jhelle on 28 Jul 2002 21:19:04 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] 3/05 Austria land phase

>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
>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
>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.
>----- 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
>> >agreed that the spirit of our House Rules was violated by
>> >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
>> >(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
>> >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
>> >
>> >There are two possibilities:  either I completely
misunderstood the point
>> >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
>> >alternative I am missing).
>> >
>> >kdh
>>          I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree on all of
>> to the written rules claims since I think you've just
described the
>> rules.
>>          It seems silly to me to decide the combat rules by
reading the
>> movement rules and not the combat rules.  My reading of is that
>> must end movement if you encounter a corps outside of a city
and you
>> 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
>> 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
>>    I agree.  If a corps is in a city and an enemy corps ends
it's movement outside said city I feel the city must be beseiged.
>eia mailing list
eia mailing list