True.
UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?
-
@SS-GEN said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:
If you have to convert it to get the money from a dutch Island then its a pro allies neutral until converted.
But of course this is the G40 game.Again, that is wrong - the dutch territories on pacific map are not friendly neutrals. But no reason to muddle this thread with unrelated conversation.
you can see this thread for more information on dutch territory rules
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/20494/mongolia-and-neutrals-rules-summarized-here -
They are until Paris falls then. We differ on this rule. More or less the wording of rule. All good. Happy gaming !
-
The rulebook has it clear:
Rulebook, Pacific 1940.2 page 9:Dutch territories
The Dutch territories begin the game uncontrolled by
any power. However, they are considered friendly to the
Allied powers. Holland has been captured by Germany, so
Dutch territories are treated in the same way as any Allied
territories whose capital is held by an enemy power (see
“Liberating a Territory,” page 20), with the exception of the
guardianship of United Kingdom and ANZAC (see “United
Kingdom and ANZAC”, above). -
@Panther I still haven’t see any rule which states that UK or ANZAC may not use a AAA unit to assume guardianship of Dutch territories. It’s a land unit, it moves in during noncombat movement…If there’s a specific rule addressing this, I can’t find it.
-
@The-Pripet-Martian said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:
@Panther I still haven’t see any rule which states that UK or ANZAC may not use a AAA unit to assume guardianship of Dutch territories. It’s a land unit, it moves in during noncombat movement…If there’s a specific rule addressing this, I can’t find it.
Krieghund’s response counts as an official rule. Until his response there was no official rule - at least not on this site or in the rules.
-
@ksmckay On what, exactly, is @Krieghund’s statement based? The vast majority of situations that arise can be easily resolved, if not by direct reference to a rule, then through inference based on interpretation of a rule. My interpretation is as follows:
- Is AAA a land unit? Yes.
- Can it engage in noncombat movement? Yes.
- Does the latest edition of the rulebook (Pacific 1940.2) say UK or ANZAC cannot use an AAA unit to assume guardianship of Dutch territories? No.
The definition of guardianship is “the position of protecting or defending something.” AAA is a purely defensive unit. Krieghund’s ruling seems to me to be a contradiction, rather than a continuation, of the existing rule.
-
Rulebook page 26
Infantry, artillery, mechanized infantry, tanks, and AAA (antiaircraft artillery) can attack and defend only in territories. Only
infantry, artillery, mechanized infantry, and tanks can capture hostile territories or convert friendly neutrals. All can be carried
by transports.Just makes it consistent with the already existing rules. AAA cant be used to take ownership of a territory. Existing rule considered everything but the issue of guardianship of dutch territories. This ruling just adds to that rule and makes it include everything instead of everything but the dutch territories.
-
The rules are crystal clear for hostile territories and friendly neutrals. The Dutch territories are in no way friendly neutrals. Pacific 1940.2, p.9 makes it clear that guardianship is altogether different from “annexing” or “converting” friendly neutrals. I refer again to the definition of guardianship and the fact that AAA is a defensive unit. I disagree with Krieghund’s interpretation.
-
Air units are defensive as well, but they don’t count either. As ksmckay said, this is consistent with the related rules.
-
Of all the games and different games I’ve played over the years an AAA gun could never take control of a territory. But Pripet does have a valid point. It is a land unit too. If an Artillery can take control why not a AAA gun ?
If you use a transport to carry an artillery to a Dutch Island why not a AAA. Besides it’s defending on next turn so the piece should count.
It’s like if the ground unit can’t attack and defend it can’t control a territory.
Until then krieghund rule stands unless Larry changes it. To bad. -
Interesting! Sounds like the rules/FAQ needs an update to cover this point.
-
@SS-GEN said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:
Of all the games and different games I’ve played over the years an AAA gun could never take control of a territory. But Pripet does have a valid point. It is a land unit too. If an Artillery can take control why not a AAA gun ?
If you use a transport to carry an artillery to a Dutch Island why not a AAA. Besides it’s defending on next turn so the piece should count.
It’s like if the ground unit can’t attack and defend it can’t control a territory.
Until then krieghund rule stands unless Larry changes it. To bad.If you want a rationale as to why AAA aren’t “good enough” to take control of a territory, consider that they have no combat value, which means that if an enemy invades the territory, they will be automatically destroyed without putting up a fight. This kind of defensive support doesn’t inspire much confidence in your allies.
-
@simon33 said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:
Interesting! Sounds like the rules/FAQ needs an update to cover this point.
“Needs” is a strong word, given that this is a logical interpretation of the existing rules. I agree that it would be good, but FAQ updates are hard to justify these days.
-
@Krieghund said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:
@SS-GEN said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:
Of all the games and different games I’ve played over the years an AAA gun could never take control of a territory. But Pripet does have a valid point. It is a land unit too. If an Artillery can take control why not a AAA gun ?
