Re: [eia] One besieged forage roll or many?

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think that since 7.4.5.2 uses the language "besieged garrison and/or
> corps" this definitely implies the possibility of multiple forage rolls
> inside the same city, or they just would have said "garrison" or
"occupying
> forces".  I'm not sure what relevance 7.5.4.1 has at all.  Please explain
> more fully.

    I take your point that in other foraging situations, losses are taken
irrespective of the number of factors in each corps.  However, I'm not sure
that the phrase "besieged garrison and/or corps" lends significant weight to
your position against mine.  The sentence that phrase is in talks about how
to take foraging losses.  By saying "besieged garrison and/or corps", the
rules are simply indicating that you can choose to lose foraging losses from
either of those sources.  However, this is helpful in that I now am able to
see more clearly how you are reading that language.

    If in a previous email I wrote "7.5.4.1", then that was a typo.  What I
intended to write was 7.4.5.1.  That rule describes the procedure for how to
take care of besieged supply.  It reads: "The foraging die roll modifiers
are not used for besieged supply.  Instead, for every *full* 5 army factors
in the besieged city (regardless of whether the factors are part of a corps
or merely a garrison) '+1' is added to the die, to a maximum of '+2'.  *For
example, a city with 5-9 army factors would have '+1' added to the die
roll.*  No other modifiers apply."  (emphasis is in the text)
    This language refers to a single die roll ("the die roll").  Now I don't
claim that this is convincing evidence against your view, because the rules
could just be using the singular in a very general sense.  But recall that
you used exactly the same kind of evidence to conclude that there can only
be one garrison inside a city.  (You referred to the singular nature of the
term "garrison" in 7.4.5.2.  If my reasoning is unconvincing here, then
yours is unconvincing there.)
    I can sum up my position this way:  if your interpretation were correct,
then a much clearer statement would have been, "For example, a city with 5-9
army factors would have '+1' added to EACH die roll."  Of course, just
because the rules weren't written with maximal clarity, doesn't mean that
you are wrong.  (I have certainly found other places where the rules could
have been written more clearly.)  However, it still counts as evidence...

    Again, I don't claim that my reasoning is airtight.  I don't claim that
it shows that I'm right and you're wrong.  I think that there are two
reasonable positions one could come to given the language.  I prefer mine
because I think it makes more intuitive sense.  While I admit that I'm less
sure of my position now than I was earlier this morning, I'm certainly not
ready to give up on it entirely.  I'm curious to find out what people on the
EIH list serve will say.  (So far there have been two responses, both
agreeing with my position.  But none of the big-wigs have responded yet.)
I'll let you know what I hear.

kdh


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia