Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 23:24:37 +0100,
Bartek Waresiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello
I agree with both Jon Daniel and John McNabb.
IMHO, friendly or allied unit can't be distraction for defender,
especialy if they both cover their backs.
I think you are misunderstanding what I am proposing. Allies of the defending
unit would not act as distractions. Enemies of the defending unit would, even
if they were also enemies of the attacker.
Basically there are three units: attacker, defender, and opposite. It's
a given that attacker and defender are enemies. There are the following
further possibilities:
(1) opposite is on the same side as defender (and thus an enemy of attacker)
(2) opposite is on a side allied with defender (and thus an enemy of
attacker)
(3) opposite is on the same side as attacker (and thus an enemy of defender)
(4) opposite is on a side allied with attacker (and thus an enemy of
defender)
(5) opposite is on a side that is enemies of both attacker and defender
At the moment backstab occurs only in case (3).
No-one is suggesting that it should take place in cases (1) or (2). Some
people have misunderstood Bruno's proposal to mean this. That would not
seem very sane. :)
Bruno is suggesting it take place in case (4), and I think in case (5)
too. My opinion is that it should take place in case (4), and whether or
not it takes place in case (5) is of little consequence, since that's
not a common situation anyhow.
So yes, please go ahead and work on this change. :)
David
