Removing units from the map

[Crossroads]

Thanks HSL! Let us continue as I am genuinely (sp?) interested to get into the heart of this.

Which brings the discussion back to my question (I do not believe I got a straight yes/no answer...)

I'll give it a try. ;)

I am afraid I will need to ask you to try harder ;)

You seem to imply that removing fighting units from map is disallowed, and one would need a ROE to agree that it is allowed?

No. Only some specific tournament rules require units to remain on the map. I also seem to remember a few custom scenarios where the designers asked that players keep all units on the map.

I conclude removing fighting units from the map is thus allowed unless explicitly agreed otherwise beforehands (or if the scenario states so).

In other words, unless such a ROE would have been mutually agreed, there would be no limitation to gameplay as such?

Surely it is the other way around? The Blitz rules aside, all's fair as the game engine plays?

No. There are no "blitz rules" governing the removal of units from the map. Individual ROE's should be discussed by the players. If you mean that "all's fair" is using every little trick in the book, then I have to disagree with that. I draw the line with the famous transports block roads "trick" and transports driving deep into the enemy rear to spot "?s".

All's not fair then, as you state.

I am not by the way disagreeing with your or anyone else's logic as how to enjoy this fine game the most. I do want to get into the bottom of this ROE-or-no thing however.

Assume we would not have any ROEs, and I would use the famous truck-blocking technique, we would then have a situation where one of us would be very upset, to say the least. Yes?

But that's my point exactly. My non-gamey tactics arsenal is quite likely at least somewhat different in comparison to some one elses arsenal. Exiting combat units from map a case in point.

Remember, I believe I have never exited a combat unit but will defend my right to do so if I so choose! Unless I've agreed not to do so, which could be easily something I could agree into.

If we would find ourselves arguing about the truck-blocking technique at turn 24 of a 26 turn scenario, what would the outcome be? No ROEs in place, remember?

Who'd be right, who'd be wrong here?

I do not use "gamey" tactics.

That is good to hear.

But as you see, we still have a problem :)

But again, surely the basic ROE is that there are not ROEs? Or is it?

Not exactly. ROE's exist. Some assume them. Others state them. Some discuss them. Others expect them. Some ignore them? :chin:

Ahh, the Yes / No question I asked about :smoke:

Now what ROEs would those be, those that are in play even without being spoken? You are IMHO asking (assuming? expecting?) quite a lot here... Or, your uber-philosophical answer got me all lost :)

I am definitively not here to stir up problems I realise this is a touchy issue.

But I am honestly more confused now than what I was when I started with this thread.

Better to discuss this in general terms, instead of in the middle of a game, right?

Therefore, one more time: The default ROE is that there are no ROEs? Yes? No?

EDIT: To state my personal stand in public: I do not use 'gamey' tactics, but as we have seen, someone's gamey tactics are someone else's fair play. I do not have any problems with ROEs as such. I do have a problem someone would expect there are certain rules unless they've been discussed before starting the game. I am willing to learn more about this however!

EDIT2 I realise I might have not succeeded in phrasing my question properly? Let me try one more time:

If the players have not agreed beforehands about any ROEs, then there are no ROEs in play, explicit or implicit. Only rules to follow would then be the Blitz rules. Yes? No?

EDIT3 Maybe I should create a poll about that question? :)