To ALL:
I haven't mailed Capitaine's concerns on the garrison issue yet as I decided it would be best to send one E-mail addressing all our issues instead of piecemeal.
SO, I started this thread.
I would like everyone to "Raise their issues" on this thread (NOT DISCUSS THEM - read argue LOL!) and I will compile them to send to ADG.
PLEASE use exact and complete quotes of the rules as I will be "cutting and pasting" and we don't want HR to have to decide without ALL the pertinent information.
Everyone reading this thread - please add any other rules you think applies to someone's issue in case they missed some other pertinant reference.
I'd hate to kill any good will on ADG's part so I'd like to submit ONE LAST list of issues especially for the gametesters of EIA.
I hope everyone finds this acceptable.
SNAKE
Addressing all concerns?
Moderator: MOD_EIA
One thing I would ask, SNAKE, is that IF a major power loses control due to no garrison in a capitol, WHEN is the major power's flag removed and what happens to the status of that minor power at that point?
It is one thing to say "needs to be occupied to control", but quite another to "once controlled, when and how does control change if not occupied?".
It is one thing to say "needs to be occupied to control", but quite another to "once controlled, when and how does control change if not occupied?".
*Lining himself up for Soapy's strongside linebacker blitz*
The rules do not state that a depot may not be built in a blockade box. They only state that depots on fleets may only be built for invasion supply (which then discusses Soapy's reference to "sea area").
So the question is, can a blockade box be considered part of "sea area" for this purpose?
The only pro-con I can find is in Section 6, as follows:
-----
6.2.3.2.2 Sea Area Interceptions: Except for interceptions in a blockade box, a die must be rolled for each stack attempting to intercept.
-----
So this rule would appear to consider a blockade box to be at least one iteration of "sea area" (for purposes of interceptions).
I guess this is another one that was "common sense" enough. I mean to say, why not a blockade box?
Just my two cents.
Reknoy
The rules do not state that a depot may not be built in a blockade box. They only state that depots on fleets may only be built for invasion supply (which then discusses Soapy's reference to "sea area").
So the question is, can a blockade box be considered part of "sea area" for this purpose?
The only pro-con I can find is in Section 6, as follows:
-----
6.2.3.2.2 Sea Area Interceptions: Except for interceptions in a blockade box, a die must be rolled for each stack attempting to intercept.
-----
So this rule would appear to consider a blockade box to be at least one iteration of "sea area" (for purposes of interceptions).
I guess this is another one that was "common sense" enough. I mean to say, why not a blockade box?
Just my two cents.
Reknoy
One of my concerns
There is an army in an area. It is currently besieging a city. Enemy enters that same area. Is this enemy required to stop and fight, or can he continue moving into the neighbouring areas ignoring the army there which is busy with the siege?
PFNOGNOFF,
I can answer that, I think LOL!.
Yes, stop and fight. The corps beseiging is not IN the city. The battle is handled as a relieving force battle if allied with the guys in the city, or just corps to corps as an area battle if not.
The corps must be IN the city to move on by. That's a fact.
Remember, units are completely IN or completely OUT. Not both.
REKNOY,
I say SOAPY is correct. Refer to my post in the other thread. Fleets must be present in a sea area to create a valid supply chain. Blockade boxes are never used in a supply chain. An invasion depot is placed IN an area WITH a valid supply chain.
ALSO, a blockade box is a separate "Area" outside a sea area for fleets on the 'special mission' of blockade. Fleets on blockade remained ON STATION and were usually supplied by other ships or rotated out. Blockade boxes are like cities which are a separate area within an area and units are either in one OR the other (no double duty).
Think of it as fleets in an area esentially can perform "convoy supply" while fleets in boxes "park and keep watch."
Let me know if you are still unhappy with my explanations and I'll ask but I think the valid supply chain description and the "area" mention in the rules are clear that invasion depots go only in sea areas, never boxes.
CAPITAINE,
The status changes during step 7.7 "control flags are changed....." I assume a removal is also a change so this is where/when it happens. I know the rule says changed only if....but this is the logical place such 'loss of control" would occur assuming HR doesn't change his position on garrison to control.
I will ask 'when' when I readdress the issue of minor country control.
SNAKE
I can answer that, I think LOL!.
Yes, stop and fight. The corps beseiging is not IN the city. The battle is handled as a relieving force battle if allied with the guys in the city, or just corps to corps as an area battle if not.
The corps must be IN the city to move on by. That's a fact.
Remember, units are completely IN or completely OUT. Not both.
