Re: [eia] Comparing things

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I'm not convinced.  First, why would the designers place a "more
detailed" version of a rule on the back cover of the rule book rather than
in the rules themselves?  Second, why do the "more detailed" rules on the
back cover refer to "the victor" instead of "the victor(s)".  If the point
of these words on the back cover is to be more detailed than the ones in the
rulebook, why would they make such a vitally important grammatical error?

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: [eia] Comparing things


> I just gave the political point chart on the game's webpage a looking over
> now that Kyle pointed me to where the reading I couldn't find came
> from.  And after looking at the two I have to agree with Joel that the
> reading on the chart appears to be a more detailed version of the rule as
> written in the body of the rules.  The fact that it takes into account the
> possibility that a side may be of mixed major power nationality makes it
> far more specific than the way it is written in the rules.  It most
> assuredly favors combined actions as it allows you to win more than you
> risk, but that does seem to be the intent of how the rule is
> written.  Similarly it would mean that if your only contribution to a
> battle is a garrison you fight with no risk of losing political points but
> a full share of the points for winning.  Of course, if you fight with just
> garrisons and lose, the garrison surrenders while the corps retreat so
it's
> not something you want to do regularly.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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