Re: Rehashing: [eia] Turkish land phase, Jan 1805

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Hmm.  I suppose that it is possible that we've been playing wrong all
these years, but I still think that the rule intends that corps only receive
+1 while within the borders of the home nation.  But I don't have any
evidence to confirm my hunch, and you have evidence against it.  So if
that's the way we decide to do things from now on, then I guess I won't
raise a fuss.  (After all, such a ruling is good for countries like mine
with lots of minor countries.)

kdh

P.S.  If it makes any difference to anyone, the Empires in Harm rules (a
popular online variant of Empires in Arms) specify that a major power corps
must be in a "home nation province" in order to get the bonus.  However, EiH
also specifies that minor country corps only get the bonus while within the
borders of the minor country - *not* within the borders of the major power
that controls it.  (I mention the Empires in Harm rules because in the past
we have found that Empires in Harm tends to make sensible rulings that help
us resolve potential controversies in the Empires in Arms rules.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Rehashing: [eia] Turkish land phase, Jan 1805


> I just noticed that in the glossary, Major Power is defined as: "Home
> nation plus controlled minor countries plus provinces ceded to that home
> nation."
>
> and the rule in question, 7.4.1.2.5, "In Own Territory: If the corps did
> not move into an are outside the major power's territory this Turn and
> is not now in such an area, "+1" is subtracted from the die roll."
>
>
> Taking these two into consideration, I think Turkey should have gotten
> the +1 for in own territory for its corp in Jerusalem.
>
> -Everett
>
>
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:18:45 -0400
> "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I agree that there should be only a "-1" for the number of corps present
in
> > the area, but in the past we have interpreted the wording, "major
power's
> > territory" to mean only territory in the major power's home nation.  You
> > might want to hear from Kyle on this, but I'm almost certain that the
> > correct forage roll should be a 5 for both corps.
> >
> > -JJY
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 5:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [eia] Turkish land phase, Jan 1805
> >
> >
> > > Thus spake Michael Gorman:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >1C at Jerusalem => Jaffa (F/auto)
> > > > >2I at Jerusalem with Grand Vizier hold (F/auto)
> > > > >Syrians at Acre hold (F/auto)
> > > >          The two infantry at Jerusalem should forage at four.  3
base+3
> > for
> > > > remaining movement-2 for two extra corps in the same area
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > >
> > > I get 3 (base) + 3 (movement) - 1 (1 other corps in the same area) + 1
> > (own territory) = 6.
> > >
> > > 7.4.1.2.1 says one is subtracted for "each other unbesieged corps",
not
> > each corps. Though there are two corps at Jerusalem, when considering
each
> > there is only one *other* corps at there. Otherwise, a lone corps would
> > suffer a -1 for being in the same space as itself!
> > >
> > > Secondly, I take "major power's territory" in 7.4.1.2.5 to mean the
same
> > as "territory a major power controls". Had I moved into Georgia, e.g, I
> > would no longer be in my territory, but I Palestine I believe I am. Note
> > that it doesn't say "home territory" or somesuch.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > J.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eia mailing list
> > > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
> --
> Everett E. Proctor <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>


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