>> "If you make something idiot proof, the idiots will proof YOU wrong."

They'll prove you wrong too. =P

Chuckles,

Trout

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Packrat <brn2dip@...> wrote:

> More to the point, RP does NOT have a glitch - per se - RP allows you
> to select the coast in Spain to which the support is offered. Sure it
> doesn't
> matter so the program assumes the GM knows the rules. I do not believe
> that RP was made to be idiot proof. And as I have been saying for years:
>
> "If you make something idiot proof, the idiots will proof YOU wrong."
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Luis <lialdamiz@... <lialdamiz%40euskalnet.net>>
> To: Douglas Kent <diplomacyworld@... <diplomacyworld%40yahoo.com>>
> Cc: Babak Talebi <babaktalebi@... <babaktalebi%40gmail.com>>;
> 1200group <CAT23-1200@yahoogroups.com <CAT23-1200%40yahoogroups.com>>;
> Cat23-ngame@yahoogroups.com <Cat23-ngame%40yahoogroups.com>;
> dipknight@yahoogroups.com <dipknight%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2008 11:58:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [CAT23-Ngame] A rules questions
>
> Ok, Doug. I stand corrected. I should have checked RP before posting but
> it looked sooo obvious to me. Enfin. :-[
>
> Luis.
>
> Douglas Kent wrote:
>
> > This rules question comes up quite frequently. But it has been
> > settled numerous times. There are two issues at work here. F Gas
> > **can** support any move into Spain (and yes Luis, Realpolitik shows
> > it as successful, not void, although that should not be your absolute
> > judge on the subject). This is because F Gas can move to Spain. The
> > logic behind this is F Gas is capable of disrupting the defenses of
> > Spain, because it can move there. Coasts are not of importance in
> > this matter.
> >
> > The confusion comes in that the reverse is NOT true. F Spa(sc) cannot
> > support a move into Gascony. This is because F Spa(sc) cannot move to
> > Gascony. So it cannot disrupt Gascony's defenses.
> >
> > If you can move to the province (Coasts are not separate provinces)
> > you can support a move into it or support the unit to hold.
> >
> > However, F Gas cannot support F Spa(sc) to Mar. Because it cannot
> > move there.
> >
> > As Luis said, you can generally use Realpolitik for this. His only
> > mistake is saying the Realpolitik result is Void. It is not. The
> > support succeeds. Go run it, Luis.
> >
> > Of this rule I am 100% secure.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > How can you survive without Helpful Kitty merchandise?
> > http://www.cafepres s.com/helpfulkit ty
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, Luis <lialdamiz@euskalnet .net> wrote:
> >
> > From: Luis <lialdamiz@euskalnet .net>
> > Subject: Re: [CAT23-Ngame] A rules questions
> > To: "Babak Talebi" <babaktalebi@ gmail.com>
> > Cc: "1200group" <CAT23-1200@yahoogro ups.com>,
> > Cat23-ngame@ yahoogroups. com, "Douglas Kent"
> > <diplomacyworld@ yahoo.com>, dipknight@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 5:31 AM
> >
> > 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.diplomac y-archive. com/resources/ rulebooks/
> >> 2000AH4th. pdf
> >> <http://www.diplomac y-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]
>
>
>


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