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