Languish Here I Stand (9?) Thread

[Berkut]

If multiple enemy stacks are adjacent to the destination
space, one or more naval units (owning player's choice) from each
stack may attempt to intercept as a single stack.

That is saying that within each stack, the stack may intercept with one roll (or not).

Multiple adjacent stacks cannot intercept with one roll, however. not the FROM EACH.

Hmm, okay, that is a logical interpretation we didn't think of.

But if that is the case, then why are the words "if multiple stacks are adjacent" present at all? If Berk is correct, then that is redundant.

Because it is saying that you don't have to choose only 1 stack to intercept from - that in fact they can ALL make the attempt, and whichever are successful will all fight as one stack.

[Delirium]

I get the historical logic, I'm just going on what the rules say.

[ulmont]

If multiple enemy stacks are adjacent to the destination
space, one or more naval units (owning player's choice) from each
stack may attempt to intercept as a single stack.

That is saying that within each stack, the stack may intercept with one roll (or not).

Multiple adjacent stacks cannot intercept with one roll, however. not the FROM EACH.

[Berkut]

I get the historical logic, I'm just going on what the rules say.

They are perfectly clear Del. Just read them, and don't try to read anything into them.

[ulmont]

Hmm, okay, that is a logical interpretation we didn't think of.

But if that is the case, then why are the words "if multiple stacks are adjacent" present at all? If Berk is correct, then that is redundant.

Because it is saying that you don't have to choose only 1 stack to intercept from - that in fact they can ALL make the attempt, and whichever are successful will all fight as one stack.

[ehrie]

Can someone just post this on whereever we usually post these rules questions?

Knock yourself out - I don't have any question about what the rules say.

I don't either, I agree with you, but I meant for Del.

[Berkut]

The point of all this is saying that you can order your intercept attempts so that you can choose to NOT attempt to intercept with a weaker force if the larger force fails its interception attempt. Or vice versa.

So Tamas can roll for one force, then if that fails, choose to NOT roll for the other force. Of course, if he succeeds with the first, he may very well fail with the second anyway. Either way, if there is a resulting battle, it will be done with all successfully  intercepting forces fighting together.

[ehrie]

The point of all this is saying that you can order your intercept attempts so that you can choose to NOT attempt to intercept with a weaker force if the larger force fails its interception attempt. Or vice versa.

So Tamas can roll for one force, then if that fails, choose to NOT roll for the other force. Of course, if he succeeds with the first, he may very well fail with the second anyway. Either way, if there is a resulting battle, it will be done with all successfully  intercepting forces fighting together.

And that is exactly how I read the rules as well.

[Delirium]

If three of you agree then sure.

I maintain that the second sentence is strangely worded if you're right, the first part of the sentence seems to be a condition for the second when in fact it isn't.

Please read the second sentence again before you go. If you're still convinced, shoot.

[Berkut]

Each such attempt
is resolved separately and the owning player chooses the order of
those attempts.

How is that strangely worded? In fact, it is the explicitness I was talking about - it clears states that each attempt is to be resolved...hell, I cannot even restate it any more clearly than what it already states!

In fact, I am not even sure what you are suggesting the rules might mean otherwise! Are you suggesting that they are NOT resolved separately?

[Delirium]

That is the third sentence, not the second. If you've been reading that all the time then I understand your confusion. 

Edit: Or are we using different rules? Have to check this.

[Berkut]

That is the third sentence, not the second. If you've been reading that all the time then I understand your confusion. 

Sentence #1:
If multiple enemy stacks are adjacent to the destination
space, one or more naval units (owning player's choice) from each
stack may attempt to intercept as a single stack.

Sentence #2:
Each such attempt
is resolved separately and the owning player chooses the order of
those attempts.

Sentence #3:
If multiple stacks from different enemy powers all
want to intercept, resolve the intercept attempts in Impulse Order.

Sentence #4:
Once one power succeeds, no other power may attempt an interception
(even if that other power is an ally of the intercepting power).

This is the rules that *you* quoted, I believe.

[ehrie]

That is the third sentence, not the second. If you've been reading that all the time then I understand your confusion. 

Sentence #1:
If multiple enemy stacks are adjacent to the destination
space, one or more naval units (owning player’s choice) from each
stack may attempt to intercept as a single stack.

Sentence #2:
Each such attempt
is resolved separately and the owning player chooses the order of
those attempts.

Sentence #3:
If multiple stacks from different enemy powers all
want to intercept, resolve the intercept attempts in Impulse Order.

Sentence #4:
Once one power succeeds, no other power may attempt an interception
(even if that other power is an ally of the intercepting power).

This is the rules that *you* quoted, I believe.

[Delirium]

I was referring to the rule book, and had been doing so for a number of posts since that initial quote.

[Berkut]

I was referring to the rule book, and had been doing so for a number of posts since that initial quote.

Do you want me to find the second sentence in the rulebook?

How about you just tell us which sentence it is you find confusing?