Kyle H on Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:46:01 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FW: [eia] Assault at Kassel

    Joel is right that there is no house rule currently in force that would
require JJ to retreat one way rather than another.  However, we might wish
to consider adopting such a house rule since it seems unrealistic that
forces would *intentionally* retreat *toward* enemy corps.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: FW: [eia] Assault at Kassel

> Thus spake D Mount:
> > I would think that the intent of how the rules were written would force
the H
> > essian corps to Minden.  I think it is as simple as having two options
that a
> > re equidistant, but one being occupied, so Minden is the only choice.
Let me
> >  know what you all think about this.
> >
> > -Danny
> I would agree if there were anything in the rules or errata to indicate
> enemy presence matters for determining the precedence of areas for
> I know it seems weird, and there is a mechanism like this in many (most?)
> other wargmes, but it's just not here as far as I can see. Until someone
> provides a citation for that indicates otherwise, my vote is that these
> legal retreats.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list