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

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Mike and JJ are right.  Jim, remember that the rules specify that all 
field battles are to take place *prior* to sieges.  (We often send in our 
siege rolls early, but according to the rules, those sieges are resolved 
after the field battles.)  As you pointed out, in order to participate in a 
siege, a corps cannot use unused movement points.  Finally, the rules 
specify that sieges are all or nothing - either all the corps in the area 
participate or none of them do.
    These 3 rules taken together have the consequence that, if a corps gets 
retreated back to a space containing a besieged corps, it must not have used 
movement points to forage, otherwise none of the corps in the area can 
besiege the town.
    I agree with JJ that it is a quirk/loophole of the rules.  JJ says that 
trying to keep track of which corps are besieging and which corps are not 
would be way too much complexity.  I'm not quite so sure I agree with that. 
But as I said in a different context a few days ago, let's not go monkeying 
around with the rules in the middle of the game.

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Round 3, Mantua retreat question...


>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 

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