Kyle H on 29 Jul 2002 14:50:13 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Seige stuff

> I do agree that the purpose of the rule about not having to declare an
> attack if the enemy is in the city seems to refer to the case where the
> enemy is already besieged and other corps (besides the besiegeing forces)
> are just passing though the city's area on the way to somewhere else.

    I don't see that at all.  Here's what the relevant sentence says:  "If
enemy corps and/or garrison factors are in a city, the phasing corps may
continue movement or stop movement and besiege (...) or not, as the owning
player desires."  I honestly don't see how that language could be read to
mean that you *have to* besiege if you stay in the area.  I can't find any
way of parsing that sentence in which the "or not" means anything other than
"not besiege".  (If the "or not" referred to stopping movement, then it
would be redundant because the beginning of the sentence specifies that one
can continue moving.)  But maybe I'm just not seeing it.  How are you seeing
this sentence?


eia mailing list