Matrix Games Forums

Tell me again how you distinguish, if you do, between movement ceasing upon entrance into an area based on the presence of enemy forces and it ceasing upon expenditure of movement allowance. Please cite pertinent rule(s) as I have done, not just toss around pejoratives and extemporaneous thought.

When an individual unit's movement ceases in a given Land Movement Segment, it may not be "acted with" again barring a special rule to that effect (such as retirement into city upon attack in the opposing players' turn).

Your contention is that the term "cease" has no meaning at all. Is that not true? And "cease" concerns "movement" per the rules. Since detachment is couched in terms of "movement cost of zero", it is clearly considered "movement" by the rules, and a unit must not have had its movement "cease" in order to use the zero-movement cost move to detach. Very plain. Please cite chapter and verse if you disagree, please...

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!

I guess you haven't been reading this thread very carefully

I would contend that the rules let you drop of factors for no movement cost (e.g. no movement points, movement allowance, etc is required) during your movement phase into cities that you control or that are otherwise ungarrisonned.

A corps in an area clearly protects the city at the owning player's discretion by my reading of 7.3.3.3.2 (although as you can see it is under dispute), and in any case the rules prohibit doing what you suggest... check 7.3.3.1.

CHITENG, SOAPYFROG,
I believe what Capitain is saying is that as long as a unit (corps) has at least 0.000000001 movement potential remaining then it may do whatever functions are allowed in terms of detach/absorb.
BUT when that last 0.000000001 is used, then movement is over and the unit can't make even a zero movement action (such as detach/absorb).

CAPITAINE,
I may be wrong but I don't think SOAPYFROG ever asserted he could do any corps actions (detach/absorb) upon entering an enemy's area and ceasing movement.

Most of our argument was over two things:
1. Soapy believes that NO UNIT MAY ENTER A CITY IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE OTHER THAN DETACH/ABSORB FACTORS FROM A CORPS (as long as no enemy corps presence in the area).
I believe this intrepretation is faulty and any units may enter a city in their movement phase (To get control, force out fleets, restrict economics, to garrison etc.)
2. Soapy believes that ANY unit in an area also garrisons that area's city per 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2. An intrepretation I strongly disagree with as I've explained before. I believe an empty city or depot is just that, EMPTY, no garrison!

Naturally, it follows that I believe a cossack, for example, could move into an area with an enemy corps (NOT required to stop) and then move into the ungarrisoned city or depot to take control of the city, destroy the depot, force out ships in port, affect the ecomomic earning picture (ESPECIALLY IF IT'S THE CAPTIOL!) and whatever else control of a city means.

We both agree the point is not a real big game killing issue since only fools don't garrison important places with factors. But, we also both believe the game can't be played properly any other way. DEADLOCK!

We have come to an impasse and without a word from GOD or the game developers, I can't convince him nor him me. GOD won't tell me the answer (he may be upset at all my prayers for better dice rolls....) so I hope to get word from the game developers at the June convention in OHIO if they are there or write/pester them till they do respond.

CAPITAINE,
I honestly had not considered your vision of movement since I assumed that detach/absorb costs zero movement even in the last area moved.

BUT, you've convinced me. Rule 7.3.2.1 IS very clear. A unit's move IS OVER when it consumes it's last movement point and hence would not be allowed to expend even a zero movement point (detach/absorb) SINCE IT'S MOVE IS OVER.

CHITENG, SOAPYFROG
Pretty clear to anyone reading 7.3.2.1. So a corps moving 4 areas could detach/absorb in the first three but not the fourth area. I would say nobody believes they can detach/absorb when entering an area with an enemy corps regardless of movement points remaining.

Learn something new I did - YODA would be proud!

SNAKE:)

I would also suggest that those of you professing serious problems with the "port garrison" issue only have them because of your wrongfully broad "interpretation" of this detachment "move" issue. When you start out correctly, as I've outlined, none of the issues you're struggling with will arise. This fact in itself provides very telling proof of the correct construction of the general principle here...

