like not being able to flush British fleets out of the 1-spire ottoman cities, or e.g. take control back of the capital of Military Border with a full insurrection corps.
*****EX 2: Soapy argues with EX 1 above and says my corps in the area can be all or part of a garrison, see 7.3.3.3.2. OK.
My corps enters the area. Soapy argues that his entire corps can fight so by definition, THE STRENGTH FACTORS OF THE CORPS IN THE CITY MUST RUSH OUT AND FIGHT IN THE FIELD BATTLE. Heck his whole corps strength COULD be in the city (7.3.3.3.2 says ALL or part) so the whole corps in the city must be allowed to rush out of the city to fight the field battle.
BUT THE COMBAT RULES 7.5.1.2 SPECIFICALLY FORBID UNITS IN CITIES FROM JOINING A FIELD BATTLE IN THE AREA! SO WHAT PART OF SOAPY'S CORPS IS IN THE CITY DOING GARRISON DUTY?!?! because that part MUST be excluded from field combat!
*****EX3: Soapy has a corps in the area and a strength factor in the city. BY HIS intrepretation of 7.3.3.3.2, ALL OR SOME of his corps may also be in the city! (LANGUAGE TEST: MAY does not mean MUST but doesn't exclude COULD!) SO WHAT DOES ONE DO SOAPY? DOES A PLAYER have to DECLARE WHAT PART of his corps, if any, is in the city in EX 2 or EX 3 everytime the situation arises?. I could say yes, part of my corp is in the city according to 7.3.3.3.2.
ANSWER to 2 and 3: As Soapy alluded a few million pages ago, a Corps in an area is a quantum unit, until it has to declare where it is, it is in both areas simultaneously. As soon as you need to know precisely where it is (for a field battle) it goes to that area. In the combat step you declare if the corps is EITHER in the city OR in the area. Prior to that time, it is in BOTH areas. As actual garrison counters explicitly cannot fight in the battle, they are always in the city. Once you are forced to make a choice, the corps then declares it is either in the city or the area. The only time you have to make a choice is in the land combat step.
The point to "double duty" is that a corps is (typically) a very large organization, made of divisions, regiments and batallions. Artillery batallions are "implied" to be in Infantry corps, for example. Is is so inconceivable that a few battalions or even a division of infantry could be stationed in the city, but be ready to move out when the skirmishers announce that the enemy is nearby? Contrast that to a city garrison, a unit which is not a "flexible" unit, and only has one function. I argue that it makes sense that a corps (even a 1-strength corps) can be both in the city and in the area simultaneously. I mean really, there are only so many whores to go around, people have to share.
*****EX4: GLOSSARY DEFINITION OF A FIELD FORCE: Land forces excluding guerillas (unless attacking) NOT in a city or port. Obviously, units in areas are field forces NOT in a city!
[snip]
CLEARLY!! WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION!!! Cossacks, friedkorps and guerilla factors MUST BE IN THE CITY TO FORM ALL OR PART OF THAT CITY'S GARRISON. The definition of the glossary term is clear! THESE FACTORS MUST BE PLACED IN A CITY, PORT OR ON A DEPOT!
ANSWER: You are not wrong here - I have always argued that the rule is ambiguous. However, as an aside, I always thought that cossacks/etc. had to be with a corps to beseige a city. Other than rampaging a little bit, I didn't think a cossack could stay (not be) in a city, unless it was being besieged itself. I would argue that it makes no sense for cossacks/etc. to be part of a garrison in the same way a corps is - when was the last time cossacks fired port guns, historically? I think the definition was written in that manner to allow cossacks/etc. to be part of a garrison when beseiged, but I'm not certain.
*****EX5: A totally guard factor corps can not garrison a city because ONLY REGULAR INFANTRY, NOT GUARD INFANTRY can garrsion.
ANSWER: if the whole corps could fit into the city, then it could be beseiged and be part of the garrison. If you didn't have the glossary definition of "garrison" none of those units would be able to garrison the city in a siege, which would be silly.
Similarly, "double-duty" would allow a guard or cavalry or feudal or insurrection corps to be in BOTH the city and the area until it was necessary to declare precisely where you were.
*****EX6: SOAPY says a TU fuedal corps CAN garrison from an area. YET, he argues that it's done through "detachments of factors" not represented in games terms that go into the city to man the guns. BUT RULE 10.1.3.4 SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS ANY "detachements" from Feudal corps.
A feudal can garrison a city, but what if the city is a 1-spire and the feudal is full? Or what if the city is a 3-spire and the insurrection corps want to garrison it? FUBAR? Thus the need for some sort of "double-duty" interpretation to prevent this "gameyness" (i.e. non-reality interpretation).
*****EX7: SOAPY argues that the corps in the area is garrisoning a city as well according to 7.3.3.3.2 because of 'detachments' that can be considered in the city and that these detachments are 'moving about' so all can be considered in both places at a time (double duty) OK.
