The rules look clear to me.
*
7.5.1 GENERAL RULES OF LAND COMBAT:* The phasing side is the "attacker"
and the non-phasing side is the "defender".
The phasing player is always the attacker.
In this case Austria would be the attacker. It is combined
Austrian/British/Prussian turn and we are the phasing player. If Prussia
or Britain force Turkey to move into insurrection province and Austria
places the insurrection corps then Austria is the attacker.
In regular circumstances let's say Turkey is playing and it moves a
corps from Belgrade to Eszek, Austria places both Ins. corps. Turkey ahs
to stop and Turkey is the attacker as it is Turkey who is phasing player.
On 2018-02-26 15:36, Yannis Sykamias wrote:
Ok, so who you consider attacker and who defender under this
interpretation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Monday, February 26, 2018 3:15:11 PM
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection &
Withdrawal ΙΙ
I don't see what is the problem, the rule is clear about "moving to
any adjacent area".
It can not be a withdrawal, you withdraw from battle.
This is not a battle situation.
Moving can trigger Insurrection corps placement and everything goes on
just like if the Turkey moved from Belgrade to Peterwardein, stopping
movement and battle and all.
On 2018-02-26 14:10, Yannis Sykamias wrote:
Correct Tiron!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Monday, February 26, 2018 14:49
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection &
Withdrawal ΙΙ
Are we talking about this:
*7.3.8.4 STEP FOUR:* All major powers not at war with the attacker
(except the attacker and his allies at war with the defender and
factors in cities or on depots) must now leave the area, moving to
any adjacent area that, if possible, is closer or at least as close
to their source of supply as the area they leave.
On 2018-02-26 12:09, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
I can live with this interpretation as well. It was the result of
the first voting. But as Laertes said, little details allow for a
continuation of the argument.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Is this what we are voting on????????
1. Turks withdraw from battle and move into Insurrection province.
2. The withdrawal ends right there.
3. After withdrawal, since the corps entered province,
Insurrection corps placement is triggered.
4. Battle happens.
I can live with this interpretation.
On 2018-02-26 11:03, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
new thread, previous one "broke" due to many messages
/As already said you are mixing things that are not consistent. /
Am _*I*_ doing that?
/I have already explained that this event could occur even if
both me and Turley have already played out turn, so you may not
provide an interpretation of the rules based on current
condition but on any similar condition. So the fact that i
still have not played my turn is not relevant with what
triggers the battle which is the entrance of Turkish forces in
Austrian border province./
I replied to that as well: Whenever is the next battle phase
for one of the two of you. If the game ends that turn, then
never! But I am not interested to make a rule for one in a
million situation that (i believe) is unexplored ground and not
intended. Also your persistence to try to explain this one-off
case for every case imagined, in addition to your denial for
every suggestion offered (like naval move interpretation, move
and not retreat etc, not even offered by me as explanations,
but I accepted them) is clearly blocking the whole effort to
move on with additional "what ifs" so that the discussion
continues forever. Until what, we grow bored and accept that
your original explanation is the only possible one?
Anyway, i see no point in recycling the same arguments,
To that, we are in agreement.
/
/
/let's all cast a vote if this a move/ withdrawal and if it is
a move who is the attacker and who is the defender in order to
allow me to decide how to play my turn.
/
So you propose that we scrap the second voting (because you
don't accept that the phasing player will be the initiator of
the battle emerging) and make a new one with different
questions, to see if it bears another result.
Alright, lets vote again. Don't want to be the one to block a
voting, for whatever reason.
*
*
*Everyone, please vote so that we move on*. It is the last time
we vote on this subject (at least for me). You can express your
arguments, although you don't have to, we heard enough of both
sides at this point.
We take for granted the first voting (insurrections can spawn
during any phase) and replace the result of the second voting
with the following 2 questions:
*Makis * *Yannis* *Dimitris (P) *
*Dimitris (R)*
*Laertis * *Tiron* *Theodore*
*Is Turkey "moving out" or "withdrawing" when Prussian
non-hostile troops enter the area?* moving out withdrawing
*Who is the attacker when the battle is initiated* phasing
player moving player
