Kyle H on 1 Aug 2002 00:44:09 -0000

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

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

    Yes, if we assume that the defending corps is not already besieged when the attacking corps arrives, then the attacking corps must stop movement.  If the defending corps retires, then the attacking corps will have an option as to whether or not to lay siege.  However, this is *not* a house rule.  Through the discussion process, we discovered (with Mike's guidance) that this is actually what the rules say as they are written.  Hence, it is not a house rule at all.  Or to put it another way, our house rule is redundant.
    So correct me if I'm wrong, but here's a possibility that I can foresee.  (I'm not trying to have a rules debate.  I'm just trying to figure out if the way I am thinking is correct.)  Suppose that the Letters are at war with the Numbers.  It is the Letters' turn to move during the land phase.  Corps A moves into a square with unbesieged enemy Corps 1.  By the rules ( Corps A must halt movement and declare an attack.  At this point, the Letters should refrain from sending out any more land orders until Corps 1 has decided whether it will retire or not.  Suppose Corps 1 chooses to retire.  Now the Letters' land phase continues.  The Letters choose to move Corps B into the same area as Corps A (and Corps 1).  However, since Corps 1 is now located inside the city, Corps B could potentially continue moving.
    Is this right?  If not, where have I gone wrong?
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.