jjy on 13 Dec 2002 15:28:00 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [eia] limited field combats |
I agree with Kyle's interpretation. -JJY Quoting Kyle H <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > In the spirit of bringing up rules-issues before they happen, just > yesterday I noticed an omission in the rules. The solution seems obvious to > me, but I want to make sure there are no objections. 7.5.4.2.3.1.1 talks > about what happens if an attempt to lift a siege fails. It says, "...the > entire relieving force returns to the area from which it entered the siege > area (returns to any one of the areas from which it entered if more than > one)." This language does not cover the case when the relieving force > disembarked from a ship. > As it is impossible to re-embark after disembarking, I assume that the > most reasonable solution is to retreat the relieving force as per the retreat > after combat rules. If anyone disagrees that this is the most reasonable > solution, please let me know soon (as it may come up during the current land > phase). > > kdh > > > With all the time invested to get to this point in the turn, were're > painted into a corner as to how to interpret the rule. I wish I felt certain > about the intention of the rule-makers; this is one of the worse lapses I've > seen of being vague about a situation which is bound to come up. The only > (other) thing I'm going to say on the matter is that we really should have > hashed this rule out as a group ahead of time, and I take my own full share > of the blame for this. I recognized the vagueness of the rule the first time > I read it, and I'm sure everyone else did, too (unless I am just way off > base). But my desire to be close-vested about my plans kept me from bringing > it up, until we come to this situation where our entire naval turns have been > based on different assumptions. I promise to do better in the future about > bringing up issues where (at least to me) the rules are fuzzy, as soon as I > see them, instead of letting matters drift. > > _______________________________________________ eia mailing list eia@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia