|
gdpsnake -> (6/9/2003 3:00:11 AM)
|
GOTCHA SOAPY!
You say that you aren't detaching any strength factors.
"If my corps needs to, it can garrison the city without detaching factors at all."
BUT then you say:
(my rule comment) SO factors that do garrison CAN NOT BE PART OF A CORPS!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that 7.3.3.3.2 says they can be...
SO now you say you do have factors and they can be doing garrison work?!
NEXT:
I cited this:
GLOSSARY DEFINITION OF GARRISONS: REGULAR infantry, cossack, friedkorps, guerilla or militia FACTORS which ARE NOT PART OF A CORPS, and are placed in a city, port or on a depot. Obviously, units in cities are garrisons.
Now you say that these units don't have to be in the city!?
(my comment) THIS DEFINITION SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTS YOUR INTREPRETATION OF 7.3.3.3.1 where you say cossacks, friedcorps, and guerrila factors may also be used to form all or part of a city garrsion (Double duty) JUST LIKE 7.3.3.3.2 allows your corps to do double duty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh, and why is that? I see no contradiction."
YOU DON"T SEE A CONTRADITION!? THE DEFINITION CLEARLY SAYS these units (factors, cossacks, friedkorps, guerillas) are not part of a corps and ARE PLACED IN THE CITY to be defined as a garrison!
BUT you say these units don't have to be placed in the city?!?! NO contradiction?!?! Dude, you better re-read the definition. This may not solve the issue of CORPS doing double duty but it certainly KILLS any possible interpretation that other units can!
Heck, according to you, my garrsion factors don't even have to be in the city to be a garrison! Maybe they are on the depot AND garrisoning the city HEH!?
HOWEVER, you use this insane logic that 7.3.3.3.1 says they can be doing double duty. Where does 7.3.3.3.1 say that. IT ONLY SAYS THESE UNITS MAY BE GARRISON UNITS - NOT, I say AGAIN NOT, where they are located.
7.3.3.3.2 does NOT SAY {CORPS OUTSIDE A CITY} MAY, ONLY THAT CORPS MAY..... THE RULE NEVER SAYS WHERE THE CORP IS LOCATED!
Hence our whole argument. You say the rule implies the corps can be in the area. Where do you get that implication?!
I say the rule implies the corps is in the city! Where do I get that interpretation. BECAUSE rule 7.3.3.3.1 AND 7.3.3.3.2 ARE SUB RULES OF RULE 7.3.3.3 which specifically talks about GARRISONS INSIDE A CITY and are exceptions to the notion that only strength factors of certain types) may garrison.
I have rational. What is yours other than taking the rule out of context of 7.3.3.3 to fit your needs? What is your proof? Where, if anywhere in the rules book is your position supported except by your constant 'proof' of 7.3.3.3.2.
That's the only rule you ever quote. I have quoted many that contradict your ONE.
READ THE GLOSSARY DEFINITION AGAIN! HOW CAN YOU THEN SAY 7.3.3.3.1 allows those units (factors, guerillas, cossacks, and friedkorps) to garrison from an area?! And hence support your assertion that 7.3.3.3.2 allows it as well.
BOTH 7.3.3.3.1 AND 7.3.3.3.2 are INSEPERABLE. BOTH OR NEITHER! AND I THINK I'VE PROVEN 7.3.3.3.1 is DEFINITELY NOT PROOF OF double duty (SEE THE DEFINITION OF THOSE UNITS AS GARRISONS!)
YOU SAY:
Ridiculous. Again we go back to the French Guard sitting outside Metz, unable to garrison the 3 spire fortified city because it doesn't fit, and thus allowing your cossack to run in an occupy. This abuse would be impossible under by reading of the rules."
This is a bad statement for you because you can garrison by detaching factors (and must do so in order to garrison!). If you leave the corps in the area (without detaching any men) then who is in the city to stop me?! I say you made a conscience decision NOT TO GARRISON with any men from your corps because YOU didn't detach any men to perform just that duty!
TELL ME THIS, IF your corps is outside the city and you "Don't need" to detach any factors to garrison then how can men be in the city?! THAT MAKES SENSE- NO!
Which makes more sense when you consider the ACTUAL LOCATION of the men in your corps?
RULE 7.3.3.3.2 makes sense when you read it like this?: Corps may form all ....... When located in an area
OR
RULE 7.3.3.3.2 makes more sense when read like this?: Corps may form all ...... When located in a city.
The second reading of course AND don't forget the MAIN RULE USING THESE SUB RULES, 7.3.3 IS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING UNITS IN CITIES. I want to know, where do you get the rational that the rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 mean for units outside a city?!