If you use a transport to carry an artillery to a Dutch Island why not a AAA. Besides it’s defending on next turn so the piece should count.
It’s like if the ground unit can’t attack and defend it can’t control a territory.
Until then krieghund rule stands unless Larry changes it. To bad.If you want a rationale as to why AAA aren’t “good enough” to take control of a territory, consider that they have no combat value, which means that if an enemy invades the territory, they will be automatically destroyed without putting up a fight. This kind of defensive support doesn’t inspire much confidence in your allies.
Yes as I mention no attack value can’t take control probably as you say. But then if it’s a non combat move it’s not attacking. So if it’s combat AAA can’t take control but if it’s non combat AAA can take control of a pro allies neutral or an allies friendly territory for any game. Just saying
-
@Krieghund said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:
Air units are defensive as well, but they don’t count either. As ksmckay said, this is consistent with the related rules.
Respectfully, I don’t think this is a good comparison. The rules clearly state that air units cannot assume guardianship of the Dutch territories. Likewise, the Pacific 1940.2 rules clearly state that the Dutch territories are not treated as friendly neutrals or hostile territories. While I see the logic in your ruling, @Krieghund, I also believe it to be flawed, as it conflates Dutch territories with friendly neutrals. This is, of course, just one man’s opinion…and, as I’ve already been overruled and lost on appeal, I’ll drop the matter here.
-
I am not conflating Dutch territories with friendly neutrals. They are indeed different types of territories, with many different rules. However, the procedure for claiming control of both types of territories is exactly the same, even though the conditions under which it may be done are different. I am merely applying similar rules in a consistent manner.
My saying that air units are also defensive was in counter to your argument that AAA should count because it would “defend” the Dutch territory, and thus provide “guardianship”. My point was that if AAA were to be treated differently in Dutch territories than in claiming friendly neutrals for that reason, it would also stand to reason that air units would also be treated differently, as both could defend the territory. However, they are not.
As it stands, the procedure for claiming both Dutch territories and friendly neutrals requires moving a “land unit” into the territory in noncombat movement. In the case of friendly neutrals, AAA are explicitly exempted from that function. Since the procedure for claiming both types of territories is the same in every other way, it makes sense that AAA should be exempted for Dutch territories as well, for the same reasons. Not only does this apply the same principle in a similar situation, but it avoids a needless difference in the two procedures that players would need to be aware of.
I hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.
-
@Krieghund said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:
As it stands, the procedure for claiming both Dutch territories and friendly neutrals requires moving a “land unit” into the territory in noncombat movement. In the case of friendly neutrals, AAA are explicitly exempted from that function. Since the procedure for claiming both types of territories is the same in every other way, it makes sense that AAA should be exempted for Dutch territories as well, for the same reasons. Not only does this apply the same principle in a similar situation, but it avoids a needless difference in the two procedures that players would need to be aware of.
Ya its a good point on 2 senerios for AAA gun but.
-
@Krieghund I appreciate the explanation and I do understand your reasoning. Your decision is consistent with the rules for friendly neutrals and your desire to avoid “a needless difference in the two procedures” makes sense.
I believe my position to be equally valid, however. Language matters, and “assuming guardianship” remains distinctly different from “converting,” “claiming” or “annexing” friendly neutrals. The existing rules draw a bright line between Dutch territories and neutrals. Why, then, couldn’t the procedure for assuming guardianship of Dutch territories be slightly different? (This is rhetorical, as you’ve clearly stated the reasons why you do not wish the procedures to be different.)
A final consideration: My position has the advantage of remaining consistent with the Pacific 1940.2 rules for Dutch territories, while players must find this thread in order to be aware of your ruling which, while logical and understandable, is in fact an exception to the rule as written.
Again, I appreciate your explanation and reasoning.
-
I agree that a strict reading of the exemption rule in and of itself would indicate that Dutch territories could be claimed by AAA, as this case is not mentioned explicitly. I wrestled with this for a while before making my ruling. However, I also believe there’s enough wiggle room there when combined with the rules on Dutch territories and friendly neutrals to interpret it the other way, for the reasons I’ve outlined. The fact that we’re even having this conversation supports the view that there are two ways to interpret it.
For what it’s worth, I am certain that Larry didn’t want AAA to claim Dutch territories, any more than he wanted them to convert friendly neutrals, for the reasons I stated. This in itself wouldn’t cause me to rule the way that I did, but in combination with the aforementioned “wiggle room”, I deemed it to be enough. If I had my way, there would be an FAQ update to reflect this, but getting one these days is like pulling teeth.
As an aside, this issue was originally addressed in the AAE40 1st Edition FAQ, at the same time that the 2nd Editions of both games were being developed. The AAA exception should have noted this case explicitly in AAP40, but it simply got dropped during the development of the 2nd Edition and it has remained lost until now.
-
Sounds good K !
Suggested Topics
