@barnee I tried! But the person I am playing against has been playing for many years and this is only my second year of playing so I am not always correct with the rules. I plan on attacking when we get back to it!
RULE CLARIFICATION: Italy DOWs Moves to E. Poland - Germany Moves Doesn't DOW
-
It is neutral though. Not at war with Russia yet. My opinion on that…just logic
Kinda like Finland in Global War 36…an attack by the Russians on a Finnish territory with German occupants is not a deceleration of war on Germany but the German troops can defend.
-
GHG, it is not controlled by the Soviets…How clear is that…It is Italian controlled
The key word in the phrase is “originally” controlled. That means a territory on the board that contains a roundel belonging to a nation when the game began, in this case Russia. I accept the fact that the rule was changed when they wrote the Europe rule book. No problem. However, don’t put me down because the rule was written wrong in the Japan rule book. I didn’t write the book.
You’re not stating what the rule book says, you’re just spewing your opinion of what you think the Japan rule book should say.
Read the book instead of putting me down. -
I am not spewing anything….quite clear to me it is an Italian territory now…I totally disagree with your stance as that also comes from the Pacific rule book making it irrelevant…the fighting on the European side is quite different…I interpret that to apply at the least to the Japanese. In my game that would be allowed. Baffles me that a control marker would not be sufficient to explain who owns that territory…My opinion is you are wrong on this one GHG… I don’t say this in a confrontational tone…I say this as my opinion that I stand by…If you were playing just Europe…then what?..So that rule from Pacific becomes insignificant
-
Does make me wonder how this would be resolved at Young Grasshoppers tournament….Situations like this with so many games are bound to occur
-
Well Larry Harris himself will be there to correct any misconceptions
-
I don’t think that’s correct but I could be wrong. Even though it doesn’t explicitly say that in the Germany Political Situations it does say something the Soviet Union Political Situations section.
Specifically speaking, it states that while they are not at war with Russia;
" (Germany and Italy) may not move units into or through any original Soviet territories or Soviet controlled territories."Remember that nobody, not even their allies, are allowed to move into Soviet territories, nor can they move out of them. So Germany would have to declare war on Russia in order to move there, even on a ncm.
Hi GHG, that is referring to a situation that USSR is at peace with the European Axis. If Italy and USSR are at war, then the clause does not apply.
BTW, I can’t find that exact wording in the pacific rules.
-
Another situation, SZ 113 and those Islands there Germany could build a 2nd AB and place them there for a scramble,and Infantry….This is why I think a Global rule book is in need. I stopped playing OOB rules until recently, getting myself familiar for Young grasshoppers tournament. When I first started playing OOB earlier this year…I was making tons of mistakes. At times I clearly understood why I stopped playing OOB…there are a ton of frustrating situations that develop with the OOB rules. There are also a ton of situations that I don’t like. The best solution I came up with is simplicity.
As in this case the Italians clearly hold the territory. Germans may move into Italian territories. Simple…end it right there. My 2 cents worth on rules that are gray in explanation. -
those islands are part of Denmark
-
I know….but technically they are a separate land mass distinctly defined by the water dividing them. Nothing states you can’t place an AB there or occupy it. It has never come up as a situation in any of my games…just saying
-
I know….but technically they are a separate land mass distinctly defined by the water dividing them. Nothing states you can’t place an AB there or occupy it. It has never come up as a situation in any of my games…just saying
I’m sure there is a rule that an unnamed island isn’t a territory so you can’t.
@Pac:
Islands
An island or island group is
a single territory surrounded
entirely by one or more
sea zones. A sea zone can
contain at most one island
or island group, which is
considered one territory.
It’s not possible to split up
land-based units so that they
are on different islands in
the same group. Islands that
have no name label, such
as the one in sea zone 1, are
not game spaces and may not have units moved onto them.I suppose it doesn’t specifically say you can’t build a base but it is pretty clearly inferred. Such a base could never be conquered.
-
So technically you can….me thinks…my point though is how lots of rules are left to interpretation…people read and see things differently…rules in my opinion have to be so clear that it can’t be questioned wit…“but” “or” “if”
-
Those islands are not separate territories, thus you can’t build air bases on them.
Europe rulebook page 8, under the Islands header: “Each territory has a separate name and emblem on it.” -
In addition:
“Only one facility of each type (industrial complex, air base, and naval base) may exist in each territory.”
page 27 Europe rulesThe rules have no wiggle room on this particular point.
-
I thought I was right.
But here is my next question, if Russia doesn’t DOW on Germany, can it attack the lone Italian tank and reclaim e. Poland while co-locating with other German troops?
Kind of like subs from opposing nations, but not yet at war occupying the same sea zone. Gamism comparison here, not real life (don’t @ me that sea zone represent thousands of square nautical miles…ect).
-
No. If Russia attacks East Poland, they have to declare war on Germany and attack the combined force.
-
Thanks everyone for the rule clarifications and the link to where Krieghund already answered this!
-
Good question Ichabod
-
Yes it’s a really good question, Ichabod. I’m going to add this one to my “Know the Rules” video series.
My apologies leatherneckinlv for being short with you. It honestly is written differently in both rule books. I don’t take the Political Situations from the Pacific or Europe sections of the rule books, I get them from the Global rules contained in both. You would think they would both say the same thing but they don’t. I will show both rule books in my video and you can see the difference. Now that I know that I will be sure to check both books first before I try to interpret a rule.
As far as the island question, Simon’s post at the top of this page shows clearly that you can’t place units on those empty land spaces that aren’t labeled. Even if you could make the argument that an airbase wasn’t a unit and place one there, you wouldn’t be able to land any planes (they are units) there and it would be a waste of 15 IPC.
-
As far as the island question, Simon’s post at the top of this page shows clearly that you can’t place units on those empty land spaces that aren’t labeled. Even if you could make the argument that an airbase wasn’t a unit and place one there, you wouldn’t be able to land any planes (they are units) there and it would be a waste of 15 IPC.
That’s a great (and amusing) point there. Naval base could work or at least you could fire rockets if you had that tech.
Anyway, I’m sure that the intended rules aren’t in doubt now.
-
How do you figure that shadow hawk? I totally disagree with you
Now question to all…situations like this how do youse resolve it during a game?
In these kind of situations mid game, and the person that I am playing against disagrees and or I disagree with him, we roll for it. Usually 123 it sticks 456 it is no good.
Suggested Topics