RULE 7.3.3 SPECIFICALLY SAYS DURING A LAND POWER'S MOVEMENT PHASE so detaching/absorbing occurs then (and also as a result of some combat rules.) BUT IT AIN"T HAPPENING DURING THE NAVAL PHASE so how can you be detaching/absorbing factors during the NAVAL PHASE in order to fulfill the requirements of a garrsion to man the guns?!
ANSWER: I say that the corps is in both places without having to detach specific factors (easily seen in the 1-strength corps example, and the guard/cav/etc. example). Enough to fire the port guns and control the city, at any rate.
*****EX8: Rule 7.3.3.1.2 Detachments MAY NEVER EMPTY A CORPS!!!!!! So how under 7.3.3.3.2, could my corps in the area BE ALL inside of a city deployed in 'invisible detachments' from the corps counter IN THE AREA. SOAPY CAN'T DENY rule 7.3.3.3.2 as it is HIS BASIS for double duty. SO SOAPY, how does ALL of your corps garrison from the area since by definition ALL of the factors of the corps would be in the city and not in the counter (NOT ALLOWED BY 7.3.3.1.2!)
ANSWER: the problem is that both Soapy and myself (and we used to game together years ago FYI) agree that there is no rule stating how to know if you are in the city or not. We agree that unless being besieged it is impossible to know where the corps is just by looking at the map, barring some convention dreamed up by the players themselves. (e.g. corps counter upside-down is in the city, upside-right is in the area). How do you know, then, if the corps is IN the city (which is possible in certain instances) or not? You don't - therefore it's both, just like quantum physics. This does allow a corps to fire the guns and control cities, and I think that's reasonable, realilty-wise. My current group disagrees, and forces people to place infantry or militia(!) garrisons in ports to fire the guns, but not to control cities. A compromise. What the rules nit-pickingly say is less important to us than a more realistic simulation.
NO, IT'S OBVIOUS to me that 7.3.3.3.2 was written to avoid having to convert factors from regular to guard just to garrison with a corps, to allow for TU feudal corps to garrison (since they can't detach-even invisibly) and to avoid saying "you have a corps in the city but no factors, therefore you ain't garrisoned." OBVIOUSLY a corps counter could garrison a city but IT MUST BE IN THE CITY!
ANSWER: but how do you resolve the absurdity of a feudal being able to be "in" a 10-size city and not a 5-size city?
I say that "double-duty" doesn't hurt, doesn't fly in the face of reality, and is an easier thing to keep track of than some sort of homemade "in-city/out-of-city" convention.
I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, it is defensible. I think it does make sense that sometimes a corps would be entirely in an area or entirely in a city. I do point out the following problems with using it, however:
(1) one cossack factor could capture a capital city when 12 guard/infantry coprs are "in the area" (containing, say, 30+ cav factors between them). I call "nonsense" (first word was probably going to be edited".
(2) guard/cav/feudals and inssurection corps can't capture some cities if they have TOO MANY factors (not TOO FEW). I call bullnonsense again.
You then have to houserule these absurd results - which you don't have to if you use double-duty. Arguing "you should have left garrison there if you wanted to avoid that" doesn't make my scenarios any less valid.
I therefore say that double-duty makes the most sense, especially dealing with month-long turns and a strategic game like EiA. The non-double-duty makes less sense, imo.
Phew, that was long. I hope I was clear
ZM
duh!
...
...
...
...
I'd like one coke, two 'burgers and some french fries pleace....
...
...
...
...
Ooops, sorry, am I interrupting anything?
Could we just all agree on the fact that most of us have different interpretations of parts of the rules, but that this does not diminish the fun we have playing the game?
Jeroen.
...
...
...
I'd like one coke, two 'burgers and some french fries pleace....
...
...
...
...
Ooops, sorry, am I interrupting anything?
Could we just all agree on the fact that most of us have different interpretations of parts of the rules, but that this does not diminish the fun we have playing the game?
Jeroen.
The Chink in the Armor
Okay, this will come as a great shock I'm sure, but there are two chinks, actually, that I have discovered in my position that make me alter slightly my position. At least on the no detachment after expending the last of a counter's movement allowance position (only).
First, the "slight" chink in the armor is the situation that arises in how to interpret 7.3.2.1 when both conditions arise simultaneously: A counter, with its last movement points, moves into an area leaving it (1) without a movement allowance; AND (2) in an area containing enemy units. Now, this could be resolved by saying 7.3.7 "Moving into Combat" presents a special situation that allows all the combat stuff to occur notwithstanding the total expenditure of its allowance. I could live with that bit of friction.
Secondly, however, and much more seriously, there is the contradiction of what a unit which DOES engage in combat in the last area moved into after expending its final movement allowance is permitted to do!: It may proceed to BESIEGE the city (i.e. "move there") if enemy factors are present. Ah, there's the rub. Not only could it proceed to the city, but if it's successful in field combat in the area OR through siege, it could end up placing factors IN the captured city after combat by virtue of 7.5.1.3.
So, there is a contradiction in the premises set forth in 7.2.3.1 in that despite movement "ceasing" for counters in both instances, one may engage in combat/siege AND move into a city, yet the other (not engaging in combat) is stalled. So one of those premises must be incorrect as literally written. A clear breach of logic in the rules structure.
Alright, given that a unit "moving into combat" in its last area may move immediately to besiege an enemy occupied city, or may occupy a vacant city or besiege a city following successful field combat (see 7.5.1.3), it is only right that the zero cost of 7.3.3 "Moving into Cities" be permitted in the LMS (only) even in the last area moved into upon expending the full allowance of the counter. The only other alternative reasonable to me would be to allow a "technical combat" to occur in any area vacant of enemy forces to permit corps to occupy or detach to a city in the combat phase pursuant to 7.5.1.3. This latter practice, however, seems to be needlessly contrived.
Therefore, I am forced to relent that the "zero movement" cost of 7.3.3 to move into a city does permit a counter to move into the city (or detach factors thereto) under 7.3.3 even if under 7.3.2.1, its movement should have "ceased" upon the full expenditure of its allowance.
Now, I know you are all relieved that I have conceded this point, but the following still is necessitated by the rules: Once you do finish with your zero cost moves (if you decided to utilize that move), you thereafter must declare the movement of that counter to have "ceased" (see 7.3.2.4 as well), and proceed to roll for forage (if foraging) -- all of which must be done prior to proceeding to the move of another counter. IOW, that counter's movement must be declared to have ceased/ended in order to roll for forage during the LMS as a part of the supply rules per 7.3.1.4 and 7.4.1.1 -- "a die is rolled for each foraging corps as it (singular) completes movement" -- and begin the move of another counter. After that, the counter cannot take any further action not permitted under the subsequent nonmovement phases of the game, as each counter must still be moved sequentially AND individually (7.3.2).
So, there. Take this for what you will.
First, the "slight" chink in the armor is the situation that arises in how to interpret 7.3.2.1 when both conditions arise simultaneously: A counter, with its last movement points, moves into an area leaving it (1) without a movement allowance; AND (2) in an area containing enemy units. Now, this could be resolved by saying 7.3.7 "Moving into Combat" presents a special situation that allows all the combat stuff to occur notwithstanding the total expenditure of its allowance. I could live with that bit of friction.
Secondly, however, and much more seriously, there is the contradiction of what a unit which DOES engage in combat in the last area moved into after expending its final movement allowance is permitted to do!: It may proceed to BESIEGE the city (i.e. "move there") if enemy factors are present. Ah, there's the rub. Not only could it proceed to the city, but if it's successful in field combat in the area OR through siege, it could end up placing factors IN the captured city after combat by virtue of 7.5.1.3.
So, there is a contradiction in the premises set forth in 7.2.3.1 in that despite movement "ceasing" for counters in both instances, one may engage in combat/siege AND move into a city, yet the other (not engaging in combat) is stalled. So one of those premises must be incorrect as literally written. A clear breach of logic in the rules structure.
Alright, given that a unit "moving into combat" in its last area may move immediately to besiege an enemy occupied city, or may occupy a vacant city or besiege a city following successful field combat (see 7.5.1.3), it is only right that the zero cost of 7.3.3 "Moving into Cities" be permitted in the LMS (only) even in the last area moved into upon expending the full allowance of the counter. The only other alternative reasonable to me would be to allow a "technical combat" to occur in any area vacant of enemy forces to permit corps to occupy or detach to a city in the combat phase pursuant to 7.5.1.3. This latter practice, however, seems to be needlessly contrived.
Therefore, I am forced to relent that the "zero movement" cost of 7.3.3 to move into a city does permit a counter to move into the city (or detach factors thereto) under 7.3.3 even if under 7.3.2.1, its movement should have "ceased" upon the full expenditure of its allowance.
Now, I know you are all relieved that I have conceded this point, but the following still is necessitated by the rules: Once you do finish with your zero cost moves (if you decided to utilize that move), you thereafter must declare the movement of that counter to have "ceased" (see 7.3.2.4 as well), and proceed to roll for forage (if foraging) -- all of which must be done prior to proceeding to the move of another counter. IOW, that counter's movement must be declared to have ceased/ended in order to roll for forage during the LMS as a part of the supply rules per 7.3.1.4 and 7.4.1.1 -- "a die is rolled for each foraging corps as it (singular) completes movement" -- and begin the move of another counter. After that, the counter cannot take any further action not permitted under the subsequent nonmovement phases of the game, as each counter must still be moved sequentially AND individually (7.3.2).
So, there. Take this for what you will.