|Kyle H on 31 Jul 2002 01:47:05 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|[eia] JJ, don't read!! (very short)|
JJ, don't read this! You better stop... (If you read further, it's your own fault.)
Notice that such a modification would be unnecessary under my (and JJ's previous) interpretation of the rules. This case provides a perfect example of how Mike's interpretation results in intuitively wrong consequences. If Mike is right and enemy stacks are allowed to be in the same area without a siege, then a corps can be stuck in a city but unable to build a depot in the city (because the rules for depot construction require a siege). Mike is willing to change the rules here in a way that makes his interpretation less counter-intuitive overall. And of course, if his is the interpretation that we are going with, then that's a good thing! But notice that, whether Mike likes it or not, this counter-intuitive result is further evidence against his interpretation.
(Hope it doesn't sound like I'm needling. I'm just trying to make a point.)