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

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Sorry, Jim, but I think you are just misunderstanding the use of the 
term 'phasing'.  In this game, 'phasing' just means that you are taking your 
turn.  (Refer to the Glossary at the back of the rulebook.)  In this case, 
the retreating corps is/was the attacking (i.e. phasing) corps.  And since 
it was the allies' turn to move and resolve combats, their forces are 
considered 'phasing' until they are done resolving their turn.  So, they are 
still phasing when the siege attempt would be made (after field combats were 
resolved).
    Another way of thinking about it: all of these attacks, retreats, and 
sieges are taking place during the same 'land phase'.  Hence, a player is 
considered to be 'phasing' while resolving his 'land phase'.

kdh



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