I’m surprised the Russian air to Egypt issue never came up in playtesting. It’s an obvious exploit of the rules that came up in the first 1940 game I played (I was not Russia).
If calvin had to ask “to be sure that the wording of the NO was intended to intentionally include facilities” as you said, then the rulebook wording was ambiguous (by definition). The E40 rulebook was well done (you sound defensive - like you wrote it, which you probably did), but not perfect. Nothing to be ashamed of there.
You still haven’t answered me about why ground troops can walk (drive) from Eire to Scotland across a channel that is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, when there is no other water (that is not a canal) that any ground unit can ever walk across. Why the inconsistency? Who would know you could walk from Eire to Scotland unless they read what you said or it’s put in the official errata?
I have never tried to contradict you or just give you a hard time. I’m always only seeking clarification and trying to eliminate ambiguities and misunderstandings.
I invade Russia on round 2, the UK is barely surviving and the US is going to be neutral until round 4 because the UK sucker punched the Japs. I sent a sub and destroyer to deal with the red october in Z125 and it rolled snake eyes. I have no other destroyer.
Which made me realize - the Russian at war NO should also require that USA is at war. That’s where the money came from, and why Z125 and Archangel have to be clear. But yet it is possible for USSR to collect this NO 4 times with the US being neutral.
I wish this NO would have this 5th stipulation added. Seems Russia and US are already scary oversized behemoths already. Gonna be hard to win as Axis, I think….
I’m surprised the Russian air to Egypt issue never came up in playtesting. It’s an obvious exploit of the rules that came up in the first 1940 game I played (I was not Russia).
There were four different playtesting groups, and none of them discovered it. Of course, when you’re concentrating on the big picture, sometimes details escape you. Was it a problem in your game?
If calvin had to ask “to be sure that the wording of the NO was intended to intentionally include facilities” as you said, then the rulebook wording was ambiguous (by definition). The E40 rulebook was well done (you sound defensive - like you wrote it, which you probably did), but not perfect. Nothing to be ashamed of there.
Thanks, but the only thing that I’m defending against is adding unnecessary length to the FAQ. :wink:
It’s a fine line to walk. You want to eliminate as much confusion as possible, but making it too long makes things harder to find and makes the rules writers (myself included) look bad. I could write an article on the art and politics of FAQ writing.
I maintain that there is nothing ambiguous about the wording of the NO. The terms are defined and used consistently. There’s a difference between asking “What did you mean by that?” and “Did you really mean what you said?” At any rate, if it gets asked frequently enough, it’ll get added. Sometimes the most clearly stated rule still gets questioned, especially if it clashes with people’s preconceptions.
You still haven’t answered me about why ground troops can walk (drive) from Eire to Scotland across a channel that is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, when there is no other water (that is not a canal) that any ground unit can ever walk across. Why the inconsistency? Who would know you could walk from Eire to Scotland unless they read what you said or it’s put in the official errata?
The short answer is becuase Larry wanted it that way. I’ve never asked him why. I would assume it’s for game play reasons. This question has been raised often enough to warrant inclusion in the FAQ.
I’m always only seeking clarification and trying to eliminate ambiguities and misunderstandings.
And you do a good job of it. :-)
Which made me realize - the Russian at war NO should also require that USA is at war. That’s where the money came from, and why Z125 and Archangel have to be clear. But yet it is possible for USSR to collect this NO 4 times with the US being neutral.
US aid to the USSR began in June 1941, immediately after it was attacked by Germany, and six months before the US entered the war.
As far as the facilities being considered units:
I wouldn’t have picked that up either. Honestly though I only skimmed the rule book (very impressed by the way). Common sense would have taken over however and told me you should also have to take away there ability to mobilize. After rereading it though I see where Krieghund is coming from. They do call them units when purchasing, and mobilizing, and it is clearly under “Unit Profiles”. Some times when you have to link several things together to get the correct interpretation, things get lost. It still would have been clearer to just simply include allied facilities in Africa in the NO to remove any question.
