J.J. Young on 21 Dec 2002 23:26:01 -0000


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

Re: [eia] question about multi-national sieges

For the record, I don't think the intention of the rule is to allow "tag team" sieges; but the idea of one ally having to march away so that the other ally can attack the city seems very wierd, too.  Maybe the resolution should be that a siege should not be allowed at all.  I don't know.
 
-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: Kyle H
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] question about multi-national sieges

    Well, I don't agree with that reasoning, but the resolution of this issue does not affect me at all, so I'll just shut up and let you and Mike forge new ground.  I have the utmost confidence that the two of you will come up with new rules that we can all live with.
 
kdh
----- Original Message -----
From: J.J. Young
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] question about multi-national sieges

But the garrison is not in the area, it's in the city.  So the battle is not taking place in the area at all.
-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: Kyle H
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] question about multi-national sieges

JJ wrote:
Don't the rules you are refering to about a party not at war with the attacker apply to field battles, not sieges ?
 
I reply:
    I don't think so.  7.3.8, the introduction to the whole section, reads as follows: "To avoid problems when moving into combat the following step sequence *must* be followed whenever moving into an area containing two or more forces or when using combined movement."  I assume that siege battles are a type of "combat." 
    Now there is an obvious lawyer-like response that can be made at this point: since there was no *movement* involved, this section does not apply.  Obviously, I think that response would be inadequate.  (And I am not accusing JJ of making it.  I am just addressing it hypothetically in case anyone thinks to use it.)  Here we must understand spending 0 movement points as an instance of "movement" as far as the rule is concerned.  Otherwise, there would be no rules at all to handle this case, a consequence that is as unlikely as it is undesirable.
 
kdh