A question: let’s imagine that London is in axis hands. Then, UK units from India (or even from Persia for that matters) free West India from Italy’s hands. In other words, wich rule has preference, the one that says that UK collects income from Europe’s board and India from Pacific’s board, or the rule that says that when you free a territory and the original controller has lost its capital, the ally that liberated the territory collects the income?
Now, let’s imagine that UK takes Iraq (pro-axis neutral) after London has fallen. Can India collect the money?
A question: let’s imagine that London is in axis hands. Then, UK units from India (or even from Persia for that matters) free West India from Italy’s hands. In other words, wich rule has preference, the one that says that UK collects income from Europe’s board and India from Pacific’s board, or the rule that says that when you free a territory and the original controller has lost its capital, the ally that liberated the territory collects the income?
The rule about capturing an ally’s territory while that ally’s capital is in enemy hands doesn’t apply here, as UK is liberating its own territory. The rules make no exception for UK income collection when one capital is captured. Those territories simply produce no income until they are captured by another power.
Now, let’s imagine that UK takes Iraq (pro-axis neutral) after London has fallen. Can India collect the money?
No, for the same reason.
I am hoping for an errata that USSR must remain neutral toward Europe Axis when it is neutral toward Europe Axis.
Yeah, what I mean is USSR should not be allowed to join the UK, France or USA in any territory on the Europe side of the board before USSR is at war with Euro Axis.
Ramifications - USSR landing plane in Egypt, Scotland, or London (requiring DOW on Russia by Euro Axis if they want to attack UK, France, or USA).
One more errata I’m hoping for - improved Russo-Jap diplomacy rules.
Just want to be on record as supporting these, for what it’s worth.
I am hoping for an errata that USSR must remain neutral toward Europe Axis when it is neutral toward Europe Axis.
Yeah, what I mean is USSR should not be allowed to join the UK, France or USA in any territory on the Europe side of the board before USSR is at war with Euro Axis.
Ramifications - USSR landing plane in Egypt, Scotland, or London (requiring DOW on Russia by Euro Axis if they want to attack UK, France, or USA).
One more errata I’m hoping for - improved Russo-Jap diplomacy rules.
Just want to be on record as supporting these, for what it’s worth.
if UK is at war with Japan, shouldn’t Russia be allowed to send units into British territory?
I am hoping for an errata that USSR must remain neutral toward Europe Axis when it is neutral toward Europe Axis.
Yeah, what I mean is USSR should not be allowed to join the UK, France or USA in any territory on the Europe side of the board before USSR is at war with Euro Axis.
Ramifications - USSR landing plane in Egypt, Scotland, or London (requiring DOW on Russia by Euro Axis if they want to attack UK, France, or USA).
One more errata I’m hoping for - improved Russo-Jap diplomacy rules.
Just want to be on record as supporting these, for what it’s worth.
if UK is at war with Japan, shouldn’t Russia be allowed to send units into British territory?
Not on the Europe side. Japan is nowhere to be seen over there.
I am hoping for an errata that USSR must remain neutral toward Europe Axis when it is neutral toward Europe Axis.
Yeah, what I mean is USSR should not be allowed to join the UK, France or USA in any territory on the Europe side of the board before USSR is at war with Euro Axis.
Ramifications - USSR landing plane in Egypt, Scotland, or London (requiring DOW on Russia by Euro Axis if they want to attack UK, France, or USA).
One more errata I’m hoping for - improved Russo-Jap diplomacy rules.
Just want to be on record as supporting these, for what it’s worth.
if UK is at war with Japan, shouldn’t Russia be allowed to send units into British territory?
Not on the Europe side. Japan is nowhere to be seen over there.
What if Japan has taken parts of Africa?
then logically, Nova and Quebec border each other
That doesn’t necessarily follow. The four spaces appear to meet at a point, which indicates that Eastern United States doesn’t border sea zone 106 and Quebec doesn’t border New Brunswick/Nova Scotia. The question is whether the St. Lawrence Seaway is meant to be an extension of sea zone 106, dividing the latter two territories, or just a passable border between them.
What was Larry thinking when he made this map ? :-o
What if Japan has taken parts of Africa?
By round 4?? In a place the Russians would actually want to land a plane?? Be serious.
Admit it, it’s a good rule and should be in the official errata.
can the US move its atlantic fleet to z106 when not at war?
can the US move ground troops into canada territories(nova scotia, quebec, etc) before they are at war?
if yes, does the US get to use the Nova Scotia naval port advantages when not at war?
if fighters “retreat” from a battle, do they get to finish their movement points, or do they only get to move 1 space like ground units?
if fighters “retreat” from a battle, do they get to finish their movement points, or do they only get to move 1 space like ground units?
Yes, they get all their movement points. Fighters don’t really retreat, they “disengage”. They are moved in the noncombat phase, while the ground units are retreated to another territory immediately.
thanks g-man
can the US move its atlantic fleet to z106 when not at war?
Yes, the US can move boats anywhere except zones bordering Europe and Africa when not at war.
can the US move ground troops into canada territories(nova scotia, quebec, etc) before they are at war?
No, the US can’t move any ground or air to any allied territory before they are at war.
if yes, does the US get to use the Nova Scotia naval port advantages when not at war?
The answer was no. And the US can’t use any allied facility before at war. Do you not have the P40 rulebook? It’s all in there, and it’s very clear.
Do you not have the P40 rulebook? It’s all in there, and it’s very clear.
yes i have it. just kind of lazy. this is easier when the rule book is not right at hand.
Do you not have the P40 rulebook? It’s all in there, and it’s very clear.
yes i have it. just kind of lazy. this is easier when the rule book is not right at hand.
I don’t mind - just curious.
Can advanced artillery support 2 mech or 1 inf 1 mech?
Can advanced artillery support 2 mech or 1 inf 1 mech?
Yes. From page 36:
“One artillery unit can support two infantry and/or mechanized infantry units per attack. Two infantry and/or mechanized infantry units when coupled with one artillery unit have attack values of 2.”
If Germany builds an IC in Romania, can they place units in the black sea?
