Re: [eia] 2 rules questions

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

I don't have the time or energy to start a major rules debate this week, but
I don't agree.  According to 7.5.1 or thereabouts, the act or decision of
besieging a city takes place at the same time as field combats, not after.
I feel that the way we have structured our land orders via email was to say
when each corps moves if we would have that corps lay siege (or we assume
that it will) if the enemy we attack withdraws into a city.  At least, we
have no history of sending separate emails announcing our decision whether
or not to lay siege after the defender's decision whether or not to
withdraw.

And I do think that laying siege should count as "taking part in a battle"
for the purposes of this rule, assault or not.  Army sieges are large-scale,
complex operations that take at least as much coordination and time as the
preparations for a field battle, and *should* interfere with those forces'
ability to reinforce other areas.

I'm not going to stand against everyone on this, and as I said I won't have
time to carry on a lengthy debate, but that's my opinion.

-JJY


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