“If possible” is related to the supply source part.
On 27 Feb 2018, at 07:12, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good morning,
7.3.8.4 also talks “if possible” which according to my understanding this is
intended to describe the withdrawal process.
_____________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 02:58
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
To: <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
7.3.8.4 talks about moving, not withdrawing.
It may be a more simple solution to calling it withdrawal but it it is not what
it says.
On Feb 27, 2018 01:09, "Yannis Sykamias" <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My understanding is different, it is Prussia that “pushes” Turkey outside
Vienna so it is not the Turkish player choice to go there since he has to
retreat towards the nearest depot (in our case Theo has two routes but assume
it could be only one route towards the insurrection).
Also, bear in mind that the interpretation of this “move” as a normal move
applies to all cases not only to insurrection corps triggering. If for
example a similar situation was happening in Munich and Turkey had to “move”
into an area already containing an Austrian corps then we would be in the
same situation.
That’s why my understanding for this “move” is as a withdrawal from battle
since it is the most “sensible” (to me) treatment.
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:26:38 AM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
Of all things stupid Windows 10 decided to upgrade tonight and completely
trashed my laptop, it is now stuck in boot loop.
On top of that I find out that my 32GB usb flash with original Windows backup
is empty.
Agrhhh....
I can not see the map but here is my take.
Turkey has to move out of the battle between Prussia and France, it is clear.
Turkey moves in Insurrection province and triggers corps placement, that is
also clear.
Now, if Austria has played and Turkey has played it looks like there is no
phasing player and we will have a situation where there is no battle. This
can not happen, two countries at war in the same area trigger a battle.
I would say Turkey is the attacker as Turkey is moving her troops, it is not
withdrawal, movement is not forced in direction but Turkey has a choice where
to move them. The rules say the troops have to move out, so they are free to
move in any direction they wish. If the move into Insurrection province, it
is their wish to face the chance to trigger Insurrection corps. If he is
moving, he is attacking.
On Feb 26, 2018 8:26 PM, "Yannis Sykamias" <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tiron, assume the current situation where Austria has already played its
moves (not combined) and the map is as we see it now.
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 7:40:53 PM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
Like I said, give the the specific example and I will run it thorough the
rules.
On 2018-02-26 17:52, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
We can do the following
1. If there is a phasing player at a time when a battle is initiated, then
the phasing player is the attacker, as in our current situation.
2. In another scenario where there are no phasing players involved in the
battle at the time a move is implemented, then the next player to play, of
those involved in the battle, initiates the attack as the first phasing
player.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you handle 7.3.8.4 though?
On 26 Feb 2018, at 18:42, Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not see how it is possible for Prussia to force Turkey to move in
your case.
Turkey is not at war with Prussia.
Turkey has a corps at Vienna.
Prussia also moves to Vienna.
Not battle, no nothing, they occupy the same area and everyone goes about
their business.
On 2018-02-26 17:35, Laertes Papaspyrou wrote:
Ok but Yannis asks to also consider the scenario where there is no
combined and both turkey and Austria have already played their turn. Who
is the phasing power then?
On 26 Feb 2018, at 18:29, T. B. <scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here's my lengthy reply:
I totally agree with Tyron!
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 February 2018 18:26:56
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
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> 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
