J.J. Young on 29 Jul 2002 17:40:05 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Seige stuff

I thought we were on the edge of agreeing that all or none of the attacking
corps in an area must be involved in a siege in that area.  Thus, if corps
enter the area when the siege is already going on, three things might
1.)  The corps continues moving into another area.
2.)  The corps join into the siege for this turn.
3.)  The corps stays, but does not besiege the city, meaning that there will
be no siege at all that turn.

Was I mistaken in thinking that we had agreed that the forces involved in a
siege must be all or nothing ?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:49 AM
Subject: 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
> > 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
> "not besiege".  (If the "or not" referred to stopping movement, then it
> would be redundant because the beginning of the sentence specifies that
> can continue moving.)  But maybe I'm just not seeing it.  How are you
> this sentence?
> kdh
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list