Rule Problem 10: Excess Builds or Disbands

[David E. Cohen]

If a player attempts to build or disband more units than the position would allow,

Alternative A: the builds will not be allowed, and the disbands will occur according to the rules for civil disorder removals.

Alternative B: the builds or disbands will be followed in order, from [top to bottom] [bottom to top] of the order set until the correct number of builds or disbands are reached.

[Edi Birsan]

For disbands, if it is missed then the rules are followed as if the country was in civil disorder.

For excess builds people start always at the top and stop when they are suppose to.

[David E. Cohen]

For disbands, if it is missed then the rules are followed as if the country was in civil disorder.

For excess builds people start always at the top and stop when they are suppose to.
Where is the support in the rulebook for that proposition?

[Edi Birsan]

The rule book is written from top to bottom, you do not need a rule to tell you that.
Orders are written from top to bottom, you do not need a rule to tell you that.
Orders are not written in a binary code with a logrithmitic transponder and encrypted with a 12 bit parsec... you do not need a rule to tell you that.

[RuHurt]

But he still has a valid point, Edi; it's dangerous to make statements like that without backing in the rules. Eventually, you're going to come across someone who wants to play exactly by the rules (like me ;) ), and you'll need to be able to give him an official reason for that particular rule. In this case, I'd say that builds are read top-to-bottom, until the correct result is achieved, and disbands are followed according to the civil-disorder rule (whatever that might be... :P). But I'm not sure (in fact, I doubt) that backing for that can be found in the rulebook.

[DY]

I've always played by Edi's rule and that's how they did it at Cat23. I thought it was in the old rulebook (I bought my set in 1989). I'll dig out my set and search the rules at some point.

[David E. Cohen]

Edi, you really never answered the question. Also, why a different rule for builds than disbands? Where is the support in the rulebook for this?

As a general comment, pronouncements on the order of 'this is the way we have done it, so this is the way it should be' and 'rules lawyering causes people who do it to be eliminated from games' are not terribly helpful when we are discussing changes that will reduce the opportunity for rules lawyering, and reduce the opportunity for conflict where one 'we' meets another 'we' who has done it differently.


P.S. In a face to face game, when someone turns in build, disband, movement or retreat orders on some piece of scrap paper, with one order on one side, and one order on the other, which one is first? ;^)

[Edi Birsan]

P.S. In a face to face game, when someone turns in build, disband, movement or retreat orders on some piece of scrap paper, with one order on one side, and one order on the other, which one is first? ;^)

Generally this never comes up. What is more common is that there are two complete sets of orders with one from the prior turn and no dates on them. This is why we ask the player reading to cross out the old orders .

However, in the case of the confusion in a social game Ask the player. In a tournament game ask the TD if you don't trust the player to do the right thing.

[Edi Birsan]

"Edi, you really never answered the question. Also, why a different rule for builds than disbands? Where is the support in the rulebook for this? "

The 99 rule book page 18 defines Civil Disorder as when there is no player or otherwise fails to submit orders.
It then covers what unit to remove.

For builds on the same page it has that the builds are written down and that any vague or invaild orders are ignored. Seems reasonable in the case of builds to start at the top and ignore the rest.

[David E. Cohen]

"Edi, you really never answered the question. Also, why a different rule for builds than disbands? Where is the support in the rulebook for this? "

The 99 rule book page 18 defines Civil Disorder as when there is no player or otherwise fails to submit orders.
It then covers what unit to remove.

For builds on the same page it has that the builds are written down and that any vague or invaild orders are ignored. Seems reasonable in the case of builds to start at the top and ignore the rest.
Well, if it is so reasonable, perhaps it should be in the rulebook. LOL

[DY]

Perhaps the creators of the rulebook didn't think of every possible situation? Perhaps this is why you created these discussions?

[Buz Eddy]

As I mentioned on this or another thread. A problem seems to occur because new publishers craft rules without the institutional knowledge of what's transpired before. The 1976 rules had 15 years of input that was incorporated. The 1983 set was not as precise because AH didn't have the input that John Moot and Games Research had. Neither the set nor the rules published by Hasbro seemed to have much user input evident.

As an aside, Puerto Rico is a complex a game. In 30 games we've had two dozen wierd possibilities come up, and the rule are specific about each resolution. Those rules were had to be the most play tested revised set ever.

I invited the FTF tournament directors to join this forum in the hope of capturing the thoughts that might help develop a more usable product for us, and a more saleable product for Hasbro / AH. Not sure the feedback mechanism is in place. Not even sure they care anymore.

[Edi Birsan]

If we put in start at the top then someone would say: in Hebrew and Arabic we write right to left so where is the top...
There has to be a reasonable expectation that people are to approach a social game for social reasons and not as a forum to discuss how many rules we need to make up.