James, this isn’t up for discussion or analysis. Krieghund has stated unequivocally, that the damage on the minor would be 6 in this example. So, it’s your #4.
EM, the official ruling (I know you love to point out that I’m not official, which I’m not) has already been posted on this thread, I am 99% certain.
If he has, please link to the quote or provide the page number. Nothing personal.
@Emperor:
If he has, please link to the quote or provide the page number. Nothing personal.
I’m sorry, EM, with the search function not working and with 122 pages, that would take a lot of time. If it wasn’t so difficult to find, I would have already provided the page #, as you said.
Krieg will weigh in soon, and either confirm it, or say that I’m wrong.
Like I said, 99% sure, but I wouldn’t bet my house on it.
@Emperor:
@Emperor:
Question: The Axis have a Major IC with 10 damage, the allies capture it, reducing it to a Minor IC, does it still have 10 damage?
That is interesting, its half damaged, so there are 4 choices.
1-Either it has 10 as they are damage markers and have not been removed by paying for them
2-Since it was half damaged, the minor would be half damaged, round up to 2?
3-Since it was half damaged, the minor would be half damaged round down to 1?
4-Since the rules state that a minor factory can have no more then 6, the other 4 are dropped.
4 is most likely(in my opinion), as it is a good compromise: it follows the minor factory rule, and the allies still save 4 damage dollars. Can’t wait to see the official verdict. Really good question.
1 makes sense from a strictly technical aspect, it did receive 10 damage markers earlier and payment is the only way to remove them. The minor conversion has no effect on damage markers or it would discuss the effect. The minor damage cap rule only refers to the max damage it can receive from all current and future attacks. If no money is spent on repairs; technically the damage would remain.
It seems possible that if it was recaptured and converted back to a major, it would still have 10 markers, since no one paid to remove them.
Edit: checking the Alpha 2 rules, the last sentence under both paragraphs regarding minors and majors reads: “,after that they are no longer assigned” Assigned could indicate that existing ones may continue to exist as no new ones can be added. It could just have read that no more than 6 or 20 are possible. Which would clear the issue. Or it could say that a minor factory can never have more than 6. It simply says stop assigning, and does not say there is a maximum. It is implied but not stated. This assumes this rule supersedes the book.
All excellent points and right in line with my reasoning as well. I can’t find anything that supports reducing damage. Another consideration, The axis would have had to pay 10 to repair it to full capacity, should the allies get to only pay 6 for a factory they bombed in the first place. Also, the allies risked their bombers to inflict the original damage, how do we justify just waving away that damage? An interesting set of circumstances. I too look forward to the official ruling.
Then lets look at it from the opposite perspective, a minor IC has 6 damage and is upgraded to a Major IC, if we follow the logic of Option 4 the damage should be upgraded as well. After all the change in damage was do to a change in the factory, not Repair or SBR.
Damage would increase because you built new industrial facilities? That doesn’t make sense. Whereas if you stop using portions of industrial facilities, damage to the now-unused sections no longer matters.
In any case, the official ruling is that the damage would be downgraded to 6 because minor ICs can’t have more than 6. And upgrading damage makes no sense at all.
@Emperor:
James, this isn’t up for discussion or analysis. Krieghund has stated unequivocally, that the damage on the minor would be 6 in this example. So, it’s your #4.
EM, the official ruling (I know you love to point out that I’m not official, which I’m not) has already been posted on this thread, I am 99% certain.
If he has, please link to the quote or provide the page number. Nothing personal.
Uh, you’re asking us.:) If we are wrong, Krieghund will no doubt jump in to say so soon. But I doubt anyone here wants to dig through that much material to find something. No offense.
@Emperor:
If he has, please link to the quote or provide the page number. Nothing personal.
I’m sorry, EM, with the search function not working and with 122 pages, that would take a lot of time. If it wasn’t so difficult to find, I would have already provided the page #, as you said.
Krieg will weigh in soon, and either confirm it, or say that I’m wrong.Like I said, 99% sure, but I wouldn’t bet my house on it.
Gamer-
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, or denigrate you in anyway, I appreciate your efforts here. But when I post a question, I need an answer that I can take back to my opponent and say here’s the answer and relevant supporting documentation. A ruling of “Gamer” said so just really isn’t gonna fly, only Kreig can issue a ruling like that. Feel free to chime in on any question I pose, but unless you also provide supporting documentation I can’t point to it to resolve a disagreement.
I do have nit to pick with you. It’s the way you come across sometimes, it’s a bit caustic and Haughty. Case in point:
James, this isn’t up for discussion or analysis. Krieghund has stated unequivocally, that the damage on the minor would be 6 in this example. So, it’s your #4.