REKNOY,
I say SOAPY is correct. Refer to my post in the other thread. Fleets must be present in a sea area to create a valid supply chain. Blockade boxes are never used in a supply chain. An invasion depot is placed IN an area WITH a valid supply chain.
ALSO, a blockade box is a separate "Area" outside a sea area for fleets on the 'special mission' of blockade. Fleets on blockade remained ON STATION and were usually supplied by other ships or rotated out. Blockade boxes are like cities which are a separate area within an area and units are either in one OR the other (no double duty).
Think of it as fleets in an area esentially can perform "convoy supply" while fleets in boxes "park and keep watch."
Let me know if you are still unhappy with my explanations and I'll ask but I think the valid supply chain description and the "area" mention in the rules are clear that invasion depots go only in sea areas, never boxes.
CAPITAINE,
The status changes during step 7.7 "control flags are changed....." I assume a removal is also a change so this is where/when it happens. I know the rule says changed only if....but this is the logical place such 'loss of control" would occur assuming HR doesn't change his position on garrison to control.
I will ask 'when' when I readdress the issue of minor country control.
SNAKE
SNAKE:
Can you still ask the question of Rowland? There is nothing that I can find that is explicit on this point.
The reference to "special function" is not in the books, is it?
Does it say that a blockade box is not part of a sea area?
I'll gladly stop asking questions when the answer is more apparent.
What does Cap think? How about Tim Stone?
Reknoy
Can you still ask the question of Rowland? There is nothing that I can find that is explicit on this point.
The reference to "special function" is not in the books, is it?
Does it say that a blockade box is not part of a sea area?
I'll gladly stop asking questions when the answer is more apparent.
What does Cap think? How about Tim Stone?
Reknoy
Originally posted by Reknoy
The rules do not state that a depot may not be built in a blockade box. They only state that depots on fleets may only be built for invasion supply (which then discusses Soapy's reference to "sea area").
7.4.4 INVASION SUPPLY: A depot may be constructed on a fleet in a sea area and used to provide supply for all corps and/or besieged port city garrisons into all adjacent land areas (but not beyond) at the normal depot supply money point costs. Although this is normally used to supply disembarking corps, it can be used without the need for an actual "invasion" (disembarking corps).
So it distinctly says you may build a depot on a fleet in a sea area, and makes no reference to blockade boxes.
6.2.1 clearly diferentiates "sea areas" and "blockade boxes" (In fact if anything the blockade box is consdered to be part of the PORT...)
IMHO this means that depots cannot be built on fleets in blockade boxes.
Restate please
OK,
There's been some discussion on some issues (from myself included!)
If any questions are still unanswered, please restate them.
REKNOY,
I assume you are happy with SOAPY and SNAKE explanations of no depots in blockade boxes?
PFNOGNOFF,
Are you happy with SNAKE (SOAPY agreed) explanation of your corps beseiging question?
CAPITAINE,
Were you happy with my explanation of control change, when and how?
I'm still asking the question of whether a garrison is required but assuming it is, is this explanation satisfactory?
ANY OTHERS?
Any other issues?
CAPITAINE,
You said:
I don't think, SNAKE, that you put all the options before him. You used the glossary exclusively and that is a bit misleading (since Harry didn't get the full scope of relevant rules).
***A true statement regarding ANY rules discussion. However,
First, you have 4.6, where major countries are assigned "control" in the "Political Phase". In 4.6.3.1, you have a discussion of "marking" Major Power control by using one of its "control flags" in in the minor country. No garrison mentioned, and inferentially none would likely be present in this situation.
***A rule that determines who is chosen to run a neutral country. What does it have to do with a conquered minor?
***4.6.3.1 just says what happens at that moment - not that control is retained. Obviously, the country can be 'attacked/controlled' by other players and it doesn't say what happens if the "conquering player" fails to meet the requirements of garrison. He may own it for the moment but that doesn't mean it stays that way.
Second, you have 10.2.1 referring to a "one month's unbesieged occupation of its captial", thereafter stating that "the old control flag is changed for a conquered control flag of the new controlling major power." Combined with the rules under 7.5.4 (Sieges), in every instance where the besieger wins a siege, it is noted that the city is "captured". Then, in 7.7 (The Conquest Step) you have reference to "the control flags are changed only if the capital of the minor country was occupied DURING THE PREVIOUS TURN AND THE CONQUEROR HAS MAINTAINED UNINTERRUPTED AND UNBESIEGED OCCUPATION FOR THE ENTIRE CURRENT TURN.
