[WarInEur] Re: ZOCs

[Lawrence Duffield]

On Nov 5, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:

> Proposal already ammended to read during the initial movement phase.
>
> SPI rules quoted in another email.
>
> While you might be correct in regard to units retain full abilities  
> unless rules othewise direct.  This beggers the questions: Are the  
> rules complete and do they cover every situation?  SPI designers  
> answered these by saying no and that common sense must guide the  
> players.

Agree

>
> Applying the common sense rule, it seems to me that if the  
> designers took the time to write rules specifically curtailing the  
> abilities of the major combatants, then these rules should apply  
> equally to the minor combatants who were much less prepared and  
> would be more restrained in their response than the major  
> participants.

I see no reason why the designers mightn't have noticed that  
construing the rule to apply to each combatant in sequence within a  
turn would make invading Holland, then Belgium or Holland, then  
Belgium, then France unreasonably easy and declined to do so.

>
> What we have entered is the classic argument of "Original Intent"  
> versus "Strict Construction."  I am trying to develope universal  
> rules applicable across the board that seem to be in accordance  
> with the designers intentions and which guide the game into a  
> historic pattern.   I also think that the fewer special rules the  
> better.

I'm not seeing an argument FOR original intent.  I see one  
interpretation that is not privileged against any other  
interpretation, and prefer the original rule as written.

>
> I think you are arguing that the rules have a existance outside the  
> game, and that game play must conform to the rules even when this  
> results in non-historical outcomes.

No, I'm arguing that RAW has had the benefit of consistency within  
the game's history and that experience has shown that deviations from  
RAW (i.e. Kansas City amendments) have hurt more often than helped.

>
> I think this prevents us from learning anything about the  
> historical dynamics of the situation.  When we discuss the rules  
> openly and are willing to try to write ones that better model  
> history then I think we all learn something in the process.

Try away.  I don't think this one succeeds.

>
> When we fail to discuss the suggestions to see if the enhance  
> historical play or detract from it and instead immediately label  
> something as Pro-Axis, or Pro-Soviet, or Pro-Allied then we let  
> emotions rule our intellect and the whole process suffers.

I didn't "immediately" label it anything.  That was done after mature  
consideration that the proposed change adds nothing to historicity  
and changes the balance without benefit.  And that if a change must  
be made for the sake of consistency the one I proposed is better in  
every way.

>
> Every board gamer has his list of house rules that he insists that  
> the other player abide by.  This is next to impossible to code.
>
Fully agree, which is why I prefer the game be playable by RAW to the  
utmost extent possible, even when this violates somebody ELSE's idea  
of historicity.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071105/1bcb9022/attachment.html