Re: [eia] Russian Land Phase

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:22 PM 8/28/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> I am dubious, because of the fact that depot removal is completed before
> depot creation, and the phrasing of rule 7.2.3 as, "within two unblocked
> areas of an already exist_ing_ (before this turn) depot that is a supply
> source".  I think Mike's interpretation would have a stronger case if the
> rule read,"within two unblocked areas of a depot (a supply source or part of
> a valid chain), _which existed at the beginning of this turn_".
>
> I suppose just leaving the depot at Minsk for another turn would expose
> Russia to an undesirable risk ?  Just groping for a simple solution.
>
> -JJY
The depot did exist before this turn.  The depot that is extending the line 
is not being built this turn, it already existed.  It is a part of a valid 
supply chain, but that clause is placed after the statement that the depot 
had to already exist.  It was that phrasing that actually made me think I 
could do this.

Mike



_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia