Re: [eia] 3/05 Austria land phase

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>          Looking back over the other rules that talk about that, all corps
> must be able to siege if any are to siege, which seems odd, but,
> whatever.

I agree that it seems odd to see that if one corps does not lay siege then
none can.  Since I can see no plausible reason for it, I'm willing to
dispense with this requirement if others are also willing.

> However, I still do not believe that 7.5.4 support the idea that
> the defender must decide to retire into the city before the end of land
> movement.  I do not see how 7.3.7.1 indicates that the attacker knows if
> the defender will retire into the city before the end of movement.

Well, looking at it closely and keeping in mind the distinction between
being in the area and being in the city, I think you are probably right.
But just for the sake of argument, let me explain what I for one had been
thinking until you clarified the issue for us.  I had been thinking that,
since a corps can always retire into a city, that if the corps decided to do
so, then the corps that entered the area could continue moving.  But you are
right that that's not what 7.3.7.1 says.  That rule tells you that you are
allowed to keep moving if *when you enter the space* the corps is *already*
within the city walls.
    Maybe we ignored this language in the past, because we have always
assumed that if a corps is not under siege, then it is automatically in the
area rather than in the city (because, after all, the corps will always have
the option of retiring).  That is, we have always assumed that whenever
besiegers leave the city area, the corps automatically "pops" back out into
the area.  So there would never be a time when a corps enters a space with
an enemy corps that is within the city walls unless that enemy corps were
already under siege.
    But maybe that's the point of the written rules after all!  Maybe
7.3.7.1 is saying that you *do* have to stop when you enter an area
containing an enemy corps *unless* that enemy corps is already under siege
(i.e., within the city walls).  In this case, you do not have to stop.  It
is in this sense that what I thought were rules modifications were actually
the rules themselves.  And once again, I have Mike to thank for showing me
the light.
    So the conclusion is:  I support Mike's reading.  What I had been
calling rulings that were contrary to the written rules seem to be what the
rules have intended all along!

kdh

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