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.