@insanehoshi Thanks for clarification.
Vichy rolls
-
Nope I absolutely disagree with Grenade on this. Once again, I am going to beat this dead horse until it gets into the head of the people who wrote the rule book. If you wanted the player to auto move French ships converted to Japanese/German, you would of put it in the rule book. You didn’t, you used the term “sail”. My group basically requires these ships are untouchable by the enemy until they A: return to the new owners home port or B: they engaged in combat and as result, removed their French flag shield.
-
@caesar-seriona I agree with you and we play almost the same way, but we do not give the Axis the option to remove the French flag until they reach home port and they can also be attacked by Free France since they are at war.
In the current rules, the word “sail” does not make sense for teleportation and neither does “once per game (or immediately)” for passing enemy ships. If the other interpretation is the correct one, then the rules should simply say:
“Once all the naval units on the board have been reassigned, the Axis players can decide to relocate any or all of their converted ships to their Home Country by placing them immediately in sea zones 13 or 15 (for Germany) and sea zones 38 or 56 (for Japan). Ignore all normal movement restrictions.”
That means what it says and says what it means.
-
@noneshallpass said in Vichy rolls:
“Once all the naval units on the board have been reassigned, the Axis players can decide to relocate any or all of their converted ships to their Home Country by placing them immediately in sea zones 13 or 15 (for Germany) and sea zones 38 or 56 (for Japan). Ignore all normal movement restrictions.”
That means what it says and says what it means.
I second this.
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast 3rd. Should specify which sea zones to teleport to, if that was the case.
-
Players who are new to the game in Version 3 and didn’t learn to play in Version 2 might not understand the significance of this rule. In Version 2 what the French player would do is sail their ships off to the ends of the earth so that the German player would, if they managed to acquire some of them, have to sail them all of the way home and be sunk along the way. The change in rules in V-3 was to do away with the means by which a player would mess around and do something that is unrealistic like sailing his navy to the middle of nowhere just so they could game the opposition. Realistically, the French had no idea that they were about to get steamrolled by Germany and would never have considered sailing their navy away to keep them out of the hands of the Germans if they “rolled” the wrong way. This problem was fixed by allowing the Germans and Vichy to simply move their newly acquired ships to their home countries. It no longer made any sense to sail the French ships somewhere they don’t belong.
There is no need to list the sea zones they can move to because it is already clearly stated where they can move. You can change the rules if you want to and make them sail their way back to their home countries like they had to in Version 2, but just know that at this point you are playing by house rules and not the official rules. There’s nothing wrong with that as you and your friends are free to make up any rules you like. If you’re the French player don’t forget to sail all of your ships to Tasmania or the Bering Sea beginning on turn 1 though. You know, like France did historically.
-
@GeneralHandGrenade, I think that everyone on this forum is trying to play by the rules as they are written, but in this case the wording simply does not match what you say is the correct interpretation. Your explanations are clear but the rules are not. They should either clarify them or add it to the FAQ.
-
@noneshallpass Don’t bother. That’s the message I’ve been beaten into people both on these forums and on the Facebook page for Axis and Allies. I do not care at the end of the day what the rules says, if the rules says X players must do Y task. I’ll do it because it’s the rules. The fuc$ing problem is that who ever wrote the damn rules book are either refusing to word the rules exactly as it needs to be are too stupid to do it and try to justify using “historical context” to clarify a rule when I can take apart 1936 rules and regulations on $hit that ISN’T HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. So we have rules that are not following history and yet are being justified “well if it doesn’t make sense, use historical context”. I will use an obvious fake rule as am example of what I’ve personally been deal with.
“when France surrenders, the Béarn cannot go Vichy or German” Okay, you read that and go it makes sense to me. In someone else’s game, they get a situation where they might encounter a possible reason it might go Japanese but the rule does not clarify exactly if this is legal so they will ask if it can.
The reasons to a situation like this is that use historical context on what to do with the Béarn.
Well in real life, the Béarn sailed to the United States and surrendered. It did not answer the question but that’s the answer you’re getting.
-
Ouch! Guys, let’s dial it down a little. Even if we disagree, we can treat each other with respect. I get feeling frustrated. We don’t have to tear into one another. We have a small community and I’d like to see it grow.
Remember, there’s nothing stopping people from house ruling whatever they want. That’s the way I’m handling this rule for now. Maybe it will change to exactly what Noneshallpass has suggested. Maybe it will be similar to what Noneshall pass has suggested, minus the specific sea zones (the General Hand Grenade version of the rule). Or, maybe the rule will be like Caesar-Seriona suggests, where they fly a French flag and maintain their movement range and can move turn after turn across the map until they engage in combat or reach the new owner’s home port.
No one’s holding a tournament so we can play with our own interpretation for now. I do agree this merits a FAQ discussion and perhaps an example added to the rulebook.
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast But that’s the problem with the rules. The entire community is frustrated with the response we’re getting about the rules to the point that the solution has been house rules which is fine but the problem with that is if a game is reduce to house rules, then it isn’t the game that is intended. I want this game to be successful to the point that a tournament can happen but that means that the rules need to be purged and clarified. The rule book in the nicest way I can say is a complete and udder Charlie Foxtrot.
-
I don’t know how much experience you have with rules editing, but it can be an arduous process. Let’s say you feel the Victory Points aren’t currently working right. Changing that might require a lot of testing. I’ve seen some games where they change the rules too frequently. That can be a nightmare because some people have the rules from 6 months ago and didn’t realize they changed 3 months ago. I used to play a game called Star Fleet Battles and if you had a question about the rules, you’d have to look up the rules, then look in multiple other places (like the back of the Annual magazine for the last several years) to see if there errata for that specific rule.
I would like to see the design team act slowly and deliberately when changing the rules or issuing errata. However, if they have a clear understanding of how they feel the rules should be interpreted, then I would encourage them to be more speedy in updating the FAQ. The fact they are hesitating on the Vichy Rolls signals they might be worried about the potential for players to game them and want to get it right. We don’t need to resort to calling the designers “too stupid” to word the rules exactly as they should be. I like Noneshallpass’s approach, which is to actually outright suggest the wording of the rules.
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast looks like the Eratta has been updated now to reflect the topic of choice here.
-
Yes, the Vichy National Reference Sheet now reads (according to the Errata) :
“The Axis players can decide to let some or all of its newly acquired ships sail to their Home Country under the French Flag. Thus, they can pass any ships belonging to a nation they are at war with. independent on which sea zone they are in, they can make this move in one turn. This must be decided after the rolling has ended.”
I guess that closes this topic.
-
@caesar-seriona said in Vichy rolls:
@hbg-gw-enthusiast But that’s the problem with the rules. The entire community is frustrated with the response we’re getting about the rules to the point that the solution has been house rules which is fine but the problem with that is if a game is reduce to house rules, then it isn’t the game that is intended. I want this game to be successful to the point that a tournament can happen but that means that the rules need to be purged and clarified. The rule book in the nicest way I can say is a complete and udder Charlie Foxtrot.
We put the rules out to the community long before the rule book was written so that everyone could ask for clarifications and to point out any discrepancies. We understood as well that previous versions of the rules were hard to follow so we gave the entire community a say in what went into the rule book. For you to start whining after the fact that the whole rule set is wrong is beyond disingenuous. You had your opportunity to speak up then but you chose instead to wait until after the rule book was published so you could make yourself look like a crusading hero out to right all of the wrongs visited upon your community.
We’re still listening to all of the feedback and making changes as we can. You can provide that feedback while at the same time being respectful of the people who volunteer to take this responsibility on (no, we don’t get paid we do it for the love of the game) or you can continue to act as though you alone have all of the answers and the entire community should bow to your brilliance. We take everyone’s comments into consideration and don’t put any more or less relevance on yours no matter how you conduct yourself.
To everyone else who ask questions and seek clarifications, we thank you for your patience and your input. Your love of the game and passion is the same as ours and drives us to further the entire community’s efforts to create the best WW 2 game in the world. It takes years and a number of versions of any complex game to get it perfected. I’ve had a sneak peak at the next version coming out in a few years and I can attest to the fact that this game will get even better than it is now.
I know I’ve been promising you all that I would create a video rule book to help clarify the game but I’m having some serious health issues and I’ve just found out that they won’t be resolved. It took me a whole week to make my last video when I used to do it in a few hours. I will start this week on that video series though and I hope that will help clear some things up in regards to the rules.
-
@generalhandgrenade I want to make things clear that I am not hostile to you as a person.
What I am specifically annoyed about is that if you want a rule to say X task requires Y result for Z situation. Then the rule must be written as 1+1=2.
What I’ve been seeing lately with a question about a situation that is confusing and need clarification is explaining what the “intended result” is and how to act in response hence you’re giving a subjective answer to what should be an objective rule.
Example of an answer you gave to me that reflect this problem is what I asked about how to handle Free France home country and how Vichy has the ability to kick out the Allies by walking into Free French zones
UK landed in Aquitaine, next to Vichy France. The page for Free France says, “Considers Paris and surrounding land zones as Home Country as long as they are Allied-possessed.”
If you read this objectively, any player with a double digit IQ knows by the wording this means that Aquitaine is there for Free French home territory. I pointed out that if the Allies get careless in this situation, Vichy can push them out making it Vichy, then if they land in the territory just north of it, Vichy can then push them out, and if the Allies land east of that, Vichy now just shielded Paris outright from the Allies forcing them to either declare war of Vichy or land in the Low Countries.
