Alex,

All misorders and NMRs were
already double checked, so don't bother arguing.

This almost sounds like a challenge, doesn't it? I pick up thy gauntlet, oh noble knight. I apologize if the following is an example of using a cannon to kill a rabbit.

F Punic Sea to Thaesus (No such province)
A Massilia, NMR
F Sparta, NMR
F Athens to Messenian Sea (*Fails*  No unit in
Athens, provinces not connected anyway)

The House Rules are interesting on these misorders. Clearly, the overriding rule is:

"The GM holds the final say on any in-game dispute."

So, in the end, what you say decides the issue.

I understand the NMR for F Sparta. I do know GMs who would 'correct' the order, but Sparta is clearly not Athens, and the NMR makes sense to me.

But I confess to scratching my head at F Punic to Thaesus. True, there is no Thaesus. But there is a Thapsus, which differs by only one letter from Thaesus. And Thapsus is right next door to Punic Sea (so, it makes contextual sense). Furthermore, there is no other province even remotely similar in name to Thaesus. The *only* (and I use this word full-knowing how categorical it is) logical in-board interpretation of Thaesus is that it should be Thapsus. If you can show me a plausible ambiguity in interpretation, I will withdraw my challenge.

There are two House Rules sort of pertaining to this misorder, but neither takes it head on. First:

"In the case of an ambiguous order, the GM may void the move and have the unit stand."

Admittedly, this rule is located amidst a discussion of province abbreviations, but (a) most every set of House Rules has such a blanket provision, and (b) it makes sense that ambiguity should be treated the same whether a player types out full names or whether they use abbreviations. According to this rule, if a typo causes ambiguity, then the GM may void the order. But, as argued above, 'Thaesus' did not create ambiguity.

The second House Rule is:

"If there is a typo that leads to an incorrect order, it will be read as-is."

I am assuming that this is the House Rule being used in your interpretation. Perhaps the rule requires further explication, because the example used in the House Rules is "Ven to Rum" in the place of "Ven to Rom". So, the context of the rule implies that it applies in instances when the typo significantly change the meaning of the order. It does not necessarily imply that spelling will be grounds for nullification.

And that is why I am confused by the no-such-province adjudication of:

F Punic Sea to Thaesus

Are you really requiring that we submit our orders with perfect spelling?!? (Because that's what this boils down to). I mean to say... Chersonesus is a bugger to spell. Does it really matter whether I type Chersonesus, Chersenesus, Chersonnesus, etc...? The intent is crystal clear. If I want to get really pedantic, I would ask how 'Thaesus' is any less correct than orders I have previously submitted such as 'F Alexandria - Libyan' (there is a Libyan Sea, but not a Libyan).

So, to summarize my point:

When there is no ambiguity in province designation, do you really want spelling to override player intent?

[Yes, I understand that this very possibly could be an 'intentional misorder' on Rome's part, but do you really want to create this precedent in order to enable a misorder?]

Thank you for considering my argument,
Adam