As far as the Russians can be on its allies tt when only at war w/Japan:
I like that ability, but I’m sure it wouldn’t fly with the historical sector. There are other things to consider here too. You could put a Russian ftr on Scotland R1 to force Germany to go to war early if it wants to invade Scotland (which it won’t). Then that ftr could be on England R2 for def (another 4) for a G3 Sea Lion, allowing Russia to start attacks (early) R3 on Germany. It might not make much difference if Germany was planning a G3 Barbarossa, but if Germany is going Sea Lion, it may want to wait til G4 to attack Russia. Plus Russia would get it’s war time 5 ipc bonus R3 as well (plus its 2 free inf in E40). Plus the Russian ftr on England throws the G3 Sea Lion out the window. Then there’s some scenarios of putting the Russian ftr on a UK carrier, that would put Germany/Italy in the same circumstances. In any event it could be a benefit to the allies, but your right it does cost Russia the use of a ftr possibly, so would it be worth it in the long run.
Edit: I hope you don’t rule on this to fast, and take the ability away. I want to catch my opponents off guard first. We’ve talked about Egypt, but not Scotland. My German opponents seem to like to build navy G1 :evil:
The funny soviet trick sending units to UK when is not yet at war with West Axis but is at war with Japan … one more reason to make a non-agression pact USSR-Japan rule
Seriously, I have played the game and I cannot see any reason to not DOW Japan USSR1 (USSR2 as much) … and so, no reason to not DOW USSR Japan 1 if not at war yet. In fact, there are many many incentives. It’s totally ridiculous that Japan and USSR start the game at war (even if not ‘officially’) before than the USSR-Germany and USA-Japan wars
A non-agression official rule is a must. A economic penalty for the attacker would work (maybe 15-20 IPCs?) I don’t know how Larry cannot see this … I guess that Italy and UK players could also make a unofficial non-agression pact for that matter, but they would still start at war without a official rule :-P
Yeah but a Soviet DOW on Japan does allow Russia to invade the Euro neutrals (Krieg already ruled on this), that’s kinda why there’s even a discussion about also allowing Russia into all its allies tt’s (or ships) when only at war w/Japan (rules don’t make it illegal). Testers didn’t see this coming, and Krieghund is thinking about which way to go.
Which made me realize - the Russian at war NO should also require that USA is at war. That’s where the money came from, and why Z125 and Archangel have to be clear. But yet it is possible for USSR to collect this NO 4 times with the US being neutral.
US aid to the USSR began in June 1941, immediately after it was attacked by Germany, and six months before the US entered the war.
Thank you. I was wondering… That makes me feel a lot better about that NO.
The funny soviet trick sending units to UK when is not yet at war with West Axis but is at war with Japan … one more reason to make a non-agression pact USSR-Japan rule
Seriously, I have played the game and I cannot see any reason to not DOW Japan USSR1 (USSR2 as much) … and so, no reason to not DOW USSR Japan 1 if not at war yet. In fact, there are many many incentives. It’s totally ridiculous that Japan and USSR start the game at war (even if not ‘officially’) before than the USSR-Germany and USA-Japan wars
A non-agression official rule is a must. A economic penalty for the attacker would work (maybe 15-20 IPCs?) I don’t know how Larry cannot see this …
Excellent points!
There were four different playtesting groups, and none of them discovered it. Of course, when you’re concentrating on the big picture, sometimes details escape you. Was it a problem in your game?
No. Russia was driving mech and tanks toward Egypt as fast as possible, but didn’t end up being fast enough. He could have landed air there and prevented an attack on Egypt or forced DOW on Russia before I wanted, but it didn’t happen. It’s an issue, though, and those who have recently posted here have very eloquently detailed the issues.
Sometimes the most clearly stated rule still gets questioned, especially if it clashes with people’s preconceptions.
Yes, I’m sure.
The short answer is becuase Larry wanted it that way. I’ve never asked him why. I would assume it’s for game play reasons. This question has been raised often enough to warrant inclusion in the FAQ.
Excellent! That’s what I wanted to hear. Thank you very much. What I read about, was something about ferrying services as far back as the 50’s, and maybe the 40’s - not sure, but it’s a whole different matter ferrying thousands of enemy personnel across the 21 miles. I could see allowing a power to cross if they control both sides, but understand that simplicity may have won out, here. It does need to be in the FAQ as you said, I think.
