FAQ Update

A question for NOs:

• ANZAC NO, the one that says a original jap territory must be occupied. It’s necessary ANZAC be the occupier or can be another allie

• The same for USA’s NO occuping Oki and Iwo, it must be the USA the occupier or can be another allied power?

• UK NO involving Dutch East Indies says clearly any allied power, but later two one doesn’t, and also the Jap NOs don’t. In the global game, can Japan win the NOs if another axis power conquers those therritories or must be Japan itself?

Krieghund, the political rules are clearer but I’d just specify the part in italics:
“Japan considers movement of units into China by any other power as an act of war against it.”
If you continue reading the errata is logical that only the UK/ANZAC can move units into China and trigger a declaration of war by Japan. But since this part is right at the beginning of the errata t can be confusing because it gives the impression that the US can also move units to China before war is declared.

@Krieghund:

@Funcioneta:

• ANZAC NO, the one that says a original jap territory must be occupied. It’s necessary ANZAC be the occupier or can be another allie

It doesn’t say “the Allies”, so it must be ANZAC.

@Funcioneta:

• The same for USA’s NO occuping Oki and Iwo, it must be the USA the occupier or can be another allied power?

It says “the U.S. controls both Okinawa and Iwo Jima”.  It must be the U.S.

@Funcioneta:

• UK NO involving Dutch East Indies says clearly any allied power, but later two one doesn’t, and also the Jap NOs don’t. In the global game, can Japan win the NOs if another axis power conquers those therritories or must be Japan itself?

The second one doesn’t say “the Allies”, so it must be UK.  These NOs apply only to this game.

Pretty odd, but at least is less ilogical than the various ACME walls. Roger on the last input, but I really hope Burma Road is in action in global game or we are going to have another 1941 fantasy scenario  :|

@Krieghund:

Except that the US may not enter any other power’s territory when it’s not at war.

Yeah, that is clear but that part comes after the part I quoted. I’m just trying to place myself in the position of someone new to the game.
He’ll read first that Japan will declare war on any power that moves into China, which might seem to imply that the US can move there. If he skips or doesn’t read with attention to the US rules he might think that the US can trigger a declaration of war with Japan by moving units to China.
Most new players will figure it out correctly by themselves but a few might be confused. Maybe it is just paying too much attention to details on my part but I think it would be better if the ‘any other power’ is replaced by ‘UK/ANZAC’ (it has even less characters too! :) )

@Krieghund:

Thanks, but at this point I’m not inclined to try to change anything unless it’s flat-out wrong.  It’s just too much hassle getting approval.

OK, thanks for explaining. Better to only pick battles you know you can win :)

so what actual changes to the gameplay are there from the new faq?

@Veqryn:

so what actual changes to the gameplay are there from the new faq?

Nothing really

Before: Movements resulted in war. You moved, figured out if it caused war, then had to check to make sure all the moves you made, prior to the war causing move, were actually possible, because if any move resulted in war, you were actually at war at the beginning of your movement phase.

Now: You declare war. You can then make war causing moves, if you want. No need to go back and recheck any prior moves. No need to make any war causing moves at all, but you still get to do any of those nasty things to the enemy you’re allowed to do during their turn.

But the net result, at the end of your turn, is pretty much the same as it was before.

The small differences are:
You make a declaration of war.
The way the Dutch are treated is a little different, maybe.

UK/ANZAC can’t take control of the French territories with a non-combat move, the way they do with the Dutch territories.

Wasn’t there a rule in the previous errata that a Power couldn’t attack neutral territories, before they were in the war? That seems to be US only now. Though, Japan is the only power that could do this.

if mongolia is worth 0 ipc, even those territories with inf on them, whats the point of ever attacking them? I fail to see any advantage…

@Omega:

if mongolia is worth 0 ipc, even those territories with inf on them, whats the point of ever attacking them? I fail to see any advantage…

Well I’m thinking simple uniformity.
Since some European Neutrals actually have some value (either strategic or IPC) they wanted to come up rules for invading them.
And then by extension, in anticipation of the global game, the same Neutral rules apply to Mongolia as well.

That and the fact that somebody somewhere will try anything if it’s even remotely possible… you put a private in a sealed room with only three ballbearings as furniture and contrary to all probability, expectation and the rules of physics in one hour he will eat one, lose one and break the third.

@Omega:

if mongolia is worth 0 ipc, even those territories with inf on them, whats the point of ever attacking them? I fail to see any advantage…

You can occupy some empty Mongolian territories (as Japanese) and use it as an airbase. Chinese units cannot attack your planes and the other Mongolian infantry cannot move to attack or liberate the province. So you can ever leave a Str. Bomber alone in C.Mongolia lets say and it will be totally safe

Yep, such ridiculous bugs happen when you add ilogical and ahistorical ACME walls for all the board

@Funcioneta:

Yep, such ridiculous bugs happen when you add ilogical and ahistorical ACME walls for all the board

I understand why they limit the Chinese from going into Mongolia… but to prevent this invincible bomber nonsense the Mongolians clearly should be uniting to evict the Japanese from basing there.

That or permit the Chinese to build AA if the Burma Road is open.

@allboxcars:

@Funcioneta:

Yep, such ridiculous bugs happen when you add ilogical and ahistorical ACME walls for all the board

I understand why they limit the Chinese from going into Mongolia…

I don’t: China had territorial claims on Mongolia. The only reason for China to not be able of attacking a neutral Mongolia would be not make soviets angry (they were allied with commie Mongolia), but then the game should not allow Japan (or even the other allies) attack neutral Mongolia for the same very reason. That reason is even more important than possible chinese civil war reasons (you can guess the warlord conquering Mongolia and having her “back” to chinese nation would get a big morale boost if such deed, difficult as it was for China in that age, were achieved, ha!, you could even give China a NO for taking all Mongolia if you ask me and maybe even to Japan - Mengkukuo puppet-)

But the biggest problem is when China faces a japanese occupied Mongolia: why should chinamen not attack a enemy that is going to attack them? If enemy has superior force OK, but not due a irreal game rule. The same applies also for Indochina or Korea

Anyway, China or not, I agree, mongolians should reply the attack as a the whole nation they were (these are not rogue tribes, is an state), and also attack out of Mongolia if japaneses are near. Even more ridiculous is the hipotetical case were Japan attacks two mongolian territories, fail both and then the Mongolians activated are pinned in their “base”: mongolians cannot move by their own country while the invader can merrilly do so. I don’t want see the same ridicule rule for Spain, Portugal, Turkey or any neutral in the world

Well we definitely agree that neutrals should reply as a state or “entity” etc.  rather than disjointed tribes.