EM, the official ruling (I know you love to point out that I’m not official, which I’m not) has already been posted on this thread, I am 99% certain.
Maybe you don’t see it but it comes across as “I’ve made my ruling, how dare you question me”
Personally I found James Analysis insightful, and absent an official ruling why shouldn’t members post their take on it? You provided no support or reasoning for your position.
I know Im not Krieghund, but I asked this question. He responded with option 4. Gamerman is correct.
Damage would increase because you built new industrial facilities? That doesn’t make sense. Whereas if you stop using portions of industrial facilities, damage to the now-unused sections no longer matters.
I was carrying the argument to it’s illogical conclusion. :-D
I know Im not Krieghund, but I asked this question. He responded with option 4. Gamerman is correct.
Then provide supporting evidence, I can’t take “TheDefinitiveS” says so as proof.
And just for the record, I belive it’s probably Option 4 as well, but I can’t find any documentation to support that.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19919.1590, Lol maybe Gamerman answered it. But it wasnt corrected either.
It’s a little hard to believe that in all of this discussion no one actually took the radical step of consulting the Rulebook. :-o :lol:
From page 36: “When major industrial complexes are captured, convert them to minor industrial complexes and remove any damage markers in excess of 6 that are on them.”
It’s a little hard to believe that in all of this discussion no one actually took the radical step of consulting the Rulebook. :-o :lol:
From page 36: “When major industrial complexes are captured, convert them to minor industrial complexes and remove any damage markers in excess of 6 that are on them.”
Now we all look stupid.:lol: Though to be honest I barely consult the rulebook anymore because of all the Alpha + .2 changes.
Here’s a question. It hasn’t actually come up in any games I’ve played, but it seems like it could. Can you use a plane attacking and retreating to a different territory (because another unit attacked from there) to essentially give it one extra movement? I know it basically works like that for non-planes, but or planes I think you’re technically supposed to announce the full flight plan before launch which would make this seem less logical.
The movement of only land and sea units is affected by retreating. Air units complete their movement in the same way regardless of how their battle unfolded.
@Emperor:
Gamer-
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, or denigrate you in anyway, I appreciate your efforts here.
I appreciate that. I would like to get along with everyone too.
But when I post a question, I need an answer that I can take back to my opponent and say here’s the answer and relevant supporting documentation. A ruling of “Gamer” said so just really isn’t gonna fly, only Kreig can issue a ruling like that. Feel free to chime in on any question I pose, but unless you also provide supporting documentation I can’t point to it to resolve a disagreement.
Absolutely! Like I said, wait for Krieghund to confirm. I pretty much asked him to weigh in and confirm or deny, and within 24 hours, as usual, he has. Now you can tell your friend “Krieghund ruled on this”.
I do have nit to pick with you. It’s the way you come across sometimes, it’s a bit caustic and Haughty. Case in point:
James, this isn’t up for discussion or analysis. Krieghund has stated unequivocally, that the damage on the minor would be 6 in this example. So, it’s your #4.
EM, the official ruling (I know you love to point out that I’m not official, which I’m not) has already been posted on this thread, I am 99% certain.
Maybe you don’t see it but it comes across as “I’ve made my ruling, how dare you question me”
Personally I found James Analysis insightful, and absent an official ruling why shouldn’t members post their take on it? You provided no support or reasoning for your position.
I understand what you’re saying. You misunderstand my motive. This thread isn’t for thoughts and ideas about how the rules MIGHT be or what they SHOULD be. This is a FAQ thread. It’s for questions and answers. When people pop in and answer “I think this and that” (like your friend Cmdr Jenn) and it flat out contradicts a rather basic rule in the rulebook, that is contributing only to mass confusion. This is the only reason I call people out - is because I’m trying to prevent mass confusion.
James’ analysis was insightful, but belonged in a different thread, just like some of the stuff that I post here belongs in a different thread or a PM. It was not haughty or caustic. Perhaps this is what you are looking for from me (what you are expecting to see). You can’t hear any voice inflection or see any non-verbal communication. Because this is the case, it is helpful in written-only communications (the internet) to give people the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t, misunderstandings and hostility grow rapidly.
One more thing. I made it VERY clear that I was not 100% sure and you have to wait for Krieghund if you have an in-game dispute. I have NEVER said that I make “rulings” or that I am “official” and I wish you would stop acting like I do. I do know the rules very well, have read every single thing in this thread, and so I know a LOT of Krieghund rulings. I have a very good memory, and can find things in the rulebook usually in two minutes or less. I’m not going to type a disclaimer every time I give an answer: I am not an official ruling. You will have to wait 24-48 hours after my answer to make sure Krieghund does not contradict me. Etc. etc.