***10.2.1 saying HOW the country is conquered - nothing about a player Maintaining control. One could argue that if it takes unbeseiged occupation to conquer than one needs occupation to maintain the status!
***7.5.4 Again, more rules stating how a city is captured and not how control is maintained.
***7.7 Control flags between conquering major powers are changed. The rule discusses how a change of control occurs between major powers and says nothing about how a conquerer MAINTAINED control. It only says when someone else conquers a PREVIOUSLY CONTROLLED minor country then flags are changed. The reul says nothing about what the previous owner had to do to maintain that control, only what is required to change control to a new major power (I argue one would need to maintain control with a capitol garrison)
However, this at least, does lend some argument because it also doesn't say anything about what happens when a major power fails to maintain control. As I've offered before, the country goes neutral at this point and ANY control flag is removed.
Once you get that flag to change, it would take another occupation to "conquer" that minor capitol.
***True again, but no mention of MAINTAINING control in the interem.
Finally, and this seems dispositive, you have this:
10.3.2.2 If there is no garrison, the city is controlled by the major power or neutral monor country which controls the territory in which the city is located -- port cities without garrisons may not use their harbor defenses.
***Can you show me how a player "controls" territory? Read the definition of CONTROLLED PROVINCE. Only home or ceded provinces are ever controlled by a major power OR ENTIRE minor countries per the definition of CONTROLLED MINOR COUNTRIES or MINOR FREE STATES.
Read 10.2.2 "...conquers LIKE A MINOR COUNTRY..." not 'like a province.'
Read the rules under 10.4 "..a major power conquers Denmark by CONTROLLING COPENHAGEN"!!!!!!
A player never 'controls' territory otherwise. Think about it and look at the map. Rule 8.2.1.1 tax collection is by home country, ceded provinces and controlled minor countries. One does not collect taxes BY controlled territory. One can't collect ANY tax from a ceded province or minor country if the capitol city is occupied by unbeseiged enemy factors. (ONE CAN LOSE INCOME FROM OCCUPIED CITIES OF PROVINCES BUT NEVER COLLECT)
SO, I own Denmark with one factor in Copenhagen. Who cares if French corps are in some or all the other cities/provinces of Denmark. The French don't 'own' those territories and can't collect ANY MONEY. They may control the cities for port gun usage, combat, preventing income from that province to me etc. but they don't own the territories of Denmark.
It's still Denmark, It's still ALL mine until the capitol is taken.
Clearly, the rules anticipate major power conqest control WITHOUT a garrison being maintained. I agree that one Turn of occupation (i.e., garrison) must be completed to attain control initially, but once the flag changes, that country, and all vacant cities within, is controlled by the power who placed the control flag.
*** I don't see this. Yes, anticipation of major power CHANGE of conquest control but not LOSS of THAT CONTROl due to a failure to meet the definition of controlling the capitol. I.E. Control can change to a DIFFERENT MAJOR POWER if the conditions are met but not that CONTROL COULD BE LOST (Revert to neutrality) if a player FAILS TO MAINTAIN FACTORS IN THE CAPITOL.
THIS IS THE ISSUE since I can find NO RULES other than the definitions as to how a major power defines his control of a minor country.
Further, rule 10.5.2.1 suggests that a major power in the "Instability Zone" will have its conquered minor countries become neutral UNLESS there is an unbesieged corps of that major power in the minor country. A fortiori, this means that control when NOT in the "Instability Zone" does not require occupation to retain control, and that per 10.3.2.2, "no garrison" of a city means control of a city belongs to the power that controls the territory/country.
***Your fortiori is faulty logic. 10.5.2.1 implies to me that REVOLT IS POSSIBLE unless a major power has ACTUAL ARMIES (CORPS)in the area to "COW" the population. It doesn't say the minor won't revert with just garrisons! I say it will! And the factors are handled as in 10.3.3. The
Your fortiori doesn't say anything about occupation! Also see the exceptions. It states in the exceptions that minors can go neutral!
SO YES WE HAVE REVOLT RULES IN THE GAME!!
******BIGGIE*****10.5.2.2 allows countries to go neutral REGARDLESS of occupation which implies OCCUPATION IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CONTROL AT OTHER TIMES. MY fortiori LOL!
***10.3.2.2 Yes, EXACTLY! So, I control Copenhagen and hence Denmark so I control every ungarrisoned city in the country of Denmark that isn't occupied by another major power! BECAUSE I OWN ALL THE TERRITORY OF DENMARK REGARDLESS of other major powers units UNLESS THEY ARE IN THE CITY AND HENCE CONTROL THAT CITY for COMBAT PURPOSES!
10.3.2.1 "....control is with the major power formally controlling the (ceded) provence or minor country."
In short, I think the pertinent rules needed to make a full, informed ruling were not placed before Harry (since he confessed not having access to them).
This would be crucial b/c it would alter the meaning and content of all of the rules I've cited above.
***I agree, so I need you to restate your arguments citing rules that you believe discuss what constitues control of a minor country or territory and how that control IS MAINTAINED or changed. I'll be the first to admit that the only ones I can find are in the Glossary and they are not perfect hence the questions.
I will send your arguments if you wish regardless of my attempts to counter your statements above. But could you restate them?
This is one of those easy ones! LOL!
SNAKE
There's been some discussion on some issues (from myself included!)
If any questions are still unanswered, please restate them.
REKNOY,
I assume you are happy with SOAPY and SNAKE explanations of no depots in blockade boxes?
PFNOGNOFF,
Are you happy with SNAKE (SOAPY agreed) explanation of your corps beseiging question?
CAPITAINE,
Were you happy with my explanation of control change, when and how?
I'm still asking the question of whether a garrison is required but assuming it is, is this explanation satisfactory?
ANY OTHERS?
Any other issues?
CAPITAINE,
You said:
I don't think, SNAKE, that you put all the options before him. You used the glossary exclusively and that is a bit misleading (since Harry didn't get the full scope of relevant rules).
***A true statement regarding ANY rules discussion. However,
First, you have 4.6, where major countries are assigned "control" in the "Political Phase". In 4.6.3.1, you have a discussion of "marking" Major Power control by using one of its "control flags" in in the minor country. No garrison mentioned, and inferentially none would likely be present in this situation.
***A rule that determines who is chosen to run a neutral country. What does it have to do with a conquered minor?
***4.6.3.1 just says what happens at that moment - not that control is retained. Obviously, the country can be 'attacked/controlled' by other players and it doesn't say what happens if the "conquering player" fails to meet the requirements of garrison. He may own it for the moment but that doesn't mean it stays that way.
Second, you have 10.2.1 referring to a "one month's unbesieged occupation of its captial", thereafter stating that "the old control flag is changed for a conquered control flag of the new controlling major power." Combined with the rules under 7.5.4 (Sieges), in every instance where the besieger wins a siege, it is noted that the city is "captured". Then, in 7.7 (The Conquest Step) you have reference to "the control flags are changed only if the capital of the minor country was occupied DURING THE PREVIOUS TURN AND THE CONQUEROR HAS MAINTAINED UNINTERRUPTED AND UNBESIEGED OCCUPATION FOR THE ENTIRE CURRENT TURN.
***10.2.1 saying HOW the country is conquered - nothing about a player Maintaining control. One could argue that if it takes unbeseiged occupation to conquer than one needs occupation to maintain the status!
***7.5.4 Again, more rules stating how a city is captured and not how control is maintained.
***7.7 Control flags between conquering major powers are changed. The rule discusses how a change of control occurs between major powers and says nothing about how a conquerer MAINTAINED control. It only says when someone else conquers a PREVIOUSLY CONTROLLED minor country then flags are changed. The reul says nothing about what the previous owner had to do to maintain that control, only what is required to change control to a new major power (I argue one would need to maintain control with a capitol garrison)
However, this at least, does lend some argument because it also doesn't say anything about what happens when a major power fails to maintain control. As I've offered before, the country goes neutral at this point and ANY control flag is removed.
Once you get that flag to change, it would take another occupation to "conquer" that minor capitol.
***True again, but no mention of MAINTAINING control in the interem.
Finally, and this seems dispositive, you have this:
10.3.2.2 If there is no garrison, the city is controlled by the major power or neutral monor country which controls the territory in which the city is located -- port cities without garrisons may not use their harbor defenses.
***Can you show me how a player "controls" territory? Read the definition of CONTROLLED PROVINCE. Only home or ceded provinces are ever controlled by a major power OR ENTIRE minor countries per the definition of CONTROLLED MINOR COUNTRIES or MINOR FREE STATES.
Read 10.2.2 "...conquers LIKE A MINOR COUNTRY..." not 'like a province.'
Read the rules under 10.4 "..a major power conquers Denmark by CONTROLLING COPENHAGEN"!!!!!!
