Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 5/3/83; site ukc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!ncg From: ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) Newsgroups: net.games.pbm Subject: Re: Dislodgement - supply vs convoy Message-ID: <5270@ukc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 13:44:12 EDT Article-I.D.: ukc.5270 Posted: Fri Jun 28 13:44:12 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 23:51:35 EDT References: <5225@ukc.UUCP> <477@gitpyr.UUCP> Reply-To: ncg@ukc.UUCP (Nige Gale) Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Kent at Canterbury, UK Lines: 28 In article <477@gitpyr.UUCP> msj@gitpyr.UUCP (Mike St. Johns) writes: > >Rule XII.5 A convoyed attack does not protect the convoying fleet. "If a >convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet which is attacking >one of the convoying fleets, that support is not cut." > I saw that Now does that mean: A) If an unsupported convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet which is attacking one of the convying fleets, that support is not cut. or ~~ B) If a convoyed army with sufficient support to dislodge the fleet... (etc) It could be either, the rules are a bit vague. It didn't help to read the rules sometimes. So we made our own ruling. B. -Nige Gale Now look what you made me do. I've swallowed my contact lens.