[WarInEur] Re: ZOCs

[srm]

An excellent post by Lawrence.


I'm in agreement with much of what he says. The
tinkering has to stop.


--- Lawrence Duffield <lpdgraph at mcn.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com