You can ignore the subs, but if Japan scrambles a fighter the subs can fight in the sea battle.
Russia Question
-
Leather. Look at it this way. I do see your point. Dont know if Rule apples to a sea zone. But if UK is at war with Germany and US is not at war with Germany but both allies navy is in same sea zone. Germany attacks UK only because US not at war with Germany so now Germany wins sea battle and now you have 2 countries in same sea zone that can look at each other.
I see your point with ground territory. But u are not really contesting Italy. You are contesting the territory. So basically you cannot Attack Italy alone because then you would have 2 countries controlling 1 territory. Yes your point is Germany should have to retreat. But they dont so you got to attack both for control of territory.
Been many complaints over the years with some rules conflict with one another and not clarify with updated rules.Ok to stay in same sea zone but not a land territory. Just right that in rules.
Or better yet Italy loses territory and icps but now nobody controls East Poland but now u force Germany to declare war if they want territory or leave or just do nothing and now force Russia to do something on there turn.
-
SS
Yeah…I mean how many bennies does Germany need as Russia keeps getting neutered?
My point to this thread is…this is NOT covered in the rule book
People are responding based on perception as am I…you say tomato I say thamato…lol
Those who wrote the rules probably never anticipated this happening
Just like Taranto Raid was probably never anticipated so the Italian set up is idiotic in my opinionAs stated by many, this game needs a deluxe edition as YG calls it (and I love the name) and a Global rule book of it’s own
-
Turn 1 no JDOW….US moves Philippines fleet into 54 with ANZAC fleet…ANZAC declare war turn 1…turn 2 Japanese attack SZ 54…but will only fight the ANZAC fleet not the combined fleet…it’s the same thing except on land
semantics on power and territory when it comes to East Poland
East Poland is a territory occupied by a combat won by Italians
Germany and Russia are Powers not at warRussian political situation says an Axis power (singular)
East Poland is Italian and at war with Italy German troops are only visitors…they have no significance to the territory
Russia is allowed to combat the ItaliansTheoretically Germany may allow Russians to stage in Romania so they can attack Yugoslavia because it became an Italian territory turn 1
Attacking a sea zone is not the same as attacking a territory – when you attack a territory, you attack everything in it. Therefore, in the example you’ve stated, Russia cannot attack East Poland without first declaring war on Germany.
Russia could attack just the Italian units in a sea zone, despite the presence of German naval units in the same sea zone. Let’s say for instance that Germany built a factory in Greece after conquering it and then built a naval unit in sea zone 99, and there was already an Italian unit in sea zone 99. In this case Russia could attack just the Italian units in sea zone 99 without declaring war on Germany (assuming it had naval or air units in position to do so).
Marsh
-
Turn 1 no JDOW….US moves Philippines fleet into 54 with ANZAC fleet…ANZAC declare war turn 1…turn 2 Japanese attack SZ 54…but will only fight the ANZAC fleet not the combined fleet…it’s the same thing except on land
semantics on power and territory when it comes to East Poland
East Poland is a territory occupied by a combat won by Italians
Germany and Russia are Powers not at warRussian political situation says an Axis power (singular)
East Poland is Italian and at war with Italy German troops are only visitors…they have no significance to the territory
Russia is allowed to combat the ItaliansTheoretically Germany may allow Russians to stage in Romania so they can attack Yugoslavia because it became an Italian territory turn 1
When discussing the part of the rule book that says that fleets can be selective in who they attack, you gloss over the point of the sentence above that says that on land, the rules are different. To quote the rule book:
Land combat, when there is a Neutral Army in the territory:
@Axis:Combat
A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.Naval combat, when there is a Neutral Navy in the sea zone:
@Axis:Combat
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 power’s units are ignored. Those units won’t participate in the battle in any way, and a state of war with that power will not result.Do you see the difference? When you Combat Move into a land territory that has an army neutral to your army (such is, in your example, the German Army is to the Red Army), you declare war on that neutral faction by the act of moving to attack that territory. At sea, in a sea zone, you can be selective whose fleet you attack. On land, in a land territory, you do not have that luxury and must either declare war in order to attack that territory or leave them alone. You can not legally combat move into a territory that has an army that is neutral to your army. You can’t ask a neutral German army to leave East Poland, because when you attacked East Poland you attacked the German Army, removing their neutrality.
What part of, “A power can’t attack a territory … containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.” (Axis & Allies Europe 1940, Second Edition, Rule Book, Page 15), is confusing to you?
-Midnight_Reaper
-
The quoted rules are very clear. It really is a well-written rulebook and is further supplemented by Krieg�s patient clarifications(although oftentimes unneeded if rulebook is read thoroughly).
Continuing to argue and create non-existent terms(�territory at war�) will only confuse yourself. You have the Official Answers response to show your friends which I assume was the goal.
Dislike it? House rule it. Simple.
-
Marsh
Seriously…what’s the difference between an attack on a sea zone or a territory?
They are both a combat move, no?Especially if the Sea zone is also an amphibious assault
I know this rule has to be agreed upon in a game by all parties because there is no verbiage and all answers in this thread and my question is all based on peception
-
My point to this thread is….this is NOT covered in the rule book
Yes, it is, and Midnight_Reaper and P@nther have quoted the relevant rules.
People are responding based on perception as am I….you say tomato I say thamato…lol
People are responding based on the rules.
Those who wrote the rules probably never anticipated this happening
Yes, we did.
Seriously…what’s the difference between an attack on a sea zone or a territory?
They are both a combat move, no?One is on land and the other is at sea, and the rules clearly explain the difference between the two.
-
Roger that Kreghund
I am going to let the cat out of the bag now
This thread is 3 fold
before I start this occurred in one of my games at YG’s tournament and General Hand grenade told us the rule, so I knew the rule
Desert Admiral and I spoke today and wanted clarification and since I had the time I posted this…
Before posting I realized since I am giving my opinions to Young Grasshopper for his deluxe edition game, that rules need to be black and white…not having to go to this section or that section to find technicalities
3rd Siredblood and I are close friends as well so to help his tournament this would benefit him as well…in fact been talking to Siredblood all day about this…I am also giving opinions and suggestions for his tournament…ie the Cavalry units and lend lease to China which will be a rule in the tournament and a few more concepts as well
Siredblood is making a card for this rule as well
hopefully those who have struggled with this strategy, now they are clear
I stand by my feelings that the rules do not clearly answer this scenario properly and perception is what drives what can and can not be done. I read this totally different than what Kreighund states…not arguing with him but I can rebuttal the heck out of it. Reason is technicalities…you have to go to different sections of the rule book to get the answer for a scenario that rules you look at are vastly different.
Logic is easy Russia gets attacked they have every right to get that territory back and rule states Russia may declare war against an Axis power…Singular so both Germans and Russians did not declare war the Germans become insignificant.
Easy fix is any Germans in Russian territories while not at war negates the 5 IPC Bonus that Germany is due
-
Germany already gets many bennies
Why does Russia not get 5 IPC bonus for the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact since Russia supplied the oil to the German war machine
Why can Russia not attack Finland if Finland was not taken over by Germany?
Things like that is things that make the Allies very difficult to play against very good Axis players
Trust me my games I have a ton of house rules
-
Russia is a very broken power in this game, UK Navy and Italy too in my opinion and my opinion only
-
Is this situation not similar to the Flying Tiger (Ch FTR)seeking refuge in Burma.
It has always been that Japan could not attack Burma , only pursuing the plane. It automatically means a DOW on UK India. -
In fact Russian and Germans are actually friendly Neutrals in this scenario
If North Korea attacked and occupied Alaska then 2 days later China moved in 100,000 troops would that be an act of war against the United States from China? The answer is yes. IMO it is an illegal move by Germany unless they declare war.
-
Locke….I agree with you…It should be an illegal move officially
this is a completely illogical rule/technicality…I call it a gimmick
-
I just play tested this on tripleA and in fact I only had to battle the Italian units and Germany and Russia were in same territory co occupying after the Russian victory
…… TripleA is handling this situation incorrectly.
Indeed, but TripleA developers and map-creators are aware of that and have informed the users about this issue in the game notes:
@game:
Rules specific to 1940 the engine does not do, but you must follow:
…
(PE) You may not attack a territory containing units owned by a nation that you are not at war with (even if the territory is owned by someone you are at war with).Or in other words: Russia - being not at war with Germany - may not attack Italian owned East-Poland containing units owned by Germany.
-
Roger that Kreghund
I am going to let the cat out of the bag now
This thread is 3 fold
before I start this occurred in one of my games at YG’s tournament and General Hand grenade told us the rule, so I knew the rule
Desert Admiral and I spoke today and wanted clarification and since I had the time I posted this…
Before posting I realized since I am giving my opinions to Young Grasshopper for his deluxe edition game, that rules need to be black and white…not having to go to this section or that section to find technicalities
3rd Siredblood and I are close friends as well so to help his tournament this would benefit him as well…in fact been talking to Siredblood all day about this…I am also giving opinions and suggestions for his tournament…ie the Cavalry units and lend lease to China which will be a rule in the tournament and a few more concepts as well
Siredblood is making a card for this rule as well
hopefully those who have struggled with this strategy, now they are clear
I stand by my feelings that the rules do not clearly answer this scenario properly and perception is what drives what can and can not be done. I read this totally different than what Kreighund states…not arguing with him but I can rebuttal the heck out of it. Reason is technicalities…you have to go to different sections of the rule book to get the answer for a scenario that rules you look at are vastly different.
Logic is easy Russia gets attacked they have every right to get that territory back and rule states Russia may declare war against an Axis power…Singular so both Germans and Russians did not declare war the Germans become insignificant.
Easy fix is any Germans in Russian territories while not at war negates the 5 IPC Bonus that Germany is due
You can allways check out the Balanced Mod. here on triple a.
It is fixed there.
Also NO wise, Russia is served well with NO bonuses and are more fun to play.I think all the peoples gave their best to explain it in the best manner.
Why so serious?!?
Have a great day !
-
aequitas et veritas
Good morning……lol I love that line from the Joker in the Batman move…“Why so serious”
Have a great day as well
-
Roger that Kreghund
I am going to let the cat out of the bag now
This thread is 3 fold
before I start this occurred in one of my games at YG’s tournament and General Hand grenade�  told us the rule, so I knew the rule
Desert Admiral and I spoke today and wanted clarification and since I had the time I posted this…
Before posting I realized since I am giving my opinions to Young Grasshopper for his deluxe edition game, that rules need to be black and white…not having to go to this section or that section to find technicalities
3rd Siredblood and I are close friends as well so to help his tournament this would benefit him as well…in fact been talking to Siredblood all day about this…I am also giving opinions and suggestions for his tournament…ie the Cavalry units and lend lease to China which will be a rule in the tournament and a few more concepts as well
Siredblood is making a card for this rule as well
hopefully those who have struggled with this strategy, now they are clear
I stand by my feelings that the rules do not clearly answer this scenario properly and perception is what drives what can and can not be done. I read this totally different than what Kreighund states…not arguing with him but I can rebuttal the heck out of it. Reason is technicalities…you have to go to different sections of the rule book to get the answer for a scenario that rules you look at are vastly different.
Logic is easy Russia gets attacked they have every right to get that territory back and rule states Russia may declare war against an Axis power…Singular so both Germans and Russians did not declare war the Germans become insignificant.
Easy fix is any Germans in Russian territories while not at war negates the 5 IPC Bonus that Germany is due
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. We agree to disagree.
-
Thanks all. I appreciate the discussion! I’ve played that way where Russia would have to attack both Italy and Germany and then doubted myself especially when Triple didn’t handle it correctly. I know that Triple A isn’t perfect and that the players are still expected to play by the Rule Book.
I’m thinking about a house rule where the countries I play all get a +5 IPC bonus every round and my enemies get -5!
:evil:
-
If U.K. takes Norway can a “neutral towards Germany” USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is “neutral towards Russia” be able to put units in originally Russian territory?No way this should be allowed. What’s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?
-
If U.K. takes Norway can a �neutral towards Germany� USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is �neutral towards Russia� be able to put units in originally Russian territory?No way this should be allowed. What�s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?
Yes
Zombies
A6 +1 if wearing a Bennie with prop
D6
C6
M6
FS 2
RB twice
Suggested Topics
