Roll on what? We voted..
On 25 Feb 2018 7:40 pm, "Laertes Papaspyrou" <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
According to the rules if we can’t agree we roll a die. Please agree we
can’t agree and roll it
On 25 Feb 2018, at 19:37, Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It looks funny how the French block is NO and the anti-French is YES.
On 2018-02-25 15:34, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
I think this is the final verdict, if someone disagrees please correct.
Otherwise lets get on with the turn, with those influenced by it allowed to
change their turn.
Spawning of Insurrection is possible during retreat Spawning an
insurrection forces the retreating force to retreat further
Makis NO NO
Yannis OUI OUI
Dimitris S. OUI OUI
Dimitris N. NO NO
Tiron OUI OUI
Laertis OUI NO
Theodore NO NO
final verdict OUI NO
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 3:40 PM, T. B. <scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Trying to interpret the rules as objectively as possible, since the
insurrection corps is placed after the corps enters (an empty) area, I
presume that they do not have to continue their retreat.
As far as rule discussion and online game table manners are concerned,
Tyron has missed the golden era where we spent more time rule discussing
than playing xD
Imho pausing the game hurts us equally as taking a single interpretation
for granted. Did everyone "vote" on the matter?
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* 25 February 2018 12:02:40
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
only love Makis, only love
<pastedImage.png>
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 25, 2018 03:39
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
3:30 in the morning, I have had a few drinks, and iam trying to
comprehent Dimitris email..? I think I d rather surrender
In any case, votes are 4 to 3 that Austria should be able to raise
insurrection, but 3 to 4 that when it is raised it stops movement and
provokes battle? (Instead of retreating indefinitely?)
Also 7 to 0 that turns can be adjusted?
I am not good with maths so someone tell me
On 24 Feb 2018 10:08 pm, "Tiron" <strategija@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is a certain fear, sometime with good reason and sometimes not,
that arguing over rules will damage the playing atmosphere, poison the
relations between people and ruin the game emotionally.
As a consequence some people are guided by emotional satisfaction in a
game, make it is more important than other considerations and break any
rule arguing with "fun is more important than rules, so I accept your way,
lets continue to play"
Just some more philosophy :-)
On 2018-02-24 20:52, Yannis Sykamias wrote:
I am confused!!!
Which is the question here??????????????
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Dimitris Stavr.
<poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx> <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2018 9:31:40 PM
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
would be a surprise if i was more expert in rules than you guys.
not that i haven't tried in the past but when come s to interpretation
then everyone can support HIS right.
I agree with Makis that the real issue is if insurrection corps appear in
any other type of movement than normal movement. it is obvious that the
rule doesn't forbid it. on the other hand it doesn't mention it, that's
why we have this dispute. we had the opportunity to discuss this in the
previous turn when happened the same. either because it was of lesser
importance, or because we were boring to discuss we ACCEPTED it. ALL of us
either we liked it or not. Even if it was against "common sense" we
accepted it because nothing was forbiding it.
having this as given we made a plan, which you should agree that it was
smart. cunning but smart. to overcome french might, neither MP or money are
enough!
it wasn't based on intentions or "common sense" but on the fact that this
"trick" had been already played.
the last time i had written about "common sense" was when a retreating
Russian Corps travelled 2-3 times its normal movement, after losing a
battle and during winter, from Konigsberg to St. Petersburg, just because
the rules were not forbiding it. after that, i tried to stay on the rules.
if it says so, then it is.
do i agree with it? definatelly not, i still respect my "common sense".
should we place a house rule for the insurrection appear issue? if the
way WE play it is challenging "OUR sense" then yes i agree to place one,
BUT only if we are willing to deal with anything else that is not forbiden
by the rules and still challenges "OUR common sense".
till then, anything that is not forbiden by the rules, could be subject
of endless discussions.
In this case I completely agree with Yanni.
In addition, I agree also with Laertis that the "good atmosphere" should
be taken into consideration.
In my opinion, it should be the 1st priority for all of us. I have been
sad and dissappointed several times (my allies know that, Makis knows it -
and that time with the Russian retreat 😝) but never thought to blame
anyone, or felt that i have been deceived or anything else that could put
in danger this excellent group and all the fun (even when i suffer defeats
and loses) it offers to me.
So, since Laertis mentioned it, IF we think that something is wrong with
the atmosphere (i repeat not because i lost a battle, neither because i
made a silly mistake or a serious mistake, or because some other guy knows
the rules better than me or because is more capable or more experienced
etc) THEN we shall discuss this and not rules.
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx> <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2018 20:33
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
in order to avoid extensive discussion around the same arguments i will
post "compact" replies on the issues below and i hope all players post
their opinion in order to move on!
*I have no objection of discussing the use of insurrection corps but i
find it uncomfortable to discuss this issue in the middle of the turn when
a similar event occurred the previous turn. *
I explained why I did not argue last time. Also agreed that the rules do
not explicitly prohibit it but they don't explicitely mention it either.
If i recall correctly, Tiron posted the previous time somewhere that he
also found that insurrection corps were also placed during withdrawals. It
would be helpful if we have some feedback on it.
*In any case should we decide differently Prussia should retain the right
to amend his turn if he wishes so. *
He can, it is still his turn. Unlike us who cannot, as we did not expect
a spawn & further retreat situation. Not even Laertis who already asked,
or anyone else I believe. For sure not me or Turkey either.
ok!
*Now, to the essence of the discussion, i do not understand how the term
"abuse" is derived? *
The abuse (obviously not intended as a abuse by you but still an rule
abuse to me) is derived from the fact that 2 things are not used as (i
believe) were intended: the spawning of the insurrection, and the
interference during the withdrawal phase of a corps. Those two combined,
result to unique and peculiar situation that - as you say - is not
expressedly forbidden, but - as I believe - was not intended nor examined.