I've shown lots of rational (not convinced you though LOL!) that it's talking of units IN THE CITY. You've shown no other supporting documentation or I missed it, please restate the rules.
Your men are already in the city so they don't NEED to detach to garrison. If you weren't IN THE CITY already then men in your corps WOULD HAVE TO MOVE INTO THE CITY. SOMEONE HAS TO PHYSICALLY OCCUPY THE CITY yet you say YOUR troops don't have too!
THAT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT SEVERAL POSTS BACK (Which is where I coined the phase "invisible detachments" Your logic - not mine!)! NOW you are back peddling saying that the men from the corps don't have to be in the city to garrison!
Which is it? and provide documentation other than just restating 7.3.3.3.2.
SHOW ME THE MONEY! 7.3.3.3.2 alone isn't enough since I believe it's for corps in a city as I've pointed out with rational.
AND SURE, not all corps can fit into all cities - that's why FACTORS and CORPS small enough to fit in the city can garrison AND CORPS TOO BIG TOO FIT CAN"T!!! THAT CORPS would have to detach.
Besides all of this, you didn't refute EX1 very well?
You didn't answer the issue of control!? By your definition (and remember - you said factors from your corps are not in the city!) how does a corps alone in an area with a vacant city [outside home country] control that city? (READ THE DEFINITION OF CONTROL- NEEDS FACTORS PRESENT IN THE CITY!!!!!)
You said: 7.3.3.3.2 say "corps may garrison without detaching factors." Even if I agree, what factors are detached for CONTROL, not GARRSION! You can garrsion IF YOU HAVE CONTROL! WHERE ARE THE FACTORS PRESENT IN THE CITY THAT GIVE YOU CONTROL AND HENCE THE ABILITY TO GARRISON WITH YOUR CORPS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONTROL TO GARRSION! AND CONTROL IS ONLY WITH FACTORS (HAS factors in the city - read the definition again - HAS FACTORS in the city!).
REMEMBER AGAIN, YOU SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO DETACH FACTORS TO GARRISON SO HOW DO YOU GET CONTROL without them?!!!!!!
NO!!! A corps alone in an area MUST detach factors to control the city - period! FACTORS MUST BE IN THE CITY - THE CITY HAS FACTORS! No other interpretation of the definition is possible - READ IT AGAIN!
SO, for your interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2 to work, one MUST DETACH FACTORS TO GET CONTROL of the city and clearly this contradicts "without detaching factors" in the verbiage of the rule.
A DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH THE RULE.
HOWEVER, There is no such contradiction with my interpretations of 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 meaning Units/corps are IN THE CITY. No conflict with any of the other definitions, issues of control, none.
It's only you trying to argue 7.3.3.3.2 and 7.3.3.3.1 and double duty that issues with definitions, control, factors, detaching etc. even arise. Doesn't that say something!?
READ THE GLOSSARY DEFINITION AGAIN "CITY HAS FACTORS"
If you don't have to detach to garrison [7.3.3.3.2]......Where are the factors for control? You can't have some ghostly garrison control of the city without PUTTING factors in the city.
FINALLY,
Nowhere in the rules does it say a units/corps alone in an area control the city. But the rules do say you only control a city WITH FACTORS. Cities inside the home country don't need factors and are controlled (not garrisoned - there is a difference!) as long as someone else does not have factors in the city.
Show me where the rules SPECIFICALLY say units/corps outside a city control the city.
I already showed you a rule that SPECIFICALLY says control is ONLY WITH FACTORS - the city HAS FACTORS!
BUT there may be another rule that ALSO gives control to corps/units outside a city. Please show me the rule and convince me.
That's another reason why I say rule 7.3.3.3.2 is about CORPS IN A CITY. Because a player MUST CONTROL A CITY WITH FACTORS IN THE CITY.
How do troops garrison a city they don't control? A garrison of no factors (REMEMBER AGAIN YOU DON"T DETACH FACTORS IN 7.3.3.3.2) does not get control. So 7.3.3.3.2 is a worthless rule unless read in conjunction with "in the city!"
7.3.3.3.2 would also be saying that the corps DID control the city without factors detached in the city (AND YOU STATE THAT FACTORS ARE NOT DETACHED!!!!!!) and directly contradicts the definition of control saying FACTORS MUST BE PRESENT.
SO TO CONTROL THE CITY by definition, SOME FACTORS OF YOUR CORP MUST BE PRESENT IN THE CITY AND EVEN YOU AGREE THAT THEY ARE NOT DETACHED AND PRESENT "IN THE CITY!" HENCE NO CONTROL AND NO GARRISON! HENCE CORPS CAN NOT DO DOUBLE DUTY!
SNAKE
|
|
|
|