Your contention is that the term "cease" has no meaning at all. Is that not true? And "cease" concerns "movement" per the rules. Since detachment is couched in terms of "movement cost of zero", it is clearly considered "movement" by the rules, and a unit must not have had its movement "cease" in order to use the zero-movement cost move to detach. Very plain. Please cite chapter and verse if you disagree, please...

Yikes man. A corps ceases movement when it has stopped moving. Your movmement allowance is not "expended" until you have have finished moving to the extent that your movement allowance permits. If I have a movement cost of 3 and I want to move 3 spaces and make a zero-cost movement in the 3rd space then 3+0 is 3 and is therefore within my movement allowance. therefore until I have declared that my unit will not be making any zero-cost moves (or I just say "I'm done ) then the movement of my unit has not "ceased".

So ceaseing has plenty of meaning, the rules make perfect sense, and nothing is broken. Let me know when you find a problem with it!!!

Oh and one last thing, "there is no movement point cost for doing this" implies more than just a zero-cost mvoes it implies an action which requires no movement points whatsoever, but which is nontheless perfomred in the movement step.

There is simply no logical basis whatever for disallowing a corps form detaching garrisons or making any other zero-cost move after it has expended it's last integer movement point.

Thank you gdpsnake. I realize the issue is confusing due to so many other games, as I've mentioned, that are worded otherwise. Yet I've had the EIA rules in front of me this whole exchange and am reading them straight away. I'm not trying to belittle anyone, except for those who'd say I have no right myself to assert my own construction of the rule issue.

I too am always glad to learn a corrected position on a matter, and have gladly found that to be the case in other games where I was making incorrect assumptions myself. Here, though, as the rules state, movement "ceases". Detachment is "movement". If your unit's move has ceased, you may not even make a 0-cost "move". It's THAT simple. (Meaning, conceptually; there is not an example given of the natural inference created by other similar games so some confusion on that score is to be expected...)

SOAPYFROG,
As I just posted, 7.3.2.1 IS VERY CLEAR. A unit must cease movement upon consuming it's movement ALLOWANCE. A movement allowance is the toatal amount of movement points a unit has to start with as defined in 7.3.1.
The rule does not say last movement potential or last movement point (IF it did I would agree with you since zero is still a potential or part of a remaining point.) BUT zero is not a remaining movement allowance. An allowance, like money, is gone when you spend the last penny. Once the last 0.000001 of the movement allowance is used, the movement stops.

No, IMHO, 7.3.2.1 IS VERY CLEAR WITH USING THE TERM MOVEMENT ALLOWANCE which is 3, 4, or 5 for units in the game (one area for guerillas). Once used, the movement ALLOWANCE ends at ZERO not beyond zero with more zero moves.

Then again as we have proven, rules are as clear as mud. Sounds like another house rule to decide

SNAKE

Originally posted by gdpsnake
BUT zero is not a remaining movement allowance. An allowance, like money, is gone when you spend the last penny. Once the last 0.000001 of the movement allowance is used, the movement stops.

Zero is just as much a remaining movement allowance as zero is a movement point cost.

Simple mathematics. Remaining movement = total movement allowance - expended movement.

I have a movement allowance of 3, and I have expended 3 mvoement points.

3 - 3 = 0

Zero! Just enough to make a zero-cost move!!

To take your money analogy, I do not need to have a penny to take something being offered for free, just as much as I do not need 1 dollar and 1 penny to purchase something that costs a dollar.

No, IMHO, 7.3.2.1 IS VERY CLEAR WITH USING THE TERM MOVEMENT ALLOWANCE which is 3, 4, or 5 for units in the game (one area for guerillas). Once used, the movement ALLOWANCE ends at ZERO not beyond zero with more zero moves.

Oh good more math!!

If I have zero movement left and I do something that costs me zero movement then I still have zero movement left!! I have not gone BEYOND zero, whatever that means, or expended somehwo more movement than I had available. I had zero mvoement available and I spent... ZERO!

In fact as long as the rules do not prohibit me I could make an infinite number of zero-cost movements before my move is expended. Fortunately this creates no problems, even if you are playing against a computer, unless your computer's AI subroutines are badly busted.

I think the problem is that you are imagining that a "zero-cost movement" somehow ACTUALLY means "an infintessimally small amount of movement cost" It does not, however. It means ZERO, nada, nolo, nothing, the null set, the absence of any amount whatsoever.

*whew*

soapy, you're making a fundamental error of logic in making it a matter of mathematics. As gpdsnake realizes, math doesn't enter into it. It's a matter of whether a unit, conceptually, is considered "moving". Yes, a unit can spend 0 movement points infinitely as long as it is that unit's move. No one is arguing otherwise. It's beside the point.

The point is that the very first, most basic "movement" rule defines when a particular unit "is moving". From the moment an individual unit is selected and begins its move, it is "moving" until one of two things happen, and once that happens, that unit's move IS OVER. IOW, its movement has "ceased" (no longer that unit's move, and it may no longer make its "infinite" zero cost moves).

Those two "cessation conditions" are: Entering an area w/ enemy units, and expending its movement allowance (immediately upon its allowance reaching "zero"). There. It is plain as day. Math exercise over, no longer relevant. The unit's "move" is over as a matter of law. Cannot make a move of any kind, zero cost or otherwise. (And note that "detachment" is a subsection of "movement" rules and IS subject to the general rules of moving units. If it was different, it would be located/positioned elsewhere in the rules.)

Please understand this fundamental point of reason.

Please note that I am weighing in on this without having read each and every previous word on the issue.

I tend to agree with Soapy on this one.

How is it that having used up one's movement is pivotal to detaching garrisons?

7.3.3.1 seems to control the restrictions on doing so (in .1, .1.1 and .1.2).

So as long as I am conducting my "Land Movement Step", can't I therefore conduct detachment/absorption at will and subject only to the restrictions as laid out expressly?

Please note further that this does not affect my position on corps pulling double duty. They can't in my opinion.

The rule could read,

"During a major power's Land Movement Step, any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may, during its respective movement, detach factors as garrisons at, or..."

But it doesn't say that.

I agree 100% that corps move individually. This doesn't equate to treating each corps as an island. They act in unison at times and conduct supply (such as forage rolls) in concert (at least, accounting for each other in the process).

To draw a bright line is fine where it's more clear than this.

What principle would defend why a corps, during it's first or last moves, in expending zero additional move, could not drop or add a garrison?

Here's something else to rock everyone's world:

Under the rules as set forth above, why can't you have five corps meeting in an area and shuffling their respective infantry around -- particularly if it's in the middle of the "Land Movement Step"?

Reknoy

Originally posted by Capitaine

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.

Capitaine,

Very, very interesting point. While I've never interpreted this rule as such, I agree that your reading is consistent enough with the text to have merit.

However, I find it strange that you would not be able to detach under these circumstances while you _would_ be able to detach after you've defeated an enemy depot garrison in that area (7.5.1.3). I'm not saying this invalidates your interpretation, just that I'm a bit sceptical because of it.

Also, what's the big deal? So a corps ends its movement upon expending its movement allowance. It doesn't say "_immediately_ upon expending its movement allowance". All you can be sure of is that after all mp have been expended, the corps must end its movement. Afaict, the sentense does not specifically exclude the corps from performing any other actions in between. Again, not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't think your reasoning is airtight..

regards,
Ragnar

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

I agree to that..

However, you certainly must know that some people do NOT play the game "right". In the eight years I've been playing now, I've constantly had to adjust my sense of the rules because I'd missed this or that or read something wrongly.

The plain language of the EiA rules make them easy to read, but also easy to misinterpret while the sheer number of them and the odd places that some rules are in makes it easy to miss something completely.

Rqagnar

Originally posted by Reknoy
The rule could read,

"During a major power's Land Movement Step, any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may, during its respective movement, detach factors as garrisons at, or..."

But it doesn't say that.

[..]

Here's something else to rock everyone's world:

Under the rules as set forth above, why can't you have five corps meeting in an area and shuffling their respective infantry around -- particularly if it's in the middle of the "Land Movement Step"?

Reknoy

Well, they can't do _that_ since they cannot actually exchange factors. But do it near a city or depot that has at least 1 free spot for a factor and you can do pretty much all you want, yes. I like the way you think

I must say that *this* is new to me, and I had to re-read 7.3.3. I'll have to agree though, that the fact that detaching "does not expend movement points" does not imply that movement points are relevant. In fact, if anything it implies that they are not.

In other words, a negative does not necessarily imply a positive in reverse.

And considering that there's a host of other rules that refer to rule 7.3.3 that have _nothing_ to do with the movement phase, I'd say that despite the opening of 7.3.3, detaching/moving into cities has nothing to do with movement. The movement phase is just ONE of the instances when you can enter a city or detach. I've already mentioned at least 3 others (excluding 7.5.1.1) in this thread: During reinforcements, during combats, during an opponents' supply step.

Ragnar

Sorry -- I meant that the five would have to be in an area that had a city or depot that could hold at least one factor.

Thanks for clarifying what would work from what I wrote rather than trash it in its (as of then, inaccurate) form.

Cheers!

Reknoy

I still feel more of a need to get to the bottom of the "double duty" issue. I believe that the belief in double duty is inherently inconsistent, so it should not be a problem to show this to its followers.

I believe that the point that there is no "double duty" has sufficiently been proven to be workable, for even though some people don't like it they haven't said or shown that the rules _exclude_ that interpretation.

So _suppose_ rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 DO imply a "double duty" function for corps/cossacks/guerillas.

What does that do to the rest of the rules? By induction, such units would now be considered to be "garrisons" and "factors inside a city, right? Or wrong (if so why)?

I'd like one of the believers (Soapy?) to give me HIS definition of a garrison.

Is it: "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)" ?

regards,
Ragnar

Replies to valid counterpoints

Reknoy says...

The rule could read,

"During a major power's Land Movement Step, any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may, during its respective movement, detach factors as garrisons at, or..."

But it doesn't say that.

I agree 100% that corps move individually. This doesn't equate to treating each corps as an island. They act in unison at times and conduct supply (such as forage rolls) in concert (at least, accounting for each other in the process).

Okay, once again, the basic "Land Movement Procedures" (7.3.2 and all subsections thereof) state that "each counter is moved individually" and also state explicitly when each counter's movement is deemed to "end", as a matter of "land movement". "End" or "cease" refers to all actions deemed to be "land movement" under the rules. Matters NOT deemed "land movement" or carved out by special exception (retirement into city during enemy combat phase, e.g.) are different matters entirely. Land movement is land movement, not a "move option" that is part of combat or another phase of the game.

As for not saying "during its respective movement", why should it be redundant? General "land movement" was set forth and described in 7.3.2, and as part of 7.3 ("Land Movement Step"), 7.3.3 ("Moving into Cities etc.") simply describes another activity which may be done during a counter's "land movement", consistently with the immediately preceding section 7.3.2.

Now, your foraging issue is simply off base on the movement issue. Foraging comes under section 7.4 "The Supply Step" and is not a part of the "Land Movement Step". Hence, whatever foraging is done is outside of the rules pertaining to "land movement" per se (7.3 vs. 7.4; technically the supply step, but occurs after the end of the move of each individually moved corps).

In fact, 7.4.1 states that foraging may be elected "when a corps (not two or more) ceases movement", clearly referencing the rule on "ceasing movement" in 7.3.2. Also, 7.4.1.1 states that the foraging roll is made "for each foraging corps as it completes movement (clearly indicating that forage is done for each corps individually, per 7.3.2, after it concludes its move; NOT in conjunction with other corps. It is done sequentially. Please tell me what rule provides that multiple corps "act in unison" on their forage rolls?

Under the rules as set forth above, why can't you have five corps meeting in an area and shuffling their respective infantry around -- particularly if it's in the middle of the "Land Movement Step"?

Simply because that is NOT how the rules set forth the play of the game. That activity (shuffling factors among corps in the same area) may only be done in 5.0, "The Reinforcement Phase". See rule 5.2.3. If corps could do this any time in their land movement phase, rule 5.2.3 would be superfluous AND there would also be a need for a similar rule in 7.3 ("Land Movement Step") to make that a valid "movement option. You may not, however, transfer directly among corps in the same area in the movement phase. (N.B. however that you could accomplish that to a lesser degree through the aforesaid "detachment" rules, where one corps validly detaches factors to a city in the area, and another corps moving afterward absorbs them legally under the movement rules).

Ragnar says...

However, I find it strange that you would not be able to detach under these circumstances while you _would_ be able to detach after you've defeated an enemy depot garrison in that area (7.5.1.3). I'm not saying this invalidates your interpretation, just that I'm a bit sceptical because of it.

Ragnar, like others, you're mixing up the "Land Movement Step" (7.3) with the "Land Combat Step" (7.5) which is faulty rules construction. Movement qua movement is determined solely pursuant to 7.3. Other "moves" permitted in the game are special situations applicable to other game phases, such as the "retirement into city" rule (7.5.1.1). The moves into cities described in 7.5.1.3 are ordained by virtue of that rule and not by virtue of the land movement restraints imposed under 7.3. Without 7.5.1.3, you would NOT be able to make that "move" during the combat step. There is no need for consistency between 7.3 and 7.5 since they are unrelated conceptually.

First, the comment about foraging should be taken in conjunction with the parenthetical reference thereafter.

Please re-read Capitaine and give me the quizzical look if you're still confused. I was actually trying to draw a comparable concept into play -- though poorly I must admit.

I am wholly unconvinced by your reasoning, however.

You keep referring to the notion that a corps stops everything when its individual movement ceases.

Where is that exactly?

I am referring to the rules on "detach/absorb". The specific rule on that topic.

In relation to those rules and the restriction laid out expressly therein, where is the beef?

I can cite and re-cite where it clearly states that, during the "Land Movement Step" a MP can detach and absorb factors.

I see where it says that each counter is MOVED individually.

That takes care of the obvious issues surrounding all sorts of results from movement (like insurrection corps popping up, for example).

Please show me where it says that each corps conducts its "Land Movement Step" individually?

To assume a consequence (like, because corps move individually, then once it ceases movement it cannot perform any actions in the land movement step) is hazardous in EiA, imo.

7.3.3 refers to "detaching" garrisons, not "moving into a city for zero move and detaching a garrison". The citation that there is no movement point cost simply clarifies that it costs no movement points to detach -- therefore, whether or not a force has movement points is not relevant.

Again, please cite something more specific. <-- Hey!

Originally posted by Ragnar
I'd like one of the believers (Soapy?) to give me HIS definition of a garrison.

A Garrison is as defined in the glossary, with rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 allowing corps/cossacks/freikorps/guerrillas to form all or part of a garrison with any of their factors at their discretion (i.e. when it matters).

So basically if a corps/cossacks/freikorps/guerrillas is in an otherwise empty area with a city, that city is considered to be under the control of the power controlling the corps/cossacks/freikorps/guerrillas for all purposes that require a garrison, including control for economic, political, and combat purposes (e.g. firing a ports guns).

As long as the unit has not been forced inside the city by way of 7.5.1.1 or is not a corps which has just been created in the reinforcement step, then it is still considered "field forces".

That's pretty much it.

And as for the zero-movement cost thing, I'm out of that one.

Clearly my brain is too small to deal with the 7th dimensional mathematics being used to define Zero as an infinitessimally small number instead of the complete absence of any existing or required amount.

*Edit* BUT ... Just to throw a spanner in your works, since all corps but cavalry retain the possibility of force-marching, is their move ever really truly expended unless the have already force-marched?

Oh wait are you going to argue that conducting a zero-cost move at the end of your regular movement REQUIRES you to force-march?