[eia] House Rules and Interpretations

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Joel, have you informed Nate about our recent decisions regarding how to
assign political points after a battle?  I don't know what net effect our
changes will have on people's bids, but here's what we decided.

Political Points after a Battle:
    If you are part of a multi-national force and you lose a battle, you
lose 0.5 (rounded up) for every one of your country's corps that was present
at the battle during any combat round.  (This follows the lead of the rules
found on the back cover of the rulebook.)  The maximum loss for any battle
is 3 political points (unless you are France, in which case the presence of
Napoleon can cause additional losses).
    On the other hand, if you are part of a multi-national force and you win
a battle, you will gain 0.5 (rounded up) for every one of your opponent's
corps that was present at the battle during any combat round *only if* your
corps form the bulk of the multinational force.  However, if there is
another country in the multi-national force that has more corps than you do,
then you will gain exactly 1 political point.  If there are equal numbers of
corps from multiple countries, the commanding leader determines who gets
more political points.  The maximum number of points that can be gained from
one battle is 3 (unless you are France and your force was commanded by
Napoleon).

Other House Rules:
    We are using all the optional rules except 12.4 and 12.8.
    We have split the Political Phase up into two simultaneous steps.  First
is the Declarations of War Step in which everyone declares any new states of
war.  This is resolved by an escrow email similar to the one we are using
for bids.  Then we resolve the rest of the Political Phase by escrow as
well.  (BTW, I would be in favor of sending in Reinforcement orders via
escrow as well.  Does anyone have any feelings on this issue?  Maybe I
should make this question a separate email.)
    Although the rules seem to indicate that all information on the national
cards (front and back) will be public, we have been keeping most of this
information private to maintain more of a "fog of war" feeling about the
game.  So far it has worked quite well, but, in the absence of a game
master, this requires a great deal of trust in each other that we are
keeping track of our own situations accurately.  As I said, so far we have
had no problems with this.  However, an exception to this is that all minor
country forces have been revealed publicly.
    We have not been particularly careful about declaring whether a corps or
a garrison is outside or inside a city.  We tend to refer to the entire
space by the city's name, if there is a city in that space.  Since corps and
garrisons always have the option of retiring into a city as soon as enemy
troops arrive, we have seen no need to be careful about this.  (We give the
defender the option of apportioning garrison factors between the depot and
the city when enemy forces arrive.)
    We have been resolving disputes by consensus if possible and by vote
when consensus cannot be reached.
    A multi-national force is retreated towards the nearest depot of any
country that has combined movement.  If the multi-national force has not
combined movement, then each nationality must be retreated separately
towards its own nearest depot/capital.
    When choosing the Outflank chit during battle, include in the email the
identities of the corps that will form the flanking force.

House Interpretations:
    After much debate, we decided that all the occupants of a besieged city
constitute a single garrison as far as the rules in 7.4.5 (Besieged Supply)
are concerned.
    We decided that if a multi-national force combines movement and besieges
a city, it gets one breach attempt.  However, if the multi-national force
besieging the city does not combine movement, then each country gets to make
a separate breach attempt (with that country's own forces only).
    It is possible for a force to be retreated towards an invasion supply
depot if it is closest.
    A reinforcing commander may choose to leave some corps behind when
reinforcing.
    You cannot commit the guard if the guard corps is part of a flanking
force that has not yet arrived at the battle.
    The Casualty Percentage Table is the final arbiter of battle casualties
even when the percentages don't round correctly.  (For instance, 5% of 7
would normally be rounded to 0, but the Table says 1 casualty.)
    When revealing forces during a battle, each nationality is treated
separately.  (That is, battlefield spotters are able to distinguish
different nationalities on the battlefield.)
    If a depot garrison takes part in a battle on the losing side, any
surviving members of that garrison must surrender.  (Garrisons cannot be
retreated with the losing force because they are not mobile.)

General Advice:
    Take special note of rules 7.2.1, 7.2.3, and 7.2.3.3.2 (building depots
and extending supply chains).  New players of the game often get tripped up
by how they can and cannot build supply depots.
    Generally, we prefer that each player send out all of his land orders at
once (during his turn).  The only time this is impossible is when a corps's
movement path takes it to a space containing an opponent's depot.  Under
this circumstance, you may want to give your opponent the opportunity to
burn the depot before continuing with the rest of your movement.  But we try
to keep this sort of thing to a minimum.  Also, be careful to write your
land orders in the order in which you want things to happen.  This is
particularly important for foraging.  Finally, if you are choosing not to
use unused movement points to help you forage (thus, allowing you to besiege
a city) please announce this in your orders.
    There is a community of people online that play a variant game called
"Empires in Harm" that we sometimes consult to help us settle rules
disputes.  But that is just to provide extra input from people who have
thought a lot about this game.  At the end of the day, our individual votes
are still the final arbiters of any dispute.
    Wow, this email has turned out to be a lot longer than I originally
thought it would.  And I'm sure I'm forgetting things.  If other players
think of rules decisions we have made over the last year and a half that I
have not included here (or, heaven forbid, you remember our decisions
differently), please feel free to supplement what I have written here.
    Nate, please feel free to ask questions any time!  We know this is a
difficult game to learn and we are all happy to help.  :-)

kdh

P.S.  Below is an email I wrote referring to a number of official errata
rules that we found and adopted.  After some debate, we decided not to
include Forcible Access or Overwhelming Numbers.  Overwhelming Numbers
violated our method of playing the game (i.e., keeping force strengths
private until they are revealed during battle).  I was in favor of Forcible
Access, and I can't remember why it was struck down.  Perhaps we should
consider it again?

