J.J. Young on 31 Jul 2002 19:05:06 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Question: all-or-nothing and supply

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 -----
From: Kyle H
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: [eia] Question: all-or-nothing and supply

    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 city.

        I can see this one argued either way and I'm happy with whatever everyone wants for this rule.