Re: Opinions requested, please!

I guess my pet issue here would be that the player who gets proxy control 
over other units, doesn't get a confirmation of this from the GM - so he'll have 
to trust his ally to proxy.

Joe

On 4 Aug 2004 at 21:30, Anthony Cutcliffe wrote:

Hi Peter

Thanks for your reply!
Yes, sorry, I omitted that one bit - the proxy *does* have to be re-confirmed to the GM every turn.

The idea of the proxy rule was to allow players to temporarily transfer control of a limited number of units/dots for a limited time, not to give full control for the rest of the game. But your point is well made and well taken; I hadn't thought of it from the angle you are making.

Sharp advocates proxy orders in one of his Chapters - A, G or I, IIRC; and I wanted players to have that kind of flexibility. That's where I'm coming from.

Thanks again
Tony


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Peter J Richardson 
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [CAT23-GM] Opinions requested, please!


Personally I am not a fan of proxy orders. I think the game is about diplomacy and all players ought to be available
to be persuaded by a good bit of diplomacy. I think therefore that if they are to be accepted that the proxying
power should be required to send a note to the GM to confirm the proxy each season. After all, if a player does not
care enough about the game to send a set of orders to the GM, is he really playing at all?

Regards
Peter




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]