Rule Clarification, let the debate rage!

[El Jefe]

A diference of opinion.
It’s like monopoly! How many of you play by the rules?…

Auction…If a player lands on an unowned property and does not buy it, the property goes up for auction(run by the banker.)

Lifting a mortgage…If a player wishes to lift a mortgage s/he must pay the mortgage price plus 10% to the bank.

Miscellaneous… Money can only be loaned to a player by the bank and then only by mortgaging property.

Free Parking…Players landing there receive no money,property or reward. This is just a free space!!

…just to name the major “fudges” in another popular game.

[Jacob_Duhm]

Here’s a question I have for the Enlightened Ones (i’ll let you all decided who that is….)(lol). Anyway, let’s say that Germany brings it’s Med Battleship and transport (w/troops from italy) and do an amphib assault on Syria, while the Afrika Korps invades Egypt from Libya. For the sake of argument, the British submarine is still in the sea zone, so there’s a naval engagment. According to the reference chart’s Naval combat sequence list, surviving submarines may withdrawl after all casualties are removed from that round of (dice) rolls. So let’s say that the Brit submarine survives and withdrawls through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea Zone. Germany proceeds with amphib assault, and the attack on Egyp, taking both, meaning Britan no longer controls the Suez. Now, I remember reading in the rules book that a ship cannot use the Suez unless both Egypt and Israel are owned by friendlies. If the invasions of Egypt and Syria are occuring at the same time as the naval battle with the sub and there is a possibilty that the brits could loose the Suez, can the Sub still escape through the Suez?

[cystic crypt]

My take is that “Yes” the ship can still move through the Suez canal. The fact is that the naval battle HAD to happen first in order to allow for the landing of troops.