[WarInEur] Re: ZOCs

[Kent & Sue Haunschild]

Lawrence,

I guess I need to quote the rule one again because you seem to be missing the point.

"Allied ZOC do not extend across borders during this movement phase."

Notice that the rule does not say "extend into enemy controlled hexes" and that the word "borders" is pluralized.  Meaning that there is more than one border to consider.

So the rule, as written means exactly what you are try to say it doesn't mean.

During the initial movement phase during the of the lowlands: The French and CW units on the French border do not project a ZOC into Belgium. Belgian units do not project a ZOC into France, the Netherlands,Luxembourg, or Germany.  Dutch units do not project a ZOC into Belgium or Germany.

You may never have played this way, but this is what the rules says.

Kent

PS 
As far as following history is concerned I assume that you always voluntarially follow the Dyle Plan even if not required to do so by your opponent because that is what the Allies did.  Well no, that would be pro-axis and make it too easy for the Germans to knock France out of the War and decimate the BEF in the process.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lawrence Duffield 
  To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net 
  Cc: Kent & Sue Haunschild 
  Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:54 PM
  Subject: Re: ZOCs






  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/20071106/eba28197/attachment-0001.html