Placement of insurrection corps does not a phasing player make.
On Feb 27, 2018 07:56, "Laertes Papaspyrou" <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
When the corps moves in there is no one.
And my proposal is that for this special case Austria is the phasing
power, therefore the attacker
On 27 Feb 2018, at 08:54, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ok, now i am really confused. There is no consistency in what you are
proposing. On one hand you consider normal to move into an area with an
insurrection corps (which means you move into an area where there is an
enemy corps) but there is no battle initiated until one of the players
plays his turn and on the other hand you consider impossible to move into
an area where an enemy corps "pre"exists.
Is my understanding correct?
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:49
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
ΙΙ
No, it can’t move there
On 27 Feb 2018, at 08:34, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ok, what happens in this case? According to your understanding there is no
impact and the corps may move there without initiating a battle, correct?
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:31
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
ΙΙ
Simple case. All adjacent areas closest to the source are occupied by
enemies.
On 27 Feb 2018, at 08:28, Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The rule is clear. The force has :
1) to move out to an adjacent area
2) IF POSSIBLE this area has to be closest to the supply source.
Explain me how it affect what we are talking about
On 27 Feb 2018, at 08:23, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To me it is of interest since it clearly implies the eligibility of the
area you may move your forces , but if you consider that this was added
there for no purpose then ignore it, cast your vote and move the game on!
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:19
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
ΙΙ
“If possible” is right after “that” which is the start of the sentence for
the supply source. I don’t know what they mean but that’s not of interest
right now.
On 27 Feb 2018, at 07:42, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What do you mean by that? You always have a supply source (depot/capital)
so what is the meaning of possible there and what are the implications if
not possible?
_____________________________
From: Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 07:35
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
To: <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
“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>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
<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>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
<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
