Tought on diplomacy france, GB, poland and Germany

  • @chris_henry Poland would be aligned to GB (and thus cease to exist) and they would not be at war with Germany.

  • @insanehoshi So it’s just completely outside of the standard rules for alignment then, got it. I guess I would have thought the rules would say something like Poland Aligns to GB regardless of GB’s neutrality status to specifically mention this veering from the standard rules. But I guess not.

  • @chris_henry There are a number of special alignment conditions (including Poland) that are outside the normal rules. You will find them on tables 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 on pages 22 and 23.

  • @generalhandgrenade I’m aware of the tables. However, every one of those other tables require the nation to be at war with a Major Power, or their Aligning Major Power already has their full/wartime income (basically the Axis in that example). Poland would seem to be the only exception to that, as this example shows that it’s possible to Align Poland even if GB is still neutral and/or not at wartime economy just yet. That’s fine of course if that’s the rule, I’m not debating that if that’s the case. The point I was making is that qualifying that part by saying Poland Aligns to GB regardless of GB’s war/neutrality status, would be more clear. As it’s stated now it can cause a lot of questions (as the original post here has) as to how that’s possible given the games usual Alignment conditions. Adding a “regardless of GB’s war status” qualifier would serve to clear up the rule entirely and leave zero ambiguity.

  • @chris_henry It does say that. It says that Britain can align Poland if France is at war with Germany. There’s nothing ambiguous about that.

    That’s no different than Germany aligning Austria without being at war with a major power.

  • @generalhandgrenade The big difference there though is that Germany already starts out at full income/wartime economy. GB doesn’t necessarily have to be with this example.

    I’m just saying, adding that qualifier would alleviate questions entirely. Because as it stands now, as evidenced by this questions even be asked here, people see Aligned and will say “but how is that possible when the rules says you need to be at war with the same major power to align a minor nation?”

  • @chris_henry

    will say “but how is that possible when the rules says you need to be at war with the same major power to align a minor nation?”

    But the rules don’t state this. They state there are generalized conditions for control and alignment. They then state there are special rules on alignment as well. There is just two methods to consider.

  • @insanehoshi It’s a very unique circumstance. I think 99 out of 100 games this situation doesn’t pop up, but it is possible of course, as this example shows. I’d be willing to bet a lot of players hadn’t considered this scenario as being likely.

    I’m just saying, people know the alignment/control rules as written. And then there are the unique alignment conditions as written. But with all of those other nations and rules, Poland is alone as being potentially aligned to a neutral major power is unique. Every other one happens with a major power at war or full income. That in itself makes this situation unique.

    I’m not saying the rule is written incorrectly, because it’s not, but I’m just pointing out a way to write it that would take away this question being asked again. The OP wasn’t off-base for asking this question is all I’m saying. And if it was asked here, I’m sure it’s been asked by others playing the game that maybe came across this situation as well. It’s frankly a simple 4-5 word clarification errata.

  • @chris_henry The minor powers that are listed in the tables that I referenced are aligned in a variety of different ways and that’s why they are in a separate section titled Special Alignment Conditions. It’s not enough to assume that all nations are treated the same, players need to read all of the rules to understand how to play the game. Rule 4.8 explains this in a single paragraph and there’s no need to explain with each one of them that they don’t follow the regular alignment rules.

  • @generalhandgrenade I’m simply pointing out it’s understandable how this question was asked. It’s nothing to take personal, as I’m not attacking anyone’s knowledge of the game or anything. It’s not a secret to players that the rule book has a lot of questions that arise from it with assumptions and ambiguities written in, and HBG has said multiple times they appreciate feedback to be able to clarify the rules (as is evidenced by a running 9-page errata). I’ve seen rules way more clear cut than this get clarification errata’s haha. I won’t argue the point anymore here, as my goal isn’t to make back and forth arguments. A question was asked, and it’s a pretty simple assumption to make that the OP isn’t the only one asking the question as they play. I’m frankly surprised a simple clarification suggestion has been met with this much hostility. I would think a clarification would be welcome for players and not met combatively, but I guess not.

    Anyways, on to other posts :)

  • @chris_henry Hear, hear!
    How hard is it to type a sentence on a goggle doc?

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 9
  • 7
  • 7
  • 7
  • 5
  • 2
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures