Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Virgin Queen» Forums » Rules

Subject: Enemies in a common allied fortified space rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Johan Johannesson
Sweden
Malmoe
Skane
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Both France and HRE are allied to Spain. HRE declares war on France. France wants to Spring deploy to spanish fortified space Becancon. Can HRE enter that space? If so, can France hide in the Spanish fortress? And if he can hide in the fortress (the rules say you can enter allied fortified spaces) can HRE then siege Becancon?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmm. From a quick read yes, it appears the defender CAN withdraw into the ally-owned fortress. And the rules state that (assuming the attacker has more units than the defender), "this fortification is now under siege." Which implies HRE can siege Besancon.

But maybe we're missing something...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Beach
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
You didn't say whether or not there are also Spanish units in Besancon. If so, this is where the third bullet in the Movement Restrictions in 13.1 comes into play. That reads:

Quote:
Formations may not move into a space containing land units
from another power unless the space satisfies one of these
conditions:
◊ all units in the space are allies of the active power (and this
is not a fortified space where one ally has another ally under
siege);
◊ all units in the space are enemies of the active power (and
this is not a fortified space where one enemy has another
enemy under siege);
◊ this is a space controlled by an enemy power and all units
in the space are either from that enemy power or allied to
them. When resolving this movement, treat the units already
in the space as “enemy units” for all purposes. Adjacent units
from a power with units in the space are also considered as
enemy units and may intercept into the space if desired;
◊ this is a fortified space under siege where either: (a) all units
inside the fortification are allied to the active power and all
besieging units are enemies of the active power, or (b) all
units inside the fortification are enemies of the active power
and all besieging units are allied to the active power.


If there are both French and Spanish units in Besancon, none of these conditions are true and the HRE can not enter the space.

However if only French troops are there, I don't see any reason the HRE and French troops can't fight normally over the space with the allied French units defending (inside or outside the fortifications).
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Goldfarb Styrt
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
But in that case, I assume that Spain does not lose control of the space if France loses a siege?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Ferguson
Ireland
Cork
Cork
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Ed Beach wrote:
However if only French troops are there, I don't see any reason the HRE and French troops can't fight normally over the space with the allied French units defending (inside or outside the fortifications).

Hang on, are you saying that not only can might there be a state of siege after the field battle, they can subsequently assault it?

I can't find anything that actually prohibits this, mind you. But it seems highly counterintuitive indeed. For that matter, I see nothing in so many words prohibiting assaulting a now-empty besieged space belonging to an ally (or non-enemy).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Maginity
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Contrast this with the rules for taking control of an unfortified space, which explicitly state that the space must be "independent or controlled by an enemy power." Part of the problem is that the rules sometimes refer to land units under siege, and sometimes to spaces under siege. This ambiguity does not exist for unfortified spaces since taking control of an unfortified space and movement that ends with a field battle are completely separate operations.


Would the following three modifications (indicated in bold) to the rules help?


Section 13.4: replace "If the active formation has more units than the number of units inside the fortification, this fortification is now under siege (Section 15). If the active formation does not have more units, it has two choices:" with "If the active formation has more units than the number of units inside the fortification and the active power is not allied with the power controlling the fortified space, this fortification is now under siege (Section 15). If the active formation does not have more units or the active power is allied with the power controlling the fortified space, the active formation has two choices:"


Section 14, step 11 of the Field Battle Procedure: replace "check to see if the active formation has more units than the losing player has inside the fortifications" with "check to see if the active formation has more units than the losing player has inside the fortifications and the active power is not allied with the power controlling the fortified space"


Section 15, immediately before the last sentence of the introductory paragraph: insert "A fortified space may never be placed under siege by an ally of the power controlling that space."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Beach
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
OK, I see the issue you guys are raising now (sieging a space from an ally). Missed that the first time reading this.

I'm not sure how this has never come up in all the HIS games played in the past 6 years -- this part of the rules is unchanged entirely from HIS. But I guess such a hole does exist!

Let me ponder the proper solution a bit. It might be another case where the HRE shouldn't even be able to enter the space.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Johan Johannesson
Sweden
Malmoe
Skane
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Any ruling Ed?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Beach
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I'm at the WBC convention all week this week. Played a full 6-turn game of VQ for fun in open gaming in 6-7 hours last night. All VQ veterans; it was great fun.

Our combined VQ/HIS tournament starts tonight.

So the bottom line is I haven't had a chance to get to this and it may be iffy for me to come up with an official ruling this week. If I have some downtime though this is something I'll try to address. I haven't forgotten about it but I want to take the time to come up with the correct answer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Beach
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Proposed solution is to amend the SECOND restriction in Section 13.1 to read (new text in BLUE):

o all units in the space are enemies of the active power (and this is neither a fortified space where one enemy has another enemy under siege nor a fortified space controlled by an ally of both the active power and all powers with units already in the space);

Any issues anyone can spot?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Thy
Denmark
Taastrup
flag msg tools
Together, we are the United Nations
badge
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
Avatar
mb
Thread necromancy due to this question in the HIS forum.

The only issue I can spot is that it allows enemy stacks to hang around with impunity in a mutual ally's fortified spaces. I'd prefer it if you could still move into a space like this and fight like it was an unfortified space, with the loser retreating without the option of withdrawing into the fortress. However, I think that would require review of lots of other rules, so I'm not sure it's worth it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.