[eia] last point and then I'm done

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Ok, I'm sure no one else even cares about this stuff, so I'll just make
this last point and then I'm done.

Mike wrote:
>   I understand you to be putting attack declarations within the
> movement phase and the responses to attack declarations as well.  I do not
> believe this is correct.  I put all responses that precede a battle in the
> combat phase.

    I know that *you* do this.  But again, the rules as they are written do
not seem to support this.  (That is, this is one of those ways in which you
are trying to adapt the rules so that they make better sense.)  On at least
two occasions, the rules seem to require retirement decisions *immediately*
upon arrival of enemy corps (i.e., during movement).  The first case is when
a corps enters a space containing unbesieged enemy corps.  An attack must be
declared (by 7.3.7.1) and a decision must be made immediately as to whether
the corps will retire (by 7.5.1.1).  If everything is happening in its
proper order as you assume, then what is the purpose of the term
"immediately" in 7.5.1.1?
    The second (and even clearer) case of combat decisions being mixed with
movement decisions is when a corps enters a space containing a depot
garrison.  (See 7.3.6.2)  As soon as a corps moves into an area containing
an enemy depot garrison, the garrison must immediately choose whether to
burn the depot and retire into the city (a combat decision).  After this
combat decision is made, the phasing player can actually continue moving the
very same corps out of the area!  If that's not a combat decision
(retirement) in the middle of movement, then I don't know what is!
   (BTW, this is precisely why I was trying to uphold the Expedition
Principle, because now, every time I send a movement order that sends my
corps into a space with an enemy depot or unbesieged enemy corps, I need to
stop my orders and ask my opponent what he wants to do.  This might happen
several times per land phase turn.  I think that's going to be a lot of
extra time wasted.  But if people prefer to play it that way, then that's
what we'll do.)


    The point is this:  you are trying to structure the rules in a very tidy
way, so that all movement and supply happens before all combat.  (In fact,
this is reminiscent of when you thought that supply and movement must happen
in different stages.) That's a neat thing to try to do, but it's not what
the rules say.

    Ok, I've made my case as well as I can make it.  If people still prefer
Mike's interpretation, then that's fine.  After all, it's really not all
that important.

kdh





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