No. I didn't check it. I was so sure that my interpretation was correct
that I did not even check. RP is fine, it's just Luis who was wrong.

Luis.

David E. Cohen wrote:

> Then Realpolitik has a bug. Rule 1 states that support is possible
> without regard to coast. Rule 2 talks about the support being legal
> if the province, *not* the coast, could be moved to by the supporting
> unit. The two rules are consistent, and are not limited by coasts.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luis" <lialdamiz@...>
> To: "Babak Talebi" <babaktalebi@...>
> Cc: "1200group" <CAT23-1200@yahoogroups.com>;
> <Cat23-ngame@yahoogroups.com>; "Douglas Kent"
> <diplomacyworld@...>; <dipknight@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [CAT23-Ngame] A rules questions
>
>
>> Void. Gascony does not border Spain/sc and you can only support into
>> provinces you are able to move in directly; for fleet puprposes, that
>> affects to "semi-provinces" (coasts) too. Would it be A Gas S... then it
>> would be perfectly valid.
>>
>> In doubt (and only for Standard Dip), run Realpolitik and see what
>> happens. In this case it's void.
>>
>> Luis.
>>
>>
>> Babak Talebi wrote:
>>
>>> Friends -
>>>
>>> Two dip players of some experience have come to a disagreement on a
>>> rules
>>> question. If you could shed light on this situation, it would be most
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>> *The Situation:*
>>>
>>> F Por to Spa(sc)
>>> F Gas S F Por to Spa(sc)
>>>
>>> *The Question:*
>>> **
>>> is the order for F Gas *Void* or *Valid*
>>>
>>> *The Rules:*
>>>
>>> On page 7 in the 4th edition of the rules (
>>> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/2000AH4th.pdf
>>> <http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/2000AH4th.pdf>)
>>> two
>>> relevant quotes can be found...
>>>
>>> 1) "A fleet that can move to a province with two separate coasts (A
>>> fleet
>>> in the Mid-Atlantic for example) can support another Army or Fleet
>>> into that
>>> province (in this case Spain) without regard to separate
>>> coastlines." (2nd
>>> paragraph - 2nd column)
>>>
>>> 2) "The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to
>>> which
>>> the supporting unit could have legally moved during that turn.
>>> ...Likewise a
>>> Fleet in Rome could not support a unit's move to Venice because,
>>> although
>>> adjacent by land, the Fleet can not move to Venice from Rome." (1st
>>> paragraph - 2nd column)
>>>
>>> *The Arguments:*
>>> **
>>> one reading of these rules is that "If you can move to a province
>>> you can
>>> support ANY action in that province. period". ie - the fleet in Gas can
>>> support Por to Spa(sc) because it can itself move to Spa thus making
>>> the
>>> support order *Valid*.
>>>
>>> the second reading is that since Spa(sc) is not a province that the
>>> supporting unit (F Gas) 'could have legally moved' to, it is thus an
>>> illegal
>>> support and therefore *Void*.
>>>
>>> I leave this earth-shattering question to these august bodies of
>>> wisdom on
>>> Cat23 and look forward to reading various judicious opinions on the
>>> matter. Has this been resolved elsewhere?
>>>
>>> I am told by my fellow diplomacy player that he is 100% positive of his
>>> position and since I hold him and his experience in high regard, I am
>>> inclined to agree with him - but felt that due to my minor doubt, I
>>> should
>>> consult with the rest of the village elders first. (ps. I still have
>>> not
>>> told you all which position I have taken in this)
>>>
>>> Babak
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]