Re: [eia] my vote

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>]

At 09:17 AM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
>     Since we are down to a vote, I will throw in my 2 cents.  I was
> reluctant to do so at first because I agree with JJ that the issue is not
> clear-cut and could be decided reasonably either way.  I did not and do not
> feel 100% convinced that I am right.  However, since we must take a vote to
> resolve the issue, I will share what I think.
>     My view of the issue is more in line with Joel's position (and at odds
> with Bill's).  I think this is a case where the normal interception rules do
> not apply.  A) Neither side is "phasing" right now (since this is occurring
> during the land phase rather than the naval phase).  B) This situation does
> not resemble an "interception" since France has no option to avoid combat.
> C) Although the wording in 6.2.6.1 does not explicitly label the blockaded
> fleet as the "attacker", it does say that the blockaded fleet is the one
> that "chooses to fight".  In my mind, "choosing to fight" is equivalent to
> initiating an attack.
>     So, barring any additional evidence, my vote is that the French fleet is
> victorious and the Russian fleet must be scuttled.
>
> kdh
This sums up my stance as well.

I don't see any way to read 6.3.1.1 as applicable without rewriting 
it.  And if the blockading fleet must be the attacker then I think we need 
to house rule a change to 6.2.6.1 to include the option to refuse 
interception to the blockading fleet since the rule is highly abusable if 
you can force someone to not only be in a naval battle they don't want, but 
can also force them to be the attacker in the battle.

So my vote is that 6.2.6.1 is an exceptional case and we stick with the 
spirit that the declarer of the attack is the attacker just as it is in the 
normal naval phase.  Otherwise we have to rewrite two clauses to make the 
situation fit.


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