|
Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: strategy and its repercussions in the Balkans (5/21/2013 7:17:03 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Extraneous This is a new concept for me. We understood the rule to be that a friendly unit simply negates the ZOC, which is much less complicated. quote:
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets An enemy ZOC prevents a resource from: 1 - leaving a hex, unless a friendly land unit is present, 2 - entering a hex, unless a friendly land unit is present, 3 - moving through a hex, under all conditions. Shannon's example doesn't meet the "either or" condition stated in the rule. The rule is an either "enter" or "leave" his example is "enter" and "leave". The rule has 2 conditions not 3 so it has to be considered as: An enemy ZOC prevents a resource from: 1 - entering or leaving a hex, if a friendly land unit is present you may either enter or leave (you can't do both) a hex one time, 2 - moving through a hex, under all conditions. Explanation of #1: Since its an either or situation you cannot do both. You may either enter or leave a hex one time because you stop when you enter the next ZOC. Throwing away adjectives, adjective phrases, and articles: Move can only enter or leave if unit in hex. Move must stop when enters ZOC. Further reduction, with: IFF = if and only if A = move enter B = move leave C = unit in hex D = must stop E = enter ZOC A OR B IFF C. D IF E. Boolean logic operators give: IF C THEN A. IF C THEN B. IF E THEN D. Which is what I wrote.[8D] The ADG text doesn't give priority/precedence to these rules. The normal assumption is that the rules are cumulative (i.e., they all apply). But it's possible to argue that the first two override the last, rendering the last rule meaningless. EDIT: But obviously Mike is right about the OR potentially being misunderstood to be an XOR.
|
|
|
|