@gamerman01:
“Units” to many of us is short for “military units”, meaning movable pieces.
Facilities are facilities, not units. The rulebook is very ambiguous there, by just saying “units”. That’s why calvin asked - because the reader can’t tell for sure.
I’m sorry, but there is no ambiguity in the rules here. Facilities are listed as one of four subclasses of “units” in the Unit Profiles section, and they are referred to as “units” several times elsewhere in the rules. Land, air and sea units (the other three subclasses) are referred to collectively as “combat units”, which is what you have referred to as “military units”.
If I may be so bold as to interpret the intent of Calvin’s question, I believe it was to be sure that the wording of the NO was intended to intentionally include facilities, which it was. If it had intended to exclude them, it would have said “combat units” rather than simply “units”.
@WILD:
Ok another question that stems from an earlier post in this thread regarding Russia and not being able to attack a tt of a power in which you are not yet at war.
This I know:
- Russia doesn’t get its at war NO until its at war w/one of the Euro axis powers.
- Russia can declare war against Japan at any time. This will allow the Soviets to invade the pro neutrals, or even strict neutrals I guess.
Does Russia declaring war on Japan also allow it to move units into any friendly (allied) power’s tt.
Example:
Say fly a Soviet ftr down to Egypt (could be there R2) so Italy would first have to declare war on Russia to attack Egypt I2. The way I see it Russia is the only power that could be neutral (to the Euro axis), but still move into its allies tt.
Could you clarify Krieghund.
This is interesting, and it never came up in playtesting. The question, of course, is whether or not it’s a problem. I suspect that it may be, but it could be one of those instances where it’s not worth it to the Soviet player to do it in the long run.
If it is a problem, it will need to be fixed in the errata. What do you all think?