Re: [eia] 3/05 Austria land phase

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So in essence, our present house rule states that if you move into an area
containing an enemy corps and a city, the enemy corps is always considered
to be outside of the city and you must stop movement there.  OK, I have no
problem (although it looks like Joel does).

My position now (which admittedly might not the same position I started this
discussion with) is that the house rule should be strengthened to say that
not only must the attacker stop moving, but they must forage or supply in
such a way that they would be eligible to besiege, and that if, after all is
said and done, the attacker is still there to besiege the city, they must do
so.

The written rules, in some places, seem to assume that if an occupied city
has enemy forces outside, the city must be under siege.  For example, the
rules for port city supply state that a depot may constructed in a port city
even if besieged, that this is the only situation where the depot is
considered inside the city, and not the area, and that the depot may be
moved out into the area when the city is no longer besieged.  This seems to
mean that if enemy forces were outside the port but not laying siege to it,
you would not be allowed to build a depot in the city, which seems odd.

This is the kind of vague situation I am seeking to get rid of by saying
that an occupied city with enemies in the surrounding area must be besieged.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] 3/05 Austria land phase


> At 02:43 PM 7/28/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >     Hold it.  I thought we had just finished a conversation in which we
all
> >agreed that the spirit of our House Rules was violated by requiring
> >retirement decisions in the middle of another player's land phase.  Now
> >maybe JJ's and Everett's emails indicate that they wish to revisit that
> >decision.  So be it.  But here are the rules I thought we had just agreed
> >to:
> >
> >When a player is moving during their land phase:
> >     -they must stop whenever they enter a space containing an enemy
corps
> >(contrary to the written rules).
> >     -they must make decisions during supply about whether to use unused
> >movement points for forage or not, and the decision would impact
eligibility
> >for laying siege (contrary to the written rules).
> >     -all retirement decisions by non-phasing players are made after the
> >phasing player's land orders are complete (contrary to the written
rules).
> >
> >There are two possibilities:  either I completely misunderstood the point
of
> >our recent discussions, or some of you have changed your minds about this
> >issue.  Please let me know which one it is (or if there is a third
> >alternative I am missing).
> >
> >kdh
>          I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree on all of your
contrary
> to the written rules claims since I think you've just described the
written
> rules.
>
>          It seems silly to me to decide the combat rules by reading the
> movement rules and not the combat rules.  My reading of 7.3.7.1 is that
you
> must end movement if you encounter a corps outside of a city and you
should
> now go read how to declare an attack because you will have to declare an
> attack in the land combat phase.  Now we go to 7.5.4, the general rules of
> land combat.   These rules state in no uncertain terms that attack
> declarations occur after all land movement is complete.  The way I see,
> this entire argument is trying to supercede the land combat rules with the
> land movement rules for reasons I cannot fathom.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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