AH Correspondence

AH> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:10:03 -0500 
AH> From: AHGames@aol.com 
AH> Subject: Machiavelli questions 

RB> I just got the new edition of Machiavelli and I'd like to clarify some of 
RB> the rule changes (from first edition) to make sure I understand them. 

AH> Dear Rick:
AH> It's a pleasure to answer questions for someone who already has an excellent
AH> understanding of the game.

RB> 1)  It's not just a typo, the province of Perugia is supposed to be on
RB> the Famine chart twice (2,4) & (12,11).

AH> 1)  The double listing of Perugia on the Famine Table is indeed a typo, which
AH> I only discovered two weeks ago. Unfortunately, I had already composed the
AH> errata slip (to cover your question number 2 below) two weeks before then, so
AH> the double listing will not appear as a printed erratum. I might put it in
AH> the General magazine and on-line. The double listing makes the chance of
AH> famine in Perugia 7/72 instead of 4/72 which I had intended. Purists, and you
AH> seem to be one, should delete the 12,11 listing.

RB> 2)  Expenditure "K" is listed as "Buy army or fleet" but the rules
RB> indicate that committed garrisons can also be bought.  My presumption is
RB> that the rules are correct and that such a bribe directed at a garrison
RB> in a major city would cost 36d.

AH> 2)  The costs of Bribes J and K are doubled for Garrison units in major
AH> cities. Bribe K also applies to Garrison units too. These mistakes on the
AH> chart are covered in the printed errata. As you presumed, the rules are
AH> correct.

RB> 3)  Units may no longer be ordered to disband (former rule was convert to 0).

AH> 3)  Yes, you may no longer order a unit to disband, except at the start of a
AH> year when you pay for units in the field.

RB> 4)  This was always a point of contention in the old rules.  Situation:
RB> Milan has an Elite Mercenary Garrison in Milan with an Austrian army
RB> in the province besieging.  Assuming Austr A Milan receives no support,
RB> the Milan G Milan if ordered to convert to an army would successfully break
RB> the siege and dislodge Austria (strength 2 vs. 1).  Section 6.3 (6) doesn't
RB> make this clear saying "A besieged Garrison may try to convert, but it
RB> requires support from another unit to successfully force the besieging
RB> unit out of the area first" and section 14 does not define "strength of
RB> two."  If "strength of two" is interpreted as receiving the power of one
RB> unbreakable support then this interpretation is correct.  Taken literally
RB> however, it would seem that Milan would need support from another unit to
RB> break siege.

AH> 4)  Good point. To be exact, rule 6.3.6 should have read, "A besieged
AH> Garrison may try to convert, but it requires more strength than the besieger
AH> to successfully force the besieging unit out of the area first." Yes, a unit
AH> with a "strength of two" is inherently more powerful than a normal unit with
AH> a "strength of one" as defined by 7.2.

RB> 5)  A retreating unit now has the option to convert to garrison even if
RB> it isn't forced to.

AH> 5)  Yes, a retreating unit may convert to garrison even if other retreat
AH> routes are available. I think you'll find this change more exciting and
AH> playable than the first edition rule.

RB> Overall, I love what you guys have done with this and I look forward to
RB> playing as soon as I can get enough people together!
RB>
RB> Thanks in advance,
RB>
RB> Rick Bynaker
RB> rbynaker@cais.com

AH> Glad you like the look of the new edition. Hope you enjoy playing it.
AH>
AH> Ben Knight