From: Ottawa, Canada
Response to this post from the China AI thread:
You get NO links, sources, or references for any of this.
composer99: My source of information is the WiFFE-RAW-7.0 or when seriously interested in a rule AUSTRALIAN DESIGN GROUP WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary.
For me to go to a group outside these forums would be counter productive. It may or may not be how the game is being written.
As this is a forum (a public meeting place for open discussion) this is where we can discuss how to play the game.
Almost everyone who has been exposed to this game knows there is a steep learning curve involved.
What is a person new to WiF's only source of information? The WiFFE-RAW-7.0.
I posted that I was not contesting ANY of the comments or clarifications but I stated why I made my original post the way I did.
You have taken my post and attacked it even when I said I did not contest the interpretation of it.
And it turns out that the attack was even more meaningless by the rule clarification at AUSTRALIAN DESIGN GROUP WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary
Were you that bored?
Or are you saying that you must have a background in the game or be a member of a WiF information group (chosen by you) in order to post a comment in these forums?
Why have I always had to post my links, sources, and references when the rest of you do not even bother?
To respond civilly to your post I have waited a full day before drafting this.
Extraneous: I am not, in fact, attacking you. I realize that you were asking a question. I want(ed) to know on what basis you had reached the interpretation that the first paragraph of rule §5 suggested a major power could lend to only one other major power per turn: just from RAW, or from RAW plus discussions elsewhere about the rules. I wanted to know what you thought.
As I noted: "the colloquial style of RAW rears its ugly head again". That RAW has ambiguous phrasing is not your fault, nor the fault of anyone except the people (person?) who wrote it. I am reading the rules and the most recent FAQ (v1.3 from July 2009) as of this writing. The rule still says:
In this stage, you can announce that you are giving resources and/or lend leasing build points (see 13.6.4) to another major power on the same side this turn.
and the FAQ has nothing to say on it in its clarifications for §5, either.
The word "another" is, in context, ambiguous. It doesn't quite say "one other major power", nor does it say "other major powers", either of which would be quite clear.
The interpretation you were asking about is possible based on the rule, although it is foreign to my own playing experience. Certainly I agree with pauldernyck that the correct interpretation is that any and all other eligible major powers may be lent to. But reading just "another major power", I wouldn't completely rule out that what ADG really meant was "one other major power".
It was not my intent to imply that browsing any other fora in which World in Flames is discussed is a prerequisite to asking questions about the game or the rules or that you have to frequent Consimworld to "be a WiFFer" (*).
So, let me re-word my question:
Based on reading the RAW, the ADG clarification document, and any other resources, on or offline, that you may frequent (including these forums at Matrix Games), do you think "are you only allowed to give resources and lend lease BP to ONE major power a turn?" is the correct way to play §5? Whether or not you think it is correct, do you think it is reasonable? (**)
IMO what you think the rules say is just as important as the actual text of the rules, and, when you have a rules question, more interesting.
(*) (I would not recommend frequenting Consimworld, by the way: the fora there use an IMO poor design/layout.)
(**) (I realize in your response you noted that you had found a clarification in the FAQ, which puts you ahead of me.)