The word "nearest" is followed by the clarification "including an ally's
port with access permission and if the user wishes to use it", that is 2
conditions both of which do not apply. Why do you keep one word and reject
the clarification that follows it?
I understand your point in terms of realism but games-wise the rules seem
clear to me. Could be other reasons, give an additional chance to a fleet
to escape to safe heaven perhaps, i don't know. But I don't think this rule
is unclear, nor our interpretation "sick".
Anyway, if there are more of you sharing Dimitris view we can discuss
further or even put to an open vote, otherwise we can move on.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 5:38 PM NIKOLAOY DHMHTRIOS <nikolad1@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
as I already said it's the word "nearest'
they are running to get away, they need a safe haven asap before their
pursuers catch up with them
but then again we are talking about the rules of EiA
I rest my case
Στις 2019-02-22 17:16, Makis Xiroyannis έγραψε:
wow, harsh language. Lets see the rule
*...the one nearest unblockaded friendly (including an ally's port, with
access permission and if the loserwishes to use it) port within seven
movement points (losing player's choice if more than one possible port is
equally close)*
what in the above makes you believe it *has to be* Anwerp?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:52 PM NIKOLAOY DHMHTRIOS <nikolad1@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
You understand that this is a sick way of interpreting an already very
badly written rule
Στις 2019-02-22 16:44, Makis Xiroyannis έγραψε:
nothing to discuss. France does not allow the Spanish fleet to enter
French harbours :)
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:39 PM Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think this could be a point for discussion, if the loser of the naval
battle wishes to use ally port or if he doesn't wish (I hope for no
discussion :-)
In any case British fleets will follow the Spanish in retreat.
On 22.2.2019. 15:35, NIKOLAOY DHMHTRIOS wrote:
(including an ally's port, with access permission and if the loser
wishes to use it)
