Ok thanks,
so then if the carrier is damaged or destroyed then plane is awarded 1 space to find a suitable landing space else lost?
That’s correct.
RULE CLARIFICATION: Italy DOWs Moves to E. Poland - Germany Moves Doesn't DOW
-
Those islands are not separate territories, thus you can’t build air bases on them.
Europe rulebook page 8, under the Islands header: “Each territory has a separate name and emblem on it.” -
In addition:
“Only one facility of each type (industrial complex, air base, and naval base) may exist in each territory.”
page 27 Europe rulesThe rules have no wiggle room on this particular point.
-
I thought I was right.
But here is my next question, if Russia doesn’t DOW on Germany, can it attack the lone Italian tank and reclaim e. Poland while co-locating with other German troops?
Kind of like subs from opposing nations, but not yet at war occupying the same sea zone. Gamism comparison here, not real life (don’t @ me that sea zone represent thousands of square nautical miles…ect).
-
No. If Russia attacks East Poland, they have to declare war on Germany and attack the combined force.
-
Thanks everyone for the rule clarifications and the link to where Krieghund already answered this!
-
Good question Ichabod
-
Yes it’s a really good question, Ichabod. I’m going to add this one to my “Know the Rules” video series.
My apologies leatherneckinlv for being short with you. It honestly is written differently in both rule books. I don’t take the Political Situations from the Pacific or Europe sections of the rule books, I get them from the Global rules contained in both. You would think they would both say the same thing but they don’t. I will show both rule books in my video and you can see the difference. Now that I know that I will be sure to check both books first before I try to interpret a rule.
As far as the island question, Simon’s post at the top of this page shows clearly that you can’t place units on those empty land spaces that aren’t labeled. Even if you could make the argument that an airbase wasn’t a unit and place one there, you wouldn’t be able to land any planes (they are units) there and it would be a waste of 15 IPC.
-
As far as the island question, Simon’s post at the top of this page shows clearly that you can’t place units on those empty land spaces that aren’t labeled. Even if you could make the argument that an airbase wasn’t a unit and place one there, you wouldn’t be able to land any planes (they are units) there and it would be a waste of 15 IPC.
That’s a great (and amusing) point there. Naval base could work or at least you could fire rockets if you had that tech.
Anyway, I’m sure that the intended rules aren’t in doubt now.
-
How do you figure that shadow hawk? I totally disagree with you
Now question to all…situations like this how do youse resolve it during a game?
In these kind of situations mid game, and the person that I am playing against disagrees and or I disagree with him, we roll for it. Usually 123 it sticks 456 it is no good.
-
How do you figure that shadow hawk? I totally disagree with you
Now question to all…situations like this how do youse resolve it during a game?
In these kind of situations mid game, and the person that I am playing against disagrees and or I disagree with him, we roll for it. Usually 123 it sticks 456 it is no good.
That’s fine for you guys but I got to have the correct rule. :wink:
-
You can also look at “Declaring War” on page 12 of the European rule book where it specifically says… “if Germany declares war on the United States, the United States is immediately at war with Germany, but it must wait until its turn to declare war on Italy.” In this situation the Soviet Union would need to wait to declare war on Germany until its following turn, meaning Germany is not at war and does not declare war on the Soviet Union on its turn, thus gaining the 5 IPC bonus. Germany moving units into an Italian controlled territory does not constitute a state of war between them and the Soviet Union. This is backed by the fact that the Soviet Union is no longer considered a neutral power.
I do not agree with this, and I will not be playing the game this way, however I do believe that if you are the type to go word for word, then I couldn’t disagree with you. I feel that it doesn’t violate the rules of the game but it violates the spirit of the game. -
Why Germany can move units into an Italian controlled East-Poland and collect the NO for not being at war with Russia:
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where Units Can Move
Land Units: A land unit can move into any friendly or
friendly neutral territory, including territories that were
captured in the current turn. It can’t move into or through
a hostile territory (not even one that contains no combat
units but is enemy-controlled) or an unfriendly neutral
or strict neutral territory. If your power isn’t at war, you
can’t move your units into territories belonging to another
friendly power or a friendly neutral.or
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where Units Can Move
Land Units: A land unit can move into any friendly or friendly
neutral territory, including territories that were captured in the
current turn. It can’t move into or through a hostile territory
(not even one that contains no combat units but is enemy-
controlled) or an unfriendly neutral or strict neutral territory.Germany is at war (with England …), the territory in question is friendly, because it is Italian. Italy is at war with Russia, but Germany isn’t. So Germany collects the extra income.
