@the_good_captain They are inactive, since, per the FAQ, original Russian territories that are controlled by the Central Powers at the time of the armistice are considered to have no original controller for the remainder of the game.
Minefields question
-
@Krieghund What happens to a minefield when the corresponding territory is captured by an enemy power? Does it become inactive?
-
@The_Good_Captain Yes. See page 17 of the Renegade Rulebook.
-
@Krieghund Note that since the relevant rule stipulates “While the naval base is under the CONTROL (my emphasis) of either its original controller or another power on the same side (see “Sea Zones”, page 11)…” this means that mines are also inactive when the territory is contested, correct?
-
@Eqqman Not necessarily. The quoted rule references control of the naval base, not the territory. From page 11 of the rulebook:
If the territory is contested, the naval base is controlled by the power that originally controlled the territory (unless its capital is controlled by the enemy, in which case no one controls it).
-
@Krieghund Interesting, I would take that as one of the rare cases where the original rules were more clear on this point, as they specified controlled or contested.
-
To be clear, if say the Germans controlled Brest, the minefield in sea zone 15 isn’t just deactivated, but becomes a German minefield, right? Thank you!
-
@Eqqman said in Minefields question:
@Krieghund Interesting, I would take that as one of the rare cases where the original rules were more clear on this point, as they specified controlled or contested.
It’s not that simple, as seen in the rule I quoted. The control of a naval base in a contested territory depends upon more than the status of the territory itself.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Minefields question:
To be clear, if say the Germans controlled Brest, the minefield in sea zone 15 isn’t just deactivated, but becomes a German minefield, right? Thank you!
No. A minefield can be active only for the side of the original controller, and never for a power on the other side.
-
Oh beep I’ve been playing it wrong this entire time [cries realizing that all prior games are essentially invalid experience].
-
@Krieghund said in Minefields question:
If the territory is contested, the naval base is controlled by the power that originally controlled the territory (unless its capital is controlled by the enemy, in which case no one controls it).
That sentence makes it sound as if, for example, Karelia was controlled by the CPs, but then the Entente move in and contest it, that the mines are back, even though the territory itself never passed back into Entente control.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Minefields question:
Oh beep I’ve been playing it wrong this entire time [cries realizing that all prior games are essentially invalid experience].
Barring your experiences with other players, I don’t believe this is terribly interesting in terms of affect on the game. Excepting extraneous events, it means the Germans need to garrison Karelia/Finland with a few extra pieces than they otherwise would “normally”. I really don’t see much adverse influence outside of that - certainly nothing that makes your “prior games essentially invalid.”
-
@Eqqman said in Minefields question:
That sentence makes it sound as if, for example, Karelia was controlled by the CPs, but then the Entente move in and contest it, that the mines are back, even though the territory itself never passed back into Entente control.
That’s correct.
-
@Krieghund said in Minefields question:
@Eqqman said in Minefields question:
That sentence makes it sound as if, for example, Karelia was controlled by the CPs, but then the Entente move in and contest it, that the mines are back, even though the territory itself never passed back into Entente control.
That’s correct.
I see. In that case I stand by my opinion that the original statement of the rule is preferable as it is more clear what happens, even if players may not realize why it happens regarding the additional quirks with Naval Bases. YMMV.
-
@Eqqman It did, however, have the distinct disadvantage of not being entirely correct, as it did not cover the circumstance of the original controller’s capital being enemy-held. This is why it was adjusted in the errata, and later in the new rulebook.
-
Phew. Thank you for the advice.
Suggested Topics
