Rudolf Sorée - Apr 24, 2005 10:46 am (#50 Total: 59) Uli, A clarification of 6.6 Lay Sieges please. “Armies may lay siege to a city that contains resource pieces of the same faction, as long as resource pieces from other factions are in that city as well and it is not controlled by their own.” As uncontrolled cities may be besieged by any faction, my interpretation of the rule quoted above is that cities that _are_ controlled by another faction may only be besieged, if the besieging player has a presence of at least 1 resource piece in that city. Is this correct? Or should one take the rule literally (resource pieces, thus at least 2) ? And another question on Movement within Provinces (5.6 and 6.14) “The player may take pieces from other factions out of towns or cities and place them in the province. This process continues in descending order of faction size but players must respect positions already occupied.” The part concerning cities seems redundant to me. I mean, the first player may take pieces of other factions out of cities, which can be put right back when those other players reposition their own pieces…. My interpretation of this particular game mechanism is, that the first player has the advantage to take control of towns this way; and that other players cannot do anything about that in this phase. Is this correct, or am I missing something? Thanks, Dolf Olivier Clémentin - Apr 25, 2005 1:44 am (#51 Total: 59) Everything has changed in Brittany, except the sea, which changes all the time. I'll try to answer this... 1. My understanding is that you don't need to have friendly pieces inside the city to besiege it. This rule only says that you may besiege a city with friendly pieces inside. Hence, you can besiege a city controlled by another player when none of your pieces are inside. 2. You are correct. The part about the cities is redundant. It's just more convenient to remove all tokens so as to have a clean slate. Rudolf Sorée - Apr 25, 2005 5:10 pm (#52 Total: 59) Olivier, If you are right, this would have quite an effect on the game. However, given the condition “as long as resource pieces from other factions are in that city as well”, and the use of the phrase “as well”, I don’t think that it is as optional as you think. But it is clear that my question needs a clarification for both of us now from Uli. Uli, Two more question; one about 6.9 Military Influence. “Military Influence may not be exercised by armies that are in a Command Box that also contains opposing armies.” Can 1 army prevent all other opposing armies from exercising MI, or only 1 other army? My second question concerns 6.20 Status Phase. “If 2 (or more) players have the same amount of victory points, they choose their position in the current game turn order.” I suppose what is meant by this curious sentence is: If 2 (or more) players have the same amount of VPs, it is mandatory for them to take the same positions relative to each other, as in the current game turn order. Correct? Dolf Olivier Clémentin - Apr 27, 2005 6:30 am (#53 Total: 59) Everything has changed in Brittany, except the sea, which changes all the time. >Can 1 army prevent all other opposing armies from exercising MI, or only 1 other army? I don't think there can ever be more than 2 armies of opposing factions in a zone (they fight until there are only 2 armies left, or just one faction). So the situation you describe cannot happen. >I suppose what is meant by this curious sentence is: If 2 (or more) >players have the same amount of VPs, it is mandatory for them to take >the same positions relative to each other, as in the current game turn >order. FWIW, I don't understand it like that. I'd say the choice is up to the player choosing second - i.e. the player who was playing second in the preceding turn. He can place his card before of after the other player's card. Again, I could be wrong. Tom Kassel - Apr 27, 2005 6:50 am (#54 Total: 59) >I don't think there can ever be more than 2 armies of opposing factions >in a zone (they fight until there are only 2 armies left, or just one >faction). So the situation you describe cannot happen. The sequence is that armies fight, then they move, then they exercize influence. So it can arise that one army can face several enemies (and will stop them all from exercizing influence). He will probably die next turn (depending on builds) but has an effect for the present. Olivier Clémentin - Apr 27, 2005 6:53 am (#55 Total: 59) Everything has changed in Brittany, except the sea, which changes a ll the time. true. What do you think of the other problems ? (sieges and turn order) Tom Kassel - Apr 27, 2005 7:04 am (#56 Total: 59) >What do you think of the other problems ? (sieges and turn order) No friendly units are required for a siege. The only constraint in that the city must not already be friendly controlled. On the turn order, I think I agree with Rolf. The word "choose" is unfortunate and doesn't imply that there is an option. It just means that the current turn relative order of the two players continues. In other words, they choose in which turn order box to place the marker by referring to the current turn order. No decision, just apply a rule. (I think) Ulrich Blennemann - Apr 27, 2005 8:18 am (#57 Total: 59) Phalanx Games www.phalanxgames.nl Olivier and Tom are correct - thanks a lot for being much quicker than I am these days... Uli