The rules concerning a neutral Russia do not apply, as Russia, being at war with Italy, is no longer neutral - not being at war with Germany, as ShadowHAwk correctly pointed out.
-
@P@nther:
Why Germany can move units into an Italian controlled East-Poland and collect the NO for not being at war with Russia:
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where Units Can Move
Land Units: A land unit can move into any friendly or
friendly neutral territory, including territories that were
captured in the current turn. It can’t move into or through
a hostile territory (not even one that contains no combat
units but is enemy-controlled) or an unfriendly neutral
or strict neutral territory. If your power isn’t at war, you
can’t move your units into territories belonging to another
friendly power or a friendly neutral.or
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where Units Can Move
Land Units: A land unit can move into any friendly or friendly
neutral territory, including territories that were captured in the
current turn. It can’t move into or through a hostile territory
(not even one that contains no combat units but is enemy-
controlled) or an unfriendly neutral or strict neutral territory.Germany is at war (with England …), the territory in question is friendly, because it is Italian. Italy is at war with Russia, but Germany isn’t. So Germany collects the extra income.
The rules concerning a neutral Russia do not apply, as Russia, being at war with Italy, is no longer neutral - not being at war with Germany, as ShadowHAwk correctly pointed out.
Thanks P@nther
-
Yes thank you Panther. You gave the best clarification of the rule that made it easy to understand.
Here is the video that I made. You might find the rule book discrepancy interesting and informative;
https://youtu.be/7sHeisB8kUQ -
I have also found that Russia would have to declare war on Germany when it became their turn in order to attack the territory that Italy owned. If Russia does not declare war on Germany, they cannot attack the territory that contains both German and Italian movements. This can be found on page 15 of the Europe rule book under “Powers Not at War with One Another.” It specifically says “A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war. If a power at war attacks a sea zone containing units belonging to both a power with which it’s already at war and a power with which it’s not at war, the latter powers units are ignored.”
So as you can see, without a declaration of war by the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union cannot attack any territory containing German units with the exception of sea zones. This would also open the door for a deeper push into Soviet territories on the following turn by both Italian and German units, in which Germany would then again collect 5 IPC bonus for not being at war with the Soviet Union. This makes it extremely important for the Soviet player to declare war on Germany ASAP. -
Yes thank you Panther. You gave the best clarification of the rule that made it easy to understand.
Here is the video that I made. You might find the rule book discrepancy interesting and informative;
https://youtu.be/7sHeisB8kUQ@GeneralHandGrenade
Interesting video, well elaborated. Thanks.@all
Please be sure to have the latest rulesets to avoid misunderstandings as described in the video, please see
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.msg1540640#msg1540640
and
http://avalonhill.wizards.com/rules -
You might find the rule book discrepancy interesting and informative;
There is actually no discrepancy between the two rulebooks on this point. As P@nther pointed out, the rule you quoted earlier from the Pacific rulebook applies only to the United States while it is neutral (it’s the only power that can be in that game). The same restrictions apply to neutral powers in the Europe game (see page 15 of the Europe rulebook). Since the USSR is no longer neutral in the case in question (being at war with Italy), the rule you quoted doesn’t apply.
By the way, I noticed in your video that you used the term “neutral with Germany” as regards to the USSR. This is incorrect, as “neutral” is actually an absolute term which means that a power is not at war with anyone. In the situation we’re discussing here, the USSR is at war with Italy and not at war with Germany. It is no longer neutral because it’s at war with at least one power, so any rule regarding neutrality no longer applies to it, even in relation to power with which it’s not yet at war. (The situation is a bit more complicated with the USSR, as it’s in the unique position of being able to remain neutral on one side of the map while no longer being neutral on the other, but the general principle still applies on each map.) Viewing the situation in this light may make things more clear.
-
Thank you for the clarification, Krieghund. I see what you mean by that now.
-
Great discussion, thanks everyone.
-
I agree with YG. I myself learned two important things today:
-
that this italian can opener into Russia is legal
-
thanks to GHG’s youtube contribution that I should definitely check the FAQ on the forums as I have two first print second edition rule books
-
Suggested Topics
