@thrasher1

No, it would mean half then half of half, if you moved the same stack.

My point was that some can be applied separately and cleanly (the zombie moves) while others would appear to overlap (giving you 3 or more units for liberating a zombie territory). That’s it. And I think you should get the 3 units because if it was $3 for removing a zombie, you’d get to remove up to 2. If it was replacing an zombie with an infantry, you’d get to replace up to 2 zombies with 2 infantry. Not replacing 2 zombies with 1 infantry, or removing 1 zombie and getting $6.

@captain-walker Its fun to see someone rummaging through that turret basket, its a distinct feature of early german tanks when you make the models, I believe Pzkw II has a similarly shaped basket. And of course, radiator and fan covers, license plate lights etc. were all designed in that peculiar german way that you only notice when you operate a miniature tank assembly factory.

At least under “Phase 1, Play a Zombie Card”, it doesn’t directly speak to this. However, I say they do stack; my logic is–if you got two different cards, you’d get both of those bonuses, so why should a player that draws two identical cards of a certain type get shorted by that and only get 1 instance of the effect. Many of the effects can be applied separately (move two half stacks of zombies), you could partially move the same stack twice, or move two stacks into the same zone, applying the card text by completely resolving 1 card, then the next. For the cards that cannot clearly be applied separately/discreetly, I think they should stack in effect to avoid shorting that player a substantial benefit of his draws wherein other permutations, both (or more, with more escalations) can be applied + resolved without controversy.

@snurkert

Running short on water eh? We will send you some tanks. Of water–of course.

The World Wonders!

smashing his planes is an easy kill, good tuv trade…unless he can wreck your fleet on his turn

1 BB 2 CA 1 DD 1 SUB 2 TT isn’t a huge navy. Even if Italy gets as much money as possible, and invests it in more navy, it still won’t be much more than a roadblock in the US’ way, if he’s headed to the Med.

Still, that $$ is better than nothing. Ideally, all of the extra non-NO money would go to Germany, but in most games, Germany is really busy in the early game and Italy can snatch alot of the extra money from territory income.

If its not building a can-opener force of tanks, and its not building a navy, what good is it (see below)???

During a KJF, you can just go wild on the $. Take all the oil. Take the 3/4 bonus by grabbing Egypt. If America isn’t coming, then taking Gibraltar or knocking that fleet down may give you more turns of clear med, but one of the most effective things to do (besides the can opener) is to prevent the Iraq/Persia complexes from being built early and making Cairo an easy VC. Or, build a sweet can opener (2 tanks to start, 1 rescued from Africa, 10 more mechs and tanks built on the first 3 turns). Or heck, try to do both but you dont have the $$ to fuel extra transports, the can opener, and a garrison force.

In a KGF game, North africa is lost and the fleet is usually trapped. Navy is not a good move, USA will demolish it. In these games, I buy a mix of infantry and fighters, to protect germany, the atlantik wall, and counterattack. Italy takes over a garrison role.

Don’t bother with the French North Africa bonus. Its a trap.
In the KGF, may want to evacuate Africa more or less completely, because, well…its a trap. Income you take from the french ends up become USA income so that’s not a good use of your efforts.
Break the UK bonus early, and if you do it by taking (Cyprus best, Malta next, then Alex, Cairo, Gib, Trans) a territory they can’t retake, thats even better.
All things being equal, UK can easily hold Africa (if you dont threaten London and you only kept 1 TT) Keeping a navy makes this less certain, though you will face 3xTanks each round coming up from Africa in the absence of a SL threat

GL HF

Sorry sir, thats a no. From the 1970s to today, there have just been so many games and molds…a game expert grog will have to identify what game or set of eldritch arcane lore these came from

Either put some chips under em, or grab proxies out of another set.

Of course. In some early editions pieces were limited to what was in the box. NO MORE. If you add extra pieces or custom ones, you can have TEN (10) German ACs.

Except in Classic. Or maybe thats wrong.

Heading back up to your logic up above–its not “units that can (in some situations) retreat”. It is units in this situation that can retreat (attacking tts yes defending ones no). That rule is written as it is to cover the situations where submerged subs, unhittable units (subs vs planes) or amphibious assaults where some units can retreat and others cant.

As a lawyer–I get what you’re trying to do and say that the rule doesn’t say what its supposed to say. As Krieg points out, that’s up for debate. Many lawsuits are about this kind of thing.

But that’s not because its dogma Canon law its because the other outcome is insensible, contradictory, gamey, requires a tortured reading of the language devised over multiple editions and revisons of the game to try and cover so many different situations.

there is no such thing as a perfect document try to write one