RE: [eia] 2 rules questions

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Kyle H
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:41 PM
To: eia@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eia] 2 rules questions


    Hi guys.  As I've been doing more combat recently, I've come up with a
couple combat-related rules questions.

Question #1:  Suppose a guard corps or an artillery corps is used as part of
a flanking force.  Can artillery bombardments be conducted or the guard
committed in rounds *prior* to the flanking force's arrival?  Although logic
would seem to dictate that the answer is no in both cases, I have seen no
rule verifying this hunch.  What do the rest of you think?

REPLY:  As pointed out artillery corps cannot flank.  It is my opinion that
the guard cannot possibly be committed before they arrive at the battle.

Question #2:  Suppose a player sends a set of land orders in which two
armies are sent to adjacent spaces.  In one space, a field battle takes
place.  In the adjacent space, a siege is anticipated.  As we know, the
field battle is conducted first.  Is it possible for the player to use the
army in the adjacent area to reinforce?
    It seems clear to me that the answer to this one should be 'yes'.  The
only thing that makes me hesitate is the wording in section 7.5.2.11.1.2
which reads: "Forces may not attempt to reinforce if they have already or
will take part in another combat this same major power sequence."  Someone
might argue that since sieges *could* involve combat (siege assault combat),
an army that is besieging is ineligible to reinforce a field combat in an
adjacent space.
    This logic seems incorrect to me, since the decision to besiege or not
to besiege takes place *after* all field combats are completed.  (Just
because a player chooses not to use unused movement points for foraging does
not *force* that player to actually lay siege.  It merely gives him the
*option* of doing so.)  So I think 7.5.2.11.1.2 would be clearer if it were
understood to be referring to *field* combats and not (potential) siege
combats.  I doubt there will be any dispute on this point, but I just wanted
to make sure before it actually mattered.

REPLY:  I could be swayed either way on this issue.  However, I don't
believe that 7.5.2.11.1.2 is refering to sieges.  I think it is saying if
the adjacent corps have fought or will fight in a *field battle* this turn
they are ineligible.  Although this is not specifically stated that is my
interpretation.  It is my opinion that the "besieging forces" could
reinforce a field battle before the siege is declared.

    If you have strong feelings on either of these 2 questions, please make
your views known.

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

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