A player never 'controls' territory otherwise. Think about it and look at the map. Rule 8.2.1.1 tax collection is by home country, ceded provinces and controlled minor countries. One does not collect taxes BY controlled territory. One can't collect ANY tax from a ceded province or minor country if the capitol city is occupied by unbeseiged enemy factors. (ONE CAN LOSE INCOME FROM OCCUPIED CITIES OF PROVINCES BUT NEVER COLLECT)
SO, I own Denmark with one factor in Copenhagen. Who cares if French corps are in some or all the other cities/provinces of Denmark. The French don't 'own' those territories and can't collect ANY MONEY. They may control the cities for port gun usage, combat, preventing income from that province to me etc. but they don't own the territories of Denmark.
It's still Denmark, It's still ALL mine until the capitol is taken.
Clearly, the rules anticipate major power conqest control WITHOUT a garrison being maintained. I agree that one Turn of occupation (i.e., garrison) must be completed to attain control initially, but once the flag changes, that country, and all vacant cities within, is controlled by the power who placed the control flag.
*** I don't see this. Yes, anticipation of major power CHANGE of conquest control but not LOSS of THAT CONTROl due to a failure to meet the definition of controlling the capitol. I.E. Control can change to a DIFFERENT MAJOR POWER if the conditions are met but not that CONTROL COULD BE LOST (Revert to neutrality) if a player FAILS TO MAINTAIN FACTORS IN THE CAPITOL.
THIS IS THE ISSUE since I can find NO RULES other than the definitions as to how a major power defines his control of a minor country.
Further, rule 10.5.2.1 suggests that a major power in the "Instability Zone" will have its conquered minor countries become neutral UNLESS there is an unbesieged corps of that major power in the minor country. A fortiori, this means that control when NOT in the "Instability Zone" does not require occupation to retain control, and that per 10.3.2.2, "no garrison" of a city means control of a city belongs to the power that controls the territory/country.
***Your fortiori is faulty logic. 10.5.2.1 implies to me that REVOLT IS POSSIBLE unless a major power has ACTUAL ARMIES (CORPS)in the area to "COW" the population. It doesn't say the minor won't revert with just garrisons! I say it will! And the factors are handled as in 10.3.3. The
Your fortiori doesn't say anything about occupation! Also see the exceptions. It states in the exceptions that minors can go neutral!
SO YES WE HAVE REVOLT RULES IN THE GAME!!
******BIGGIE*****10.5.2.2 allows countries to go neutral REGARDLESS of occupation which implies OCCUPATION IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CONTROL AT OTHER TIMES. MY fortiori LOL!
***10.3.2.2 Yes, EXACTLY! So, I control Copenhagen and hence Denmark so I control every ungarrisoned city in the country of Denmark that isn't occupied by another major power! BECAUSE I OWN ALL THE TERRITORY OF DENMARK REGARDLESS of other major powers units UNLESS THEY ARE IN THE CITY AND HENCE CONTROL THAT CITY for COMBAT PURPOSES!
10.3.2.1 "....control is with the major power formally controlling the (ceded) provence or minor country."
In short, I think the pertinent rules needed to make a full, informed ruling were not placed before Harry (since he confessed not having access to them).
This would be crucial b/c it would alter the meaning and content of all of the rules I've cited above.
***I agree, so I need you to restate your arguments citing rules that you believe discuss what constitues control of a minor country or territory and how that control IS MAINTAINED or changed. I'll be the first to admit that the only ones I can find are in the Glossary and they are not perfect hence the questions.
I will send your arguments if you wish regardless of my attempts to counter your statements above. But could you restate them?
This is one of those easy ones! LOL!
SNAKE
This besieging thing I mentioned was agreed upon simmilar to your explanation in our group also. The problem was raised just because we agreed that there is no double duty for the corps. It can be either out or in of the city. After my group concluded this we asked ourselves the question I posted here.
I did this just so you try and get as clear as possible point of view from the designer as possible, on the whole business of city area (sieges included). Is it part of the land area or is it sepparate entity and how should the forces there be treated?
I did this just so you try and get as clear as possible point of view from the designer as possible, on the whole business of city area (sieges included). Is it part of the land area or is it sepparate entity and how should the forces there be treated?
I was trying to rephrase my question. My wish is that you ask him to make it clear to us: is the city separate area or is it a part of the surounding land area. Same as your discussion about blokade box, is it a part of a sea area or is it separate or is it part of a port.
I hope I was clear now. English is not my mother tounge so some times I make things to short or to complicated.
