2016 League General Discussion Thread

[axis-dominion]

never mind, make that only 2 SL games, roboto declined my invitations haha

well i think it’ll be interesting to test SL out in the mod version, see where it takes us. i find SL games particularly fun

@Adam514:

@axis-dominion:

and just like that, i’m finding myself confronted with 3 sea lion games in BM……it’s as if BM is out to prove something  :lol:

It might have something to do with your greedy UK1s  :lol:.

[regularkid]

@Shin:

I’ve been doing it more in Balanced Mod games too.

Maybe it’s because without a bid, Italy’s navy sticks around?

If sealion seems more attractive, it may be because Germany’s other options are not necessarily as slam dunk as they once were. Also, J1DOW is not as overpowered. Also, Axis Dominion’s UK is a greedy mofo and had it coming!

[MrRoboto]

No bids means danger for Cairo, serious danger.

Maybe many Balanced mod Allies player are investing too much to strengthen the position in Africa / Middle East, which makes Sealion very attractive

[regularkid]

actually, I think the Axis Dominion game will be my first League BM game involving a sealion. . .

[majikforce]

Can anybody remind me how to roll dice in the forum?  Thanks

[MrRoboto]

It’s for example

“:“aaa 1@2 8@3 9@4”:”

(Without the " of course)

[Giallo]

Question regarding the pro alleis. If Germany wants to pass trough Northwest Persia. It has to conquer it and next turn they can move on right. At the start of Germany’s turn nwp is still pro allies. So they can’t blitz trough?

[Adam514]

Germany can blitz through NW Persia because NW Persia is an enemy territory simply. It’s the Allies that can’t blitz through pro-Allied territories and vice-versa for Axis.

[Giallo]

Ok thank you, and if the Caucasus is still russian, can uk first take nwp with an inf and then ncm a tank to the Caucasus

[Adam514]

Nope that’s illegal. A useful trick to see if something is legal or not is if it’s possible to invert the order of the moves (since all NCM moves are simultaneous). In this case, the tank can’t reach Caucasus since NW Persia is still pro-Allies, so the move is illegal.

[axis-dominion]

on US turn i DOW on the neutrals, and i see triplea is letting me fly planes from india to moscow (over afghan)…this is legit?

[Shin-Ji]

I believe so.  Now that the Allies have DOW the neutrals, the Axis can land planes there too.

[Adam514]

No it’s not correct, neutrals need to be attacked to actually side with the other side. Until they are attacked, no one can fly over them and no one can land on them. Once they are attacked by the Allies for example, everyone can fly over and Axis can land planes in the territory.

[Shin-Ji]

You mean that specific neutral (Afghanistan in this case) would need to be attacked before it can be flown over, correct?

[Adam514]

@Shin:

You mean that specific neutral (Afghanistan in this case) would need to be attacked before it can be flown over, correct?

Yeah.

[gamerman01]

But don’t miss this fact -
It is legal to attack Afghanistan and with whatever (USA in this instance) planes you attack Afghanistan with, they may fly off in any direction, so could effectively fly between India and Moscow.  But no other planes can fly over it (any plane that did not end the combat movement phase over Afghanistan), including in non-com because it was neutral at the start of the turn Oops - didn’t get this right from memory.  3c is worded perfectly though
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.45

I’m guessing from the wording of dominion’s question that you weren’t attacking Afghanistan with the USA, though

[Adam514]

@Gamerman01:

But don’t miss this fact -
It is legal to attack Afghanistan and with whatever (USA in this instance) planes you attack Afghanistan with, they may fly off in any direction, so could effectively fly between India and Moscow.  But no other planes can fly over it (any plane that did not end the combat movement phase over Afghanistan), including in non-com because it was neutral at the start of the turn
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.45

I’m guessing from the wording of dominion’s question that you weren’t attacking Afghanistan with the USA, though

Doesn’t this ^ go against what you say here: ‘‘c) You CAN fly over a neutral that has been attacked previously, because it is actually no longer a neutral even if it was not conquered.  It has joined the opposing side.  You can do this in the non-combat move immediately following the attack.’’?

[gamerman01]

~~Not at all
Afghanistan is neutral at the start of the USA turn.  USA cannot fly over Afghanistan on this turn except with planes that are attacking Afghanistan in combat move

Then on UK’s turn immediately following, UK can freely fly over Afghanistan.

OK, attacked previously means attacked on an earlier turn, it doesn’t mean at any moment in time previously to now (it does not mean USA can fly over in noncombat movement because she attacked in an earlier phase of the turn)

It’s simple: You can’t fly over a territory that was neutral at the beginning of your power’s turn.  Attacking it directly is not “flying over”~~

Whoops - was going by my memory and was wrong.  If I had read my own 3c rule clarification I wouldn’t have wrote this…. And Adam repeated the whole thing and I didn’t read it all  :oops:

[regularkid]

@Gamerman01:

Not at all
Afghanistan is neutral at the start of the USA turn.  USA cannot fly over Afghanistan on this turn except with planes that are attacking Afghanistan in combat move

Then on UK’s turn immediately following, UK can freely fly over Afghanistan.

OK, attacked previously means attacked on an earlier turn, it doesn’t mean at any moment in time previously to now (it does not mean USA can fly over in noncombat movement because she attacked in an earlier phase of the turn)

It’s simple: You can’t fly over a territory that was neutral at the beginning of your power’s turn.  Attacking it directly is not “flying over”

Gamer, I’m curious what is the source for the equivalency ur drawing between “previously” and “before the start of your turn.” If u look at the official rules, the game designers used the phrase “since the start of your turn” repeatedly in places where applicable. (e.g., “If your side (but not necessarily your power) controlled a canal or narrow strait at the start of your turn, you may move
sea units through it (you can’t use it in the same turn that you capture it).” p. 9). Presumably, if they intended for that concept to apply here, they would have used the same language. But they didn’t.

Particularly noteworthy, in this regard, is the language that appears on page 11, addressing neutral territories. It states, “When a neutral territory is invaded, it’s no longer considered neutral and immediately becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it.” (Emphasis added). It does not state that the change in alliance occurs at the start of the next players turn. It states that the change occurs immediately. The consequence would be similar to the change that occurs when one power declares war on another–the DOWed power immediately loses its neutral status, and fly over restrictions it entails.

Thus, it would be permissible, for example, for UK to attack Afghanistan with a single infantry, lose the fight, and the non-combat planes from India to Moscow over the now-hostile territory. Everything in the official rules appears to point to that conclusion.

[gamerman01]

OK, you’re right.  I found Krieghund’s confirmation of this in April of 2013 on the FAQ thread, and also the Mongolia and Neutrals summary I did in April of 2013 unambiguously states the same, in 3c

In over 3 years, this has never come up in any of my games, and never came up in any of my games before that either, not even my games with Boldfresh who loves to do stuff like that.  But this could help me in my current playoff game, although still unlikely

It didn’t even click when Adam quoted my whole statement 3c  :-P

So after all that, just go by my Mongolia and Neutrals summary.  Krieghund scoured over it 3 years ago so it’s all correct.