|
gdpsnake -> rule 7.3.6.1 and 7.3.6.2 (6/10/2003 7:29:12 PM)
|
TO ALL:
Please read 7.3.6.1 and 7.3.6.2 and answer:
Here are some situations and events which are true or false. If you say false , please explain why:
SITUATION1: Player A has a cossack and an ungarrisoned depot in an area. The cossack is NOT stacked on the depot.
EVENT1: Player B can move his friedkorps into the area, destroy the depot and stay/move on.
EVENT2: Player B can move his friedkorps into the area, convert the depot and stay/move on.
EVENT3: Player B can move a corps counter into the area, convert the depot and stay/move on.
EVENT4: Player B can move a corps counter into the area, stop and "consume" the depot to avoid a forage roll.
SITUATION2: Player A has a corp counter with one or more factors in the area and an ungarrisoned depot in the area. The corp is NOT stacked on the depot.
EVENT1: Player A can move his cossack into the area, destroy the depot and stay/move on.
EVENT2: Player A can move a corps counter into the area, stop and destroy the depot.
EVENT3: Player A can move a corps counter into the area, stop and "consume" the depot to avoid a forage roll.
EVENT4: Player A can move a corps counter into the area, stop and convert the depot.
NOTE: I know someone will reference 7.2 as a rule against some events presented here but I remind them that rule7.2 discusses "Creation and Placement" of depots. The depot is "ALREADY created and placed," only who controls the depot is the issue here.
I hope no one uses the "double duty" logic because 7.3.3.3.2 specifically says ..may form all or part of a CITY garrison.
AND I hope no one says this is an "oversight" because 7.3.3.3.1** specifically says city OR depot.
I know I said I was done with 'double duty' but I'm sure it will come up as SOAPY will certainly say his corps (or units as per 7.3.3.3.1** {can't have 7.3.3.3.2 as justification for double duty and not 7.3.3.3.1**, right?}) are doing "DOUBLE DUTY" despite the fact 7.3.3.3.2 doesn't say "and ALSO depots." So SOAPY will certainly say 7.3.6.2 applies.
**Clarification: If 7.3.3.3.2 is justification for double duty for a corps, then 7.3.3.3.1 MUST be justification for those units to "double duty." {SAME POSITION IN THE RULE BOOK under 7.3.3.3., SAME VERBIAGE!} I don't see how anyone can argue FOR 7.3.3.3.2 and then DENY 7.3.3.3.1. (DANGER! DANGER! WILL ROBINSON!)
So units listed in 7.3.3.3.1 can clearly double duty as well! (SOAPY agreed this was true earlier.)
The problem now with 7.3.3.3.1 is the rule says city OR depot implying only ONE CHOICE OR THE OTHER so to 'double duty' a cossack does one state he is 'garrisoning" the depot OR 'garrisoning' the city from the area as each case happens? Can he change his mind between the two at different times? But that would mean he can do both!
The logic of "OR" escapes me when mixed with the definition of allowing double duty.
The factors of the corps doing double duty are formed in the corps OR in the city OR on the depot (AS SOAPY WILL CERTAINLY SAY) as I choose.
SO the factor/factors of the unit/units doing double duty is formed in the city OR in the area OR in the garrison.
BUT 7.3.3.3.1 says in city OR in garrisons which implies one, not both. YET the logic says double duty allows both. Seems a contradiction to me.
Gee, SOAPY, for your claim that double duty somehow makes the game easier to play, I don't see it!
ALSO, just to clarfy: A corps (OR EVEN UNITS as per 7.3.3.3.1) can do "double duty" meaning ALL or PART of the corps can be considered formed in the city OR in the area for all the arguments recently offered (corps are special organizations, corps can react unlike garrisons so the factors can be in the city for garrison and fight a field battle, the corps is all over the area, 7.3.3.3.2 says may form all or part {may also means or none!}, and so on.)
SO, under this double duty logic, I assume that all or part of the corps (OR EVEN UNITS as per 7.3.3.3.1) in a city is ALSO in the area for all the same reasons.
WHY NOT? If a corps (OR EVEN UNITS as per 7.3.3.3.1) in an area can be 'everywhere over a month long period" why can't all or part of a corps (OR EVEN UNITS as per 7.3.3.3.1) in a city do the same? The corps (OR EVEN UNITS as per 7.3.3.3.1) is somehow different in the city and can't do all the things over a month long period like it can outside a city? Where would be the logic in that?! 7.3.3.3.2 says MAY so I could say all OR only part of my corps in the city is on garrison or even NONE of it!!!!! The rest is outside for the same logic that double duty proponents say that ALL OR PART on the outside can be in!
SO double duty must be the ability to do both. But the rules specifically forbid that don't they. I say that blows a hole in the double duty logic.
SNAKE
|
|
|
|