I hope I was clear now. English is not my mother tounge so some times I make things to short or to complicated.
On the point of requiring garrisons for continued control of minors, actually I am quite sure the glossary definitions are conclusive on that it is NOT required.
Since there is no other evidence in the rules that a garrison might be required, it's hard to argue in it's favour EVEN WHEN the actual designer has made a ruling supporting it (but not explaining why or how or resolveing the fact that rules clearly state that the opposite is true).
The ruling to the contrary will require numerous other clarifications.
A Major Power is defined as the home nation plus all controlled minors.
Controlling a city only requires a factor if it is not in the Major Power's territory.
Ergo: controlling a minor's capital and therefore a minor itself when that minor has been previously controlled by you clearly does not require a garrison of any kind.
The definitions in the Glossary are actually quite important to the rules at many points: they cannot be dismissed out of hand.
For example, the only proof that when one Major Power makes peace with another that their controlled minors ALSO go to peace is that the term "Major Power" assumes the inclusion of all controlled minors belonging to that Major Power. The glossary deifnition is absolutely vital to the clarity of the rule.
Since there is no other evidence in the rules that a garrison might be required, it's hard to argue in it's favour EVEN WHEN the actual designer has made a ruling supporting it (but not explaining why or how or resolveing the fact that rules clearly state that the opposite is true).
The ruling to the contrary will require numerous other clarifications.
A Major Power is defined as the home nation plus all controlled minors.
Controlling a city only requires a factor if it is not in the Major Power's territory.
Ergo: controlling a minor's capital and therefore a minor itself when that minor has been previously controlled by you clearly does not require a garrison of any kind.
The definitions in the Glossary are actually quite important to the rules at many points: they cannot be dismissed out of hand.
For example, the only proof that when one Major Power makes peace with another that their controlled minors ALSO go to peace is that the term "Major Power" assumes the inclusion of all controlled minors belonging to that Major Power. The glossary deifnition is absolutely vital to the clarity of the rule.
Agreed soapy, and in this case, since the "Definitions" are broad deductions from the rules, using them in the FIRST instance to dictate play (as opposed to using them to clarify the interpretation of one of the rules) is a bit of putting the cart before the horse. Here, the definitions come at the very END of the rulebook; almost an appendix, if that. Fundamental "definitions" that create rule "concretes" typically are presented at the beginning of the entire body of rules, or at least at the beginning of each rule section.
I have a problem with the logic of deducing an unmentioned "Revolt" game concept via extrapolation of an EiA "definition". A clarification, yes, but not a whole new body of gameplay!
I have a problem with the logic of deducing an unmentioned "Revolt" game concept via extrapolation of an EiA "definition". A clarification, yes, but not a whole new body of gameplay!
SOAPY,
True but that is the definition of a Major Power and NOT a Major Power's Territory. As we discussed, we wish there was a definition of Major Power Territory.
However, the argument is well founded despite ambigious wording and it may very well be true which is why we asked the question in the first place.
However, let's not dismiss the game designer's ruling out of hand. We need to present the question better which is why I asked CAPITAINE to rephase/document his objection so we can be sure the developer is not "shooting from the hip" but is making an informed ruling.
It is a very important aspect of the game IMHO.
CAPITAINE,
True, but the definitions in this case are the only instances in the entire rule book that I can find that actually state "how to control/what is required for control." The other mentions of control are not clear, at least to me, (refer to my previous post on those mentionings.)
PFNOGNOFF,
I apologise, I was not making light of your multi-language talents. I can only speak two myself - English and the English I have to use for my teenage son! LOL!
I was just unable to determine a yes or no. I have it now!
SNAKE
True but that is the definition of a Major Power and NOT a Major Power's Territory. As we discussed, we wish there was a definition of Major Power Territory.
However, the argument is well founded despite ambigious wording and it may very well be true which is why we asked the question in the first place.
However, let's not dismiss the game designer's ruling out of hand. We need to present the question better which is why I asked CAPITAINE to rephase/document his objection so we can be sure the developer is not "shooting from the hip" but is making an informed ruling.
It is a very important aspect of the game IMHO.
CAPITAINE,
True, but the definitions in this case are the only instances in the entire rule book that I can find that actually state "how to control/what is required for control." The other mentions of control are not clear, at least to me, (refer to my previous post on those mentionings.)
PFNOGNOFF,
I apologise, I was not making light of your multi-language talents. I can only speak two myself - English and the English I have to use for my teenage son! LOL!
I was just unable to determine a yes or no. I have it now!
SNAKE