Yes. Although it was not Everett's intention
and so we accomodated him, in a similar future situation if any attacking corps
ending movement in an area is ineligible to lay seige, then no siege can be made
at all in that area.
Question: (this is a yes-or-no question, not
meant to spark new debate) is our house rule that when attacking corps move into
an area with a defending corps, they must stop movement, still in
effect ? My understanding is that yes, it still must stop, but
that laying siege is optional. Is this correct ?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:39
Subject: [eia] Question: all-or-nothing
So now that I need to
re-orient myself to an interpretation of the rulesthat I'm not familiar
with, I'm going to need some help from time to time. I hope you can all
be patient with me as I try to re-fix my conception of the game.
I agree that the rules are
very explicit about sieges being all or nothing - all the available corps must
take part or none can. So there is no reason not to
maintain that rule if people want it. But how in the future
will we deal with a situation like the one that came up this month when
Austria paid for 3 corps to arrive at Turin, but the 4th one foraged using
unused movement points? Would we say that the entire stack is unable to
lay siege that turn?
2.) All or none of the attacking corps that end up
surrounding a city must lay siege to that
can see this one argued either way and I'm happy with whatever everyone
wants for this rule.