If the rules intended to forbid the placement of insurrection corps in
any other situation then they could be simply written as "during an
enemy major powers land phase" instead of "Immediately after...". The fact
that it was not written this way leads to the conclusion that it was
intended to allow their placement under all conditions.
*The rules do not state that this should be during the land phase of the
enemy but any time he crosses the border provinces, so the rules are clear
here (at least to me).*
Check the sentence you copied again, It does not say "at any time". If it
was saying "at any phase" or "at any time" then yes the argument would be
in your favour and I would not be having doubts it was unintended. Or they
could at least have clarified that with another sentense, that "spawning"
can happen in other phases as well. They do that for other issues in the
same rulebook. For example check the wars declarations, it is mentioned
there that wars can be declared in other phases as well, not just the
political phase. They could have elaborate here as well if that was
intended.
Same argument as above, "Immediately after" is clear enough (for me at
least) that it applies to any event that triggers their placement
regardless of their "timing".
*As soon as the first corps entered the insurrection corps was placed in
that area so the area was not free of corps during the withdrawal *
Wrong, retreat is not like movement, the retreating forces do not move on
one on one basis (there is no issue of supply anyway) but altogether:
7.5.2.10.3.2: A retreating force may never be split up.
There is none in the area when the Turkish force arrives.
the result is the same either one corps or an army..
*There is no other case in the game where you retreat into an open area,
but have to withdraw again. *
*Yes, but this does not prohibit the use of the "ability" of these corps
as it is a matter of certain conditions that they may be triggered. The
conditions are not secret so every player is aware of them and decides if
he wants to trigger the placement or not.*
I mention it so that you see my case that this scenario is not intended.
If it was a weird exception of some kind, it would have been mentioned
somewhere, as it is an important one.
I cannot understand why it should be mentioned somewhere since it is
already written!
*If we wanted to allow insurrection to spawn due to the retreat, then we
should have treated them as spawing to interrupt movement, which is their
intended use.*
*I may not understand the term "intended use".*
I mean that their intended use is clearly elaborated, by spawning before
or after a corps moves, and by stopping its movement and cutting supply. It
does not mention is can be spawn to force additional retreats. It believe
that "if it was intended", it would have been mentioned, as this is a
particulary special case, not forbidden, but not clearly laid out either.
You chose to interpreted as you did.
If this was not intended then it should be written otherwise i consider
that this was intended!
*As said in the previous point, the triggering of insurrection corps is
under certain conditions which are known to all players, so if a player
wishes to trigger them it is under his knowledge. For example in our case,
if Turkey wanted to avoid the placement of insurrections corps it could
have retreated south to Gratz. I am sure that if the battles were not in
the border of the border provinces none would have given any attention to
insurrection corps... *
Yes none would bother but this could come up at some other time: For
example if Turkey is at a later date defeated, or wants to withdraw after 1
day of battle, or the same thing with a non-hostile corps happens again say
in Pest, then you could force them to move out of Austria with this
scenario, making them move 3 full moves (a full month of moving) *regardless
of where he retreated*!!! Without placing corps BEFORE battle, only by
placing a corps wherever Turkey (or anyone) retreats, when he retreats.
Even placing multiple depots does not save him, as you still chose to push
him after he retreats.
If the battle is initiated inside the border province (Pest in your
example) then there is no triggering of insurrection corps. Triggering
occurs only during the entrance in the border province.
In our case yes he could have retreated differently, but apart from the
fact that your interpetation of the retreat was not understood by us during
our planning, this only oppened my eyes that this cant be right generally
speaking.
You also didn't comment this, which I find another reason that this could
not be happening:
*For me withdrawal is a case of everything "freezing" and deciding where
the troops go. There is no movement interruption, or battle, or reinforce,
or leaving/changing factors/corps, or any interaction of any kind. There
shouldn't be a spawing of insurrection corps either. *
If there was something clearling stopping a general flow of events, I am
confident it would have been mentioned specifically. I play an Austria too,
I never use this interpretation as it is not intended as far as I am
concerned.
Point taken, still as already written insurrection corps are a special
case and triggered under special events. So you should take them into
account when you make your planning!
I am not trying to steal you turn, you can replay everything, Britain as
well, if you think it was affected. I simply don't think this scenario is
what was intended, and I also don't think it is a proper game-wise way to
play it. I might argue it for a house rule even if it was specifically
written like that, and if you found it unfair I would be happy to play
Austria and give you France.
ARE YOU CRAZY??? I am not selling my country!!!!!!!!!
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I have no objection of discussing the use of insurrection corps but i
find it uncomfortable to discuss this issue in the middle of the turn when
a similar event occurred the previous turn. In any case should we decide
differently Prussia should retain the right to amend his turn if he wishes
so.
Now, to the essence of the discussion, i do not understand how the term
"abuse" is derived? Once again i will repeat the rule for placement of
insurrection corps
"10.1.4.1 PLACING INSURRECTION CORPS: Immediately after an enemy corps,
cossack or freikorps has entered certain Austrian border provinces, the
triggers the possible placement of the insurrection corps and the Austrian
player may (if desired) place on-map either or both insurrection corps
anywhere within that province, at their current strength".
The rules *do not* state that this should be during the land phase of
the enemy but * any time* he crosses the border provinces, so the rules
are clear here (at least to me).
I also do not understand why the rules imply that they should only be
placed as a hindrance to movement or cut off invading supply? I do not
believe that there is a specific purpose/use corps in the game and the
rules do not direct how the player may use his corps.
Regarding the questions Makis raised, my replies in blue
...