You’re response to this problem I put out was a historical view on how Free France was during WWII. Then you said the rules say that these territories in fact do not belong to Free France but France. IE France and Free France are two different nations with two different rules and that Aquitaine there for does not get liberated for Free France but is now controlled by UK and then you pointed out that this is in the FAQ.
Now here is the problem I have with how you handled my question.
Instead of the song and dance of telling me the historical view of Free France. Wouldn’t it be better of the Free French home country just said, “Free France does not have a Home Country”?
That would of been an objective statement and we the players would of 100% know how to handle the rule.
The rule book has a bunch of rules written exactly like this:
A: here is how the rule is written.
B: we have a situation that the rule doesn’t objectively explain because we found a situation unknown.
C; the rule doesn’t explain how to handle it.
D; Let’s ask how to handle it.
E: “take a historical context and/or use logic and reason”
F: Well I know there is rules in this game that violate historical context and logic and reason
G: “well if you don’t like it house rule it”Subjective rules with subjective response to a board game who’s rules are supposed to be objective.
-
If you read this objectively, any player with a double digit IQ knows by the wording this means that Aquitaine is there for Free French home territory. I pointed out that if the Allies get careless in this situation, Vichy can push them out making it Vichy, then if they land in the territory just north of it, Vichy can then push them out, and if the Allies land east of that, Vichy now just shielded Paris outright from the Allies forcing them to either declare war of Vichy or land in the Low Countries.
Why is this a problem? Just DoW on Vichy.
Furthermore, I don’t see how Vichy can even attack allied units and thus “Push them out” since Vichy can only ever attack free france. You may be referring to the " 14.4.5 Internal French Conflict Vichy Conflict" reference on their Vichy Reference Sheet. But considering that 14.4.5 does no longer exist in the rulebook, odds are this is simply out of date.
Even then, its fairly clear that Rules as Intended (RAI) is that Vichy arnt allowed to show up it aquitaine, wave a piece of paper at the landing nations, and force them back to England; Why would anyone try to argue that this is the correct way to play the game?
-
There are many legitimate questions about the rules that may arise even in different situations, even when a lot of effort went into drafting, play-testing and proof reading the rules. I have played almost 20 times since I got this game and we got at least one thing wrong every single time.
Sometimes a question is covered by the rules, but the person asking the question simply missed it or misread it. There are a lot of questions in this forum that can be answered by simply pointing out the relevant rules.
Sometimes a rule is subject to more than one interpretation as written, but the context and the other rules will guide us to the correct interpretation. This is a good category of questions to put in the FAQ.
Sometimes the rules contradict themselved or may even appear very clear to some, but following them goes against what the game creators intended. It’s almost impossible to figure this out by yourself as a player unless you have access to the creators of the game to discuss it. This is when the rules need to be changed or clarified in the Errata, pending updated versions of the rulebook or reference sheets.
@manincellv’s original question was a good one and spaked a good debate but has now been aswered by the updated Errata.
I do agree that “well historically such and such happened” is not really the best argument to explain the rules , especially if the historical explanation appears to contradict the game rules. Historical context can be instructive to put some rules in context, but not to rewrite them.
That being said, this forum is a great place to ask any questions that we have about the rules and obviously the creators are paying some attention since most debated questions so far have been answered either in the FAQ or Errata. Let’s keep it that way.
-
@insanehoshi said in Vichy rolls:
If you read this objectively, any player with a double digit IQ knows by the wording this means that Aquitaine is there for Free French home territory. I pointed out that if the Allies get careless in this situation, Vichy can push them out making it Vichy, then if they land in the territory just north of it, Vichy can then push them out, and if the Allies land east of that, Vichy now just shielded Paris outright from the Allies forcing them to either declare war of Vichy or land in the Low Countries.
Why is this a problem? Just DoW on Vichy.
Furthermore, I don’t see how Vichy can even attack allied units and thus “Push them out” since Vichy can only ever attack free france. You may be referring to the " 14.4.5 Internal French Conflict Vichy Conflict" reference on their Vichy Reference Sheet. But considering that 14.4.5 does no longer exist in the rulebook, odds are this is simply out of date.
Even then, its fairly clear that Rules as Intended (RAI) is that Vichy arnt allowed to show up it aquitaine, wave a piece of paper at the landing nations, and force them back to England; Why would anyone try to argue that this is the correct way to play the game?
Thank you for pointing out that 14.4.5 has been removed from the rulebook. As that section contained important information, was it relocated or clarified elsewhere? How is Vichy, attacking a French territory containing Allied units, now supposed to be handled?
Suggested Topics