-----------------------------------------------------
A long time ago, I wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------

    By the way, I was looking through some of the errata rules, and was
surprised to find that they had already resolved some issues that we had
talked quite a bit about.  For instance, here's the resolution of a question
that Everett brought up recently:

8.5.4 [I]: Only _available_ (currently off the map) fleet and corps counters
may be purchased as "new" counters.  Counters currently on the mapboard may
_not_ be purchased to be available for immediate return to play as "new"
counters should they be eliminated.

Here's the resolution to a debate that JJ and I had a long time ago (and JJ
was right, of course, as I've already conceded).

7.5.2.11.2 [I]: If a leader is used for a reinforcing force, one or more
counters may be left behind, if desired.

   Here's another clarification that would have stopped one of our debates
before it got started:

7.3.5 [Add to the end]: If an area contains a friendly port that is
besieged, counters may be considered to be disembarked directly into the
port (if there is room) or into the port's area, as the controlling player
desires.

So this makes it clear that the disembarking troops have a choice of
unloading into the besieged city or unloading into the surrounding area.
That's what we decided, so all is well on that count.

    Remember our long debate about how to handle neutral forces that
suddenly find themselves in foreign territory without an access agreement?
Well, here's what the errata rules say about that:

10.3.1.2.1.3 [A]: Neutral forces that previously had access in territory
that has changed control (i.e., due to reconquest or ceding) can be given
voluntary access under any new conditions granted by the new controlling
major power (unconditional access _must_ be given if peace condition C.5
applies between the involved major powers).  If no access is given or
available, the neutral forces must be handled as with force repatriation
(see 4.4.6.2 and/or option 12.4).

This resolution is in line with what I had been thinking.  If you don't have
an access agreement, then you should be forced to leave foreign territory.
We had sort of settled on the position that the only way to remove forces
that had been previously granted access was via a declaration of war, but
the errata rule above seems to indicate otherwise.  Since we are not using
rule 12.4, this errata rule would indicate that such forces must be
repatriated.  The relevance of this rule to our current game situation is
that the Spanish garrison at Gibralter should have been repatriated, and the
British depots in Spain should have been removed as soon as the alliance was
broken by GB.
    At this point, it would not be difficult to go back and correct these
mistakes, if we want to.  This would make the trivial combat at Gibralter
moot and it would allow Spain to use its original set of land orders (rather
than the orders as amended).  In addition, Portugal would gain another
garrison factor (for the one that was decommissioned at San Sabastian).  I
am in favor of fixing this set of errors since it is so easy to do.

    Here's one that would have mattered last turn:

7.3.1.2 FORCE MARCHING [C]: Corps may increase their movement allowance by
one
movement point by "force marching."  Cossacks, freikorps, guerillas, cavalry
corps and disembarking corps may not be force marched.

This rule specifies that cavalry corps cannot force march.  This would have
prevented the Austrian Light Infantry from reaching Piacenza last turn.
But, unfortunately for me, it's too late to go back and fix this mistake.
    Much to my chagrin, the errata rules also specify that if Hanover is
missing from the Kingdom of Westphalia/Confederation of the Rhine, then
Hanoverian troops cannot be used by the controller of those kingdoms.

11.3.2.3 [Add to the end]: If Hanover is _not_ part of the Kingdom of
Westphalia, Hanoverian army factors are not available for use by the Kingdom
of Westphalia.

11.5.2.3 [Add to the end]: If Hanover and/or Bavaria are _not_ part of the
Confederation of the Rhine, their army factors are not available for use by
the Confederation of the Rhine.

That kind of stinks, as it makes possession of Hanover crucial to the useful
functioning of those 2 Kingdoms.

    There are two brand new sets of rules in the errata which I think we
should debate before we decide to include them.  The first new rule is
called "Forcible Access" and it reads as follows:

10.3.4 FORCIBLE ACCESS [A]: If a major power is denied voluntary access or
denied desired access conditions, its land forces may still be moved into or
through desired areas by using "forcible access," as follows:

10.3.4.1 [A]: Forcible access operates under the same restrictions as access
through neutral minor countries (see 10.3.1.1).

10.3.4.2 [A]: A phasing major power loses one political point per Turn for
_each_ major power's territories in which forcible access is used.  _For
example, during a Turn, French counters are moved through some Bavarian and
Saxon areas using forcible access.  France loses one political points if
both these minor countries are controlled by Prussia, but loses two
political points if Bavaria is Austrian-controlled and Saxony is
Prussian-controlled_.

10.3.4.3 [A]: The major power controlling territory in which forcible access
occurs may, if desired, _immediately_ declare war and lose the requisite
political points for _each_ separate declaration on any or all of the major
powers using forcible access in its territory, unless prevented by
limitation in 4.2.2.1.  This chance to declare war is repeated each time a
counter using forcible access is moved.  If war is declared, allies may be
called as in 4.3.

    The second new rule is called "Overwhelming Numbers" and it reads as
follows:

12.3.10 [A]: OVERWHELMING NUMBERS: Field or limited field combats where one
side has a 5:1 or better ratio in strength factors _must_ be resolved using
trivial combat.  EXCEPTION: An outnumbered _defender_ may attempt to
withdraw before the trivial combat by rolling the commander's strategic
rating or less.

Again, I'm not sure whether we should go with either of these rules.  All
the rest of the errata rules, I'm happy to treat as official.  However, I
think Forcible Access and Overwhelming Numbers should be debated prior to
being accepted as official.  (If it makes any difference, the writers of
these errata place Overwhelming Numbers in chapter 12, making it an optional
rule.  But they place Forcible Access in chapter 10, making it a core
miscellaneous rule.)

Go Buckeyes, beat Michigan!

kdh

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