Every time I post and say things like “you can never bombard in a turn that you have to clear the sea zone of surface warships”, it’s because I know it for a fact. I’ve read it plain as day in the rulebook, I’ve played 75 games (actual number) that way without any problem from opponents, and/or I’ve read it from Krieghund in this FAQ thread, so I’m only sharing what I know to be official. When I am not 100% sure, I say so, just as I did yesterday. Does this help you understand me, EM?
If you were doing what I do, would you really do it any differently than I have? (This is a rhetorical question)
It is human nature to criticize those who publicly make statements and take positions and stands. But do you expect me to be perfect?
Kevin Chapman (Krieghund) has never, ever communicated to me that I need to change how I do things in any way. He has never told me I come across caustic or uncaring or mean or anything. He has, however, thanked me more than once for my efforts, and told me that I save him a lot of time and effort.
I know this is long, but it doesn’t mean I’m upset with you EM. Thanks again for being careful. I will continue trying to help people with their questions. Since I play multiple games on this site, I see the questions sooner than Krieg most of the time, so people get answers rapidly, and I know many times this is much appreciated.
It’s a little hard to believe that in all of this discussion no one actually took the radical step of consulting the Rulebook. :-o :lol:
From page 36: “When major industrial complexes are captured, convert them to minor industrial complexes and remove any damage markers in excess of 6 that are on them.”
Well I’ll be….there it is…now don’t I look foolish. I would say though that it really is in an obscure location and seems to contradict Section 7. Page 20 end of 1st paragraph “…Any damage previously inflicted on a facility remains in place until it is repaired.”
@Emperor:
Gamer-
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, or denigrate you in anyway, I appreciate your efforts here.I appreciate that. I would like to get along with everyone too.
But when I post a question, I need an answer that I can take back to my opponent and say here’s the answer and relevant supporting documentation. A ruling of “Gamer” said so just really isn’t gonna fly, only Kreig can issue a ruling like that. Feel free to chime in on any question I pose, but unless you also provide supporting documentation I can’t point to it to resolve a disagreement.
Absolutely! Like I said, wait for Krieghund to confirm. I pretty much asked him to weigh in and confirm or deny, and within 24 hours, as usual, he has. Now you can tell your friend “Krieghund ruled on this”.
I do have nit to pick with you. It’s the way you come across sometimes, it’s a bit caustic and Haughty. Case in point:
James, this isn’t up for discussion or analysis. Krieghund has stated unequivocally, that the damage on the minor would be 6 in this example. So, it’s your #4.
EM, the official ruling (I know you love to point out that I’m not official, which I’m not) has already been posted on this thread, I am 99% certain.
Maybe you don’t see it but it comes across as “I’ve made my ruling, how dare you question me”
Personally I found James Analysis insightful, and absent an official ruling why shouldn’t members post their take on it? You provided no support or reasoning for your position.
I understand what you’re saying. You misunderstand my motive. This thread isn’t for thoughts and ideas about how the rules MIGHT be or what they SHOULD be. This is a FAQ thread. It’s for questions and answers. When people pop in and answer “I think this and that” (like your friend Cmdr Jenn) and it flat out contradicts a rather basic rule in the rulebook, that is contributing only to mass confusion. This is the only reason I call people out - is because I’m trying to prevent mass confusion.
James’ analysis was insightful, but belonged in a different thread, just like some of the stuff that I post here belongs in a different thread or a PM. It was not haughty or caustic. Perhaps this is what you are looking for from me (what you are expecting to see). You can’t hear any voice inflection or see any non-verbal communication. Because this is the case, it is helpful in written-only communications (the internet) to give people the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t, misunderstandings and hostility grow rapidly.One more thing. I made it VERY clear that I was not 100% sure and you have to wait for Krieghund if you have an in-game dispute. I have NEVER said that I make “rulings” or that I am “official” and I wish you would stop acting like I do. I do know the rules very well, have read every single thing in this thread, and so I know a LOT of Krieghund rulings. I have a very good memory, and can find things in the rulebook usually in two minutes or less. I’m not going to type a disclaimer every time I give an answer: I am not an official ruling. You will have to wait 24-48 hours after my answer to make sure Krieghund does not contradict me. Etc. etc.
Every time I post and say things like “you can never bombard in a turn that you have to clear the sea zone of surface warships”, it’s because I know it for a fact. I’ve read it plain as day in the rulebook, I’ve played 75 games (actual number) that way without any problem from opponents, and/or I’ve read it from Krieghund in this FAQ thread, so I’m only sharing what I know to be official. When I am not 100% sure, I say so, just as I did yesterday. Does this help you understand me, EM?
