Re: Question about Spain and coasts

As the GM whose ruling started this controversy, this is my last word on the "coastal" issue. Those who wish to disagree 
are free to do so, but I would prefer a rules-based argument rather than 
"my opinion is ......"

I am amazed at the number of "strict constructionists" there are out 
there. Apparently, they feel that ANY error, no matter how trivial, will 
invalidate an order. I find this very curious, because to take this 
approach is contrary to the rules of Diplomacy as I understand them.

My house rules are more complete than most, but I do not feel the need 
to rule in advance on every possible contingency.

The order in question was:

"F (Spa)nc – s F (Naf) – MAO"

The issue was that the fleet was actually on the south coast.

 From the official rules of Diplomacy:

"A poorly written order that has only one meaning must be followed."

And:

"The Fleet ... is considered to be occupying the entire province."

To conclude that the order was for a unit that does not exist would seem 
to be in direct contradiction to these two statements.

Let's turn it around:

Units:

French F Spa (sc)
Italian F NAf

France - F Spa to MAt

Italy - F NAf S F Spa (nc) to MAt

Should the GM rule the support order as invalid because it references a 
unit that "does not exist", even though the coastal designation has 
absolutely no impact on the validity of the move being supported?

I would be really upset to find myself on the receiving end of such a 
ruling by a GM because there is no possible ambiguity in the order set. 
The support order has only one possible meaning. It supports F Spa to 
the MAt. What coast F Spa starts on has no impact whatsoever on this 
meaning.

For those of you insisting that there is an ambiguity here, please 
explain, because I do not see one.

Regards to all,

Mike A.
GM - Dip1190



[email protected] wrote:

>I happen to agree with you on the third case.  As I have stated elsewhere, giving *wrong* information is qualitatively worse than giving less than the normal amount of information.  Some people, however, feel differently, and as long as the GM states up front what the interpretation of such orders would be, I am ok with it.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Adam Kuehn <[email protected]>
>Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:10 am
>Subject: Re: [CAT23-Gchat] Question about Spain and coasts
>
>  
>
>>David E. Cohen wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Well, in this case, the rulebook is not especially clear, but you 
>>>      
>>>
>>do raise a
>>    
>>
>>>valid general question.  At what point does a house rule become 
>>>      
>>>
>>"strong">enough to push a Standard game into variant status?
>>
>>Following this logic, then, should games using the 1976 rulebook, 
>>e.g., be considered "variants"?  I think this is splitting hairs. 
>>The purpose of house rules is to try to make it clear what the 
>>conditions of play are and to define some situations that may 
>>arise 
>>in online play that do not arise in FTF play.  Does it matter 
>>whether 
>>or not the game should then acquire the label of "variant"?
>>
>>Read the posted rules before you decide to play.  If the house 
>>rules 
>>present conditions you regard as too much at odds with the style 
>>of 
>>play you prefer, don't play in that game.
>>
>>-Adam, who still says case 3 is an unambiguous and invalid order
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>(snip)
>  
>