Re: Clarity of Orders

Libby wrote:

>All orders
>are logical regarding the borders between the provinces, meaning they
>are adjacent and would succeed if not attacked or opposed. The
>intended actions of the units in orders 5 & 6 are in question.  I am
>inclined to consider 5 & 6 as ambiguous, given the use of verbs in
>orders 1-4.
>
>
>1 – "Unit Province C to Province D"
>2 – "Unit Province E supports Unit Province C to Province D"
>3 – "Unit Province G to Province H"
>4 – "Unit Province I supports A Province G to Province H"
>5 – "Unit Province F to supports Province E"
>6 – "Unit Province J to support Foreign Country Unit Province Z"

5 is ambiguous without question.  There is just no way to resolve that one.

6 is harder.  The literal wording of 6 indicates 
support, but the wording is odd.  Therefore, in 
context, it is questionable that this was the 
true intent.  Where are we in the game?  Has this 
person been consistent with order format in the 
past?  Has he ever used a phrase such as "Unit A 
to convoy Unit B....", or does he always use the 
present tense and never the future tense?  My 
inclination would be to rule it ambiguous unless 
I had seen him use that unusual verb construction 
elsewhere.

-- 

-Adam