If you were doing what I do, would you really do it any differently than I have? (This is a rhetorical question)
It is human nature to criticize those who publicly make statements and take positions and stands. But do you expect me to be perfect?Kevin Chapman (Krieghund) has never, ever communicated to me that I need to change how I do things in any way. He has never told me I come across caustic or uncaring or mean or anything. He has, however, thanked me more than once for my efforts, and told me that I save him a lot of time and effort.
I know this is long, but it doesn’t mean I’m upset with you EM. Thanks again for being careful. I will continue trying to help people with their questions. Since I play multiple games on this site, I see the questions sooner than Krieg most of the time, so people get answers rapidly, and I know many times this is much appreciated.
I understand everything you are saying. In the future I will simply ask, “Hey can you point to relevant rule?” Funny that none of us found it sitting right there on Page 36, I’ve probably looked at that page a hundred times since I’m currently playing a game that includes Tech, and the Breakthrough Chart 1 is on that page. :lol: :lol:
BTW…I have you beat 3-to-1. I’ve played 231 games (actual number as well) to your 75. :-D
@Emperor:
Well I’ll be….there it is…now don’t I look foolish. I would say though that it really is in an obscure location and seems to contradict Section 7. Page 20 end of 1st paragraph “…Any damage previously inflicted on a facility remains in place until it is repaired.”
This is a case of a Global rule (page 36) overriding a Europe/Pacific rule (page 20).
@Emperor:
Well I’ll be….there it is…now don’t I look foolish. I would say though that it really is in an obscure location and seems to contradict Section 7. Page 20 end of 1st paragraph “…Any damage previously inflicted on a facility remains in place until it is repaired.”
This is a case of a Global rule (page 36) overriding a Europe/Pacific rule (page 20).
Gotcha…Thanks!
@Emperor:
BTW…I have you beat 3-to-1. I’ve played 231 games (actual number as well) to your 75. :-D
:-) I got to thinking about that after I wrote it. This is the 1940 thread, and those 75 are all on-line AA50. A lot of rules questions here are the same as AA50 rules (bombardment, etc), but it’s not 75 1940 games. :lol:
I did play maybe 70 games of Revised on GTO, and played quite a few F2F Classic games, too….
But as much as I understand the ruleset for AA50, Spring 42, and 1940, I could never go back to Revised or classic because so many of the rules are so different I would get really confused.
At least between AA50 and 1940 we don’t have much of the same units doing different things (like transports in Revised are totally different than transports in AA50 or 1940).
Sorry to ask this very basic question, but i don’t have the rulebook and i suddenly have doubts about that : If Germany and Italy haven’t DOW Russia, can RUSSIA DOW Germany at the beginning of turn 4 ? And so they can make CM against Germany on turn 4 ? Or do Russia has to DOW Germany at the collect income phase of Turn 4 (as for US on turn 3) ?
Sorry to ask this very basic question, but i don’t have the rulebook and i suddenly have doubts about that : If Germany and Italy haven’t DOW Russia, can RUSSIA DOW Germany at the beginning of turn 4 ? And so they can make CM against Germany on turn 4 ? Or do Russia has to DOW Germany at the collect income phase of Turn 4 (as for US on turn 3) ?
They can declare war at the beginning of the combat move phase of their 4th turn.
Colllect income phase of US3 is the ONLY exception to the timing of declarations. All other DOWs must occur at the beginning of the combat phase.
@Emperor:
@Emperor:
Well I’ll be….there it is…now don’t I look foolish. I would say though that it really is in an obscure location and seems to contradict Section 7. Page 20 end of 1st paragraph “…Any damage previously inflicted on a facility remains in place until it is repaired.”
This is a case of a Global rule (page 36) overriding a Europe/Pacific rule (page 20).
Gotcha…Thanks!
It is also a logical deduction (not that all the rules are logical, mind you, hence the “I think…” being contradicted by the illogical rules manual. Yes, I declare my thoughts are the logical ones and if the manuals contradict my opinions then they must be, by this reasoning, be illogical. And no, I dont care if it makes me look petulant. :P That said, rules are rules…) since one cannot do 20 IPC worth of damage to a minor complex, then the damage on the complex can only be 6 or less if it is a minor one, even if it was a major previously.
That said, I really wish you could upgrade complexes on enemy capitols. After all, once you get the capitol, you’re pretty much established anyway, doubly so if you are trying to upgrade it back to a major complex, no?
