Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll, overwhelming odds and trivial combats

[MICHAEL P GORMAN <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>]

I understand that.  My point is that the notion of treating a corps as anything other than a corps seems utterly alien to every other line of the rules.  To me this a dodge.  You get to turn a corps ito a garrison at the last mintue to avoid losing points for doing things like throwing small corps in the way of an army or misunderstanding the strength of the enemy army.  To me the idea of it is preposterous.  Yes, you can throw small corps away to pin down a big army, but the price is you lose battle after battle.  But now, it's free.  Garrisons can be disguised as corps, force movement to stop and then turn back into a garrison.  It's magic!

That is what this reading of the rule does.  It lets you dodge the consequences of commiting small corps into danger.  I think it's ludicrous that you can away with that and it flies in the face of everything else in the game.


The other thing I don't get is why I should take a very strict reading of the rule in the first half to say that since it requires you to do one thing without saying that this counts as a choice so it isn't a choice.  But then I should casually discard the withdrawal rule as being ill-conceived.  Why should I assume they took great care in the first half of the rule and no care in the second?

The withdrawal check after forces are revealed seems to be the only clearly written part of the rule.  I think it makes little sense since it lets you change your chit choice after you find out it was a mistake, but since the rule already lets you turn your corps into a garrison when you are going lose a battle big, why shouldn't it let you change your chit choice in that same situation?

The rule seems very clear.  If ever you are vastly outnumbered, you get a bonus chance to get out of the battle.  Why?  No clue, but turning your corps into a garrison at the last minute makes no sense either.


Sorry to be getting a bit pissy, but the longer this discussion goes, the more it seems like you guys are taking two opposing stances.  The first half of the rule was well thought out because, um, it was?  But then let's assume the second part wasn't, um, because it wasnt?  If you accept one part of this rule as sensibly thought out and written, why are you so quick to assume the next part was not thought out at all and the writer suddenly brain-farted and stopped reading the rules to the game.
_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia