Re: [eia] everybody weigh in

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I think that the most straightforward reading of the rules is the
interpretation that Mike and Jim are supporting.  However, I think that the
position that JJ and Joel are supporting make a reasonable house rule.  (Why
would a force surrender if they have a clear, adjacent land space that they
could move to?)
    Still, it is clear from Jim's orders that he was relying upon the
wording of the rules as written, and it would be unfair to adopt a new house
rule now, after the fact.  So my vote is for Mike and Jim's interpretation.

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: [eia] everybody weigh in


> In the interest of moving on, let's get this retreat issue settled.  Right
now the vote seems to be Jim and Mike in favor of forced surrender being
possible under the present circumstances, Joel and J.J. against.  What do
others think ?
>
> -JJY
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

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