Re: [eia] Round 3, Mantua retreat question...

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

I don't think there's anything in the rules to imply that all of the
attacker's forces in the area of a siege don't have to participate in the
siege, even if some of the attackers got there because of a retreat.  And my
opinion is that if all of the attacking forces present have to participate,
then if any have modified their forage with unused movement, then none
should be able to besiege.

As I opined earlier, this loophole kinda blows, but the alternative would be
having situations where we have to keep track of which attacking forces are
besieging and which aren't in the same area.  I think this would be worse
than the loophole.

-JJY


-JJY


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Round 3, Mantua retreat question...


> The rules for foraging are in 7.4.1.  Rule 7.4.1.2.2 states" For each MP
the
> corps did not use , one is subtracted from the [forage] die.  EXCEPTION:
The
> die is not modified due to unused MPs if the corps is besieging or plans
to
> besiege forces *in the area*.
>
> At the time that corps were moved and forage rolls were made, the
currently
> retreating force was not "besieging or planning to besiege" in that area
> and, at the time, had no plans to even enter the area.  Therefore, the
> retreating corps should not affect the ongoing siege.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Joel Uckelman
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:14 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: Re: [eia] Round 3, Mantua retreat question...
>
>
> Thus spake "James Helle":
> > I'm not so sure I agree with Joel about this.
> >
> > If a corps that had used unused MP to forage retreats into an active
siege
> > that shouldn't cause the siege to end.  The foraging had already taken
> place
> > before the retreat!  And in a totally different land area!  I disagree
> that
> > this should affect another corps ability to besiege.
> >
> > This is backed up by the wording in 7.5.4: "A phasing force that just
> > attacked and won a field or trivial combat in an area may then besiege
an
> > enemy city in that area if all corps *in the phasing force* used depot
> > supply and / or did not use unused MP to modify a foraging roll".
> >
> > The key here, IMO, is that a retreating force is not a phasing force.  A
> > phasing force is one using MPs to change it's location during it's land
> > phase order.  A retreat is an entirely different form of movement.
>
> I read 7.5.4 as applying to victorious attackers only. The rule that
> I think is applicable here is one which is in the section on foraging,
> 7.2.something.
>
> --
> J.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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