Vichy rolls

[Caesar-Seriona]

@generalhandgrenade I want to make things clear that I am not hostile to you as a person.

What I am specifically annoyed about is that if you want a rule to say X task requires Y result for Z situation. Then the rule must be written as 1+1=2.

What I’ve been seeing lately with a question about a situation that is confusing and need clarification is explaining what the “intended result” is and how to act in response hence you’re giving a subjective answer to what should be an objective rule.

Example of an answer you gave to me that reflect this problem is what I asked about how to handle Free France home country and how Vichy has the ability to kick out the Allies by walking into Free French zones

UK landed in Aquitaine, next to Vichy France. The page for Free France says, “Considers Paris and surrounding land zones as Home Country as long as they are Allied-possessed.”

If you read this objectively, any player with a double digit IQ knows by the wording this means that Aquitaine is there for Free French home territory. I pointed out that if the Allies get careless in this situation, Vichy can push them out making it Vichy, then if they land in the territory just north of it, Vichy can then push them out, and if the Allies land east of that, Vichy now just shielded Paris outright from the Allies forcing them to either declare war of Vichy or land in the Low Countries.

You’re response to this problem I put out was a historical view on how Free France was during WWII. Then you said the rules say that these territories in fact do not belong to Free France but France. IE France and Free France are two different nations with two different rules and that Aquitaine there for does not get liberated for Free France but is now controlled by UK and then you pointed out that this is in the FAQ.

Now here is the problem I have with how you handled my question.

Instead of the song and dance of telling me the historical view of Free France. Wouldn’t it be better of the Free French home country just said, “Free France does not have a Home Country”?

That would of been an objective statement and we the players would of 100% know how to handle the rule.

The rule book has a bunch of rules written exactly like this:

A: here is how the rule is written.
B: we have a situation that the rule doesn’t objectively explain because we found a situation unknown.
C; the rule doesn’t explain how to handle it.
D; Let’s ask how to handle it.
E: “take a historical context and/or use logic and reason”
F: Well I know there is rules in this game that violate historical context and logic and reason
G: “well if you don’t like it house rule it”

Subjective rules with subjective response to a board game who’s rules are supposed to be objective.

[insaneHoshi]

@caesar-seriona

If you read this objectively, any player with a double digit IQ knows by the wording this means that Aquitaine is there for Free French home territory. I pointed out that if the Allies get careless in this situation, Vichy can push them out making it Vichy, then if they land in the territory just north of it, Vichy can then push them out, and if the Allies land east of that, Vichy now just shielded Paris outright from the Allies forcing them to either declare war of Vichy or land in the Low Countries.

Why is this a problem? Just DoW on Vichy.

Furthermore, I don’t see how Vichy can even attack allied units and thus “Push them out” since Vichy can only ever attack free france. You may be referring to the " 14.4.5 Internal French Conflict Vichy Conflict" reference on their Vichy Reference Sheet. But considering that 14.4.5 does no longer exist in the rulebook, odds are this is simply out of date.

Even then, its fairly clear that Rules as Intended (RAI) is that Vichy arnt allowed to show up it aquitaine, wave a piece of paper at the landing nations, and force them back to England; Why would anyone try to argue that this is the correct way to play the game?

[Noneshallpass]

There are many legitimate questions about the rules that may arise even in different situations, even when a lot of effort went into drafting, play-testing and proof reading the rules. I have played almost 20 times since I got this game and we got at least one thing wrong every single time.

Sometimes a question is covered by the rules, but the person asking the question simply missed it or misread it. There are a lot of questions in this forum that can be answered by simply pointing out the relevant rules.

Sometimes a rule is subject to more than one interpretation as written, but the context and the other rules will guide us to the correct interpretation. This is a good category of questions to put in the FAQ.

Sometimes the rules contradict themselved or may even appear very clear to some, but following them goes against what the game creators intended. It’s almost impossible to figure this out by yourself as a player unless you have access to the creators of the game to discuss it. This is when the rules need to be changed or clarified in the Errata, pending updated versions of the rulebook or reference sheets.

@manincellv’s original question was a good one and spaked a good debate but has now been aswered by the updated Errata.

I do agree that “well historically such and such happened” is not really the best argument to explain the rules , especially if the historical explanation appears to contradict the game rules. Historical context can be instructive to put some rules in context, but not to rewrite them.

That being said, this forum is a great place to ask any questions that we have about the rules and obviously the creators are paying some attention since most debated questions so far have been answered either in the FAQ or Errata. Let’s keep it that way.

[CaptainNapalm]

@insanehoshi said in Vichy rolls:

@caesar-seriona

If you read this objectively, any player with a double digit IQ knows by the wording this means that Aquitaine is there for Free French home territory. I pointed out that if the Allies get careless in this situation, Vichy can push them out making it Vichy, then if they land in the territory just north of it, Vichy can then push them out, and if the Allies land east of that, Vichy now just shielded Paris outright from the Allies forcing them to either declare war of Vichy or land in the Low Countries.

Why is this a problem? Just DoW on Vichy.

Furthermore, I don’t see how Vichy can even attack allied units and thus “Push them out” since Vichy can only ever attack free france. You may be referring to the " 14.4.5 Internal French Conflict Vichy Conflict" reference on their Vichy Reference Sheet. But considering that 14.4.5 does no longer exist in the rulebook, odds are this is simply out of date.

Even then, its fairly clear that Rules as Intended (RAI) is that Vichy arnt allowed to show up it aquitaine, wave a piece of paper at the landing nations, and force them back to England; Why would anyone try to argue that this is the correct way to play the game?

Thank you for pointing out that 14.4.5 has been removed from the rulebook. As that section contained important information, was it relocated or clarified elsewhere? How is Vichy, attacking a French territory containing Allied units, now supposed to be handled?