Re: Mepbm question

From: tom.l.walton@ci.eugene.or.us (Tom Walton)

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0000

In article <pburrow.824956953@toliman>,

>	Just so there's no confusion: I was the attacker.  My army
>commander (Heavy Cav., not HI, but it's not important) issued Destroy Pop.
>at Barad Dur, and was annihilated as expected.  The pop. centre was not
>sieged, even though the MEPBM rule book clearly states "regardless of the
>outcome" (p.65) the pop. centre will suffer the effects of siege.
>	As far as I can see, the difference between my attack on Barad
>Dur, and Pat's simultaneous one on Dol Guldor (apart from the fact that he
>also had Ents, which could very well be a factor), is that my army failed
>to first eliminate the defending army.  According to the rule book, this
>should have no difference on the outcome.  Both should have been sieged.
>But hey, that's GSI's rule book for you; vague, misleading, and sometimes
>simply false in its articulation of game mechanics.
>

The rulebook is indeed misleading in this case.  You have to fight *two*
separate and distinct battles: the first to eliminate the enemy army; and the
second to attack the town.  Because you lost the first battle, the second one
never took place.

And yeah, the rulebook doesn't say anything of the sort.  But that's the way
it works.

Tom

Unfortunately, the views expressed here are not those of my
employer, the city of Eugene, Oregon.  More's the pity.

References

Re: Mepbm question
pburrow@cc.umanitoba.ca (Paul Burrows)
Thu, 22 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Mepbm question
"P.J.Horan" <horan@CC.UManitoba.CA>
Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Mepbm question
darren@unity.ncsu.edu (Darren L Frechette)
Sun, 18 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0000