Re: Question about Spain and coasts

Peter J Richardson wrote:

>What is ambiguous about
>
>F Spain supports WME to MAO  ?
>
>What is the relevance of the non-stated coastal designation to this order?

I am not strongly committed to that position, to be honest, although 
I still do favor it very slightly.  It is mostly to promote 
consistency.  I want players to always write coastal designations on 
fleet orders in multi-coastal provinces, simply to make it a habit. 
Also, this position is consistent with my general view that I do not 
presume that the player intends to submit a valid order.

>I agree with the rest of your post where you state that if that is 
>what you say in your House Rules then players
>get what they signed up for, but this is the ruling that I would 
>consider contrary to the "an order that can
>admit one meaning must be followed" rule.

Well, somewhat pedantically, I realize, the order does admit of two 
meanings: F Spa(nc) or F Spa(sc).  Having said that, I may well 
remove that provision from my house rules, as there seems to be a 
general consensus that a naked, coastal-less fleet order should be 
accepted unless the board situation is such that the order is clearly 
and hopelessly ambiguous (e.g. F MAO - Spa, or build F StP).

I would still hope that players will just habitually use coasts for 
STP, SPA, and BUL, though.  It's four extra characters, even with the 
parentheses.  Just write it in and save the GM the added grief.  This 
is really a lazy player problem that gets foisted onto the GM, IMO, 
and we would never revive this debate if players just always wrote in 
the correct coast.  Period.

-Adam