WaterRabbit said:
My objection is to 'spamming' -- posting one post after another without any intervening post by other people -- especially when it appears that you are arguing with yourself. If you consider my hint to be ‘not-very-polite’ then consider that spamming is an egregious breach of forum etiquette.
First of all, this was not "spamming". "Spamming" involves sending replies or emails that have no relevance to the subject matter at hand, and that makes no attempt to.
If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that each of my posts was a direct reply to a prior post; i.e. I responded directly by quoting each individual post. What results is a series of replies, one after another, without an intervening post by someone else. It happens, do to the nature of the medium.
"Spamming" is indeed a breech of forum etiquette. I was not spamming, unlike many other threads in this forum where certain individuals reply one after another -- sometimes using only one or two sentences per post -- without adding anything even relevant to the thread.
WaterRabbit said:
Since this is your first post to my rebuttal, I had yet to see such agreement. IMO, your interpretation allows for the chain SW move by leaders. I hadn't posted additional arguments, since you had yet to even refute this point.
Well,
I agree with Ole.
As regards your "chain SW move", it's ridiculous. No one has claimed such a thing is possible. A SW may only be portaged once per phase, and no one has claimed otherwise.
The objections that Ole and I have raised have to do with your assertion that Recovery of a SW from an eliminated unit is not allowed by a leader unless that leader is a part of the same moving stack. Your arguments do not support your assertion.
Neither one of us has stated that the leader may continue moving with the SW.
WaterRabbit said:
Huh? I posted reference to A4.4-44 plus direct Q&A. Clearly relevant.
I did not find your Q&A reference to be relevant.
WaterRabbit said:
A4.2 Mechanics of Movement. Your interpretation requires an unprecedented exception to the mechanics of movement. I have read 4.44 fairly thoroughly and IMHO there is no such exception here. The only phrase you have to support such an exception is ‘but regardless of phase’. I don’t see this as an exemption from other constraints provided by the rules.
Recovery of a SW from an eliminated unit, without the expenditure of MF, is not movement. It could occur during any fire phase -- and is not movement. Using A4.2 in this instance is not relevant to what is allowed by A4.44... you know, that bit about "regardless of phase".
WaterRabbit said:
I find this acronym mainly used to mean "because I said so".
You were responding to Ole's use of "COWTRA".
I must ask you, WaterRabbit, how long have you been playing ASL?
The phrase "COWTRA" has been a part of ASL practically since the beginning, if not from the very beginning.
COWTRA does
not mean "because I said so". You seem to demonstrate here that you do not have any understanding of the principle of COWTRA, which really is telling us that the absence of a rule specifically prohibiting us from doing something is
not the same as allowing us to do it.
Why don't you do a little more research into "COWTRA", eh? I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum that could direct you to a good resource. I'm not going to help you, though, because of your attitude about COWTRA.
WaterRabbit said:
I also see it as an echo of ASLML elitism.
Friend, COWTRA has been around long before there was a mailing list, or a forum. Or even the Internet, for that matter.
Here you are demonstrating your bias against the ASLML. You are entitled to your opinion. But to call COWTRA "elitism" displays a certain ignorance about the principle, and about how responsible players use COWTRA to clarify rules.
WaterRabbit said:
I don't think the rules allow a non-acting leader to interrupt the movement phase of another friendly unit. A leader stacked with the MMC from the get go is sharing its MPh with that unit (and the risk). It is obvious that his movement ends if he takes possession of a SW in this manner.
Here's the flaw in this argument: the friendly unit's MPh was interrupted by the act of being
eliminated . There is no more definitive way to end a unit's MPh, now is there? So by the time the leader Recovers the SW, the leader isn't interrupting anything. Elimination interrupted the unit's movement.
WaterRabbit said:
However, I am willing to bet that a printed official Q&A would fall in my direction, since it is most logical within the overall framework of the rules.
Don't hold your breath. What you suggest would require an errata, not merely a Q&A.
Please, feel free to ask the question, and then post it into an unofficial resource. But don't bet the bank on it becoming Official without an Errata to go with it.
Bruce Bakken