If I may be so bold, generally things that happen in the European theater only affect the European theater and vice versa with Russia, so I can’t see that “egypt plane” move as being legal. If being at war with Japan doesn’t allow the USSR to collect their wartime NO, and if being at war with Japan doesn’t allow them to attack Germany/Italy and if being at war with Japan doesn’t let Russia invade European neutrals then it shouldn’t let them move into a European “ally” until at war in Europe. As for historically… if you remember Russia had a pact with Germany and until Germany broke it with their invasion of the USSR I don’t really think that Britain regarded Russia as anything close to an ally. Also, Russia fought the Japs in real life too, and I don’t think that the brits cozied up to them in Europe then either.
So if the examples at the start of the post don’t convince you, then I think the historical reality of the time, which the designers took such pains to include with the “political situation”, should certainly answer that question. Britain and Russia were not allies until the war with Germany broke out and I don’t think anything that happened in the pacific would have made that any different.
I agree completely. The more I think about this, the more I think it will be addressed in the errata. At least I’ll push for it.
@WILD:
Yeah but a Soviet DOW on Japan does allow Russia to invade the Euro neutrals (Krieg already ruled on this), that’s kinda why there’s even a discussion about also allowing Russia into all its allies tt’s (or ships) when only at war w/Japan (rules don’t make it illegal). Testers didn’t see this coming, and Krieghund is thinking about which way to go.
Invading neutrals is a little bit different than moving units into another power’s territories. We definitely saw that and allowed it to happen. After all, the USSR invaded several Eastern European countries as part of its agreement with Germany.
If I may be so bold, generally things that happen in the European theater only affect the European theater and vice versa with Russia, so I can’t see that “egypt plane” move as being legal. If being at war with Japan doesn’t allow the USSR to collect their wartime NO, and if being at war with Japan doesn’t allow them to attack Germany/Italy and if being at war with Japan doesn’t let Russia invade European neutrals then it shouldn’t let them move into a European “ally” until at war in Europe. As for historically… if you remember Russia had a pact with Germany and until Germany broke it with their invasion of the USSR I don’t really think that Britain regarded Russia as anything close to an ally. Also, Russia fought the Japs in real life too, and I don’t think that the brits cozied up to them in Europe then either.
So if the examples at the start of the post don’t convince you, then I think the historical reality of the time, which the designers took such pains to include with the “political situation”, should certainly answer that question. Britain and Russia were not allies until the war with Germany broke out and I don’t think anything that happened in the pacific would have made that any different.
I agree completely. The more I think about this, the more I think it will be addressed in the errata. At least I’ll push for it.
@WILD:
Yeah but a Soviet DOW on Japan does allow Russia to invade the Euro neutrals (Krieg already ruled on this), that’s kinda why there’s even a discussion about also allowing Russia into all its allies tt’s (or ships) when only at war w/Japan (rules don’t make it illegal). Testers didn’t see this coming, and Krieghund is thinking about which way to go.
Invading neutrals is a little bit different than moving units into another power’s territories. We definitely saw that and allowed it to happen. After all, the USSR invaded several Eastern European countries as part of its agreement with Germany.
I have no problem w/Russia being able to invade the neutrals while still neutral (to Euro axis). Furthermore I don’t think it should have to declare war on Japan to do it (it is kinda corny). War w/Jap would have nothing to do with the Euro neutrals. Actually if Russia went to war w/Jap it might not tie up the resources to invade the Euro neutrals.
Just let Russia invade the neutrals it wants to no strings attached.
Getting back to Russia being able to put units into its allies tt or ships before its at war w/ a Euro axis (or a common enemy) will most likely be dis allowed (and I’m good with that). I’m simply pointing out some of the places that Russia can get, and the effect they could have if it is allowed. Like def Egypt, India, Scotland, or England itself. It could halt a J3 India crush, stop Italy from getting Egypt, or force Germany to abort a Sea Lion (which is risky anyway). If these scenarios were not play tested w/this in mind, it should be disallowed IMO because it sways the out come of the fore mentioned battles.
If the setup was historically accurate, the Baltic States would be neutral and Bessarabia part of neutral Romania; this would give the Russians something to do R1. Also, Persia should be Pro-Axis giving them something to think about on their southern border.
But I don’t think Soviet units should EVER be allowed to share territory with other Allies. Even when at war ships can share the same sz, but not fight together. Similarly I’d allow US/UK units to land in Russia on NCM, but not defend with them if the tt is attacked. Stalin simply didn’t want to share the glory with anyone else. He’d take your money but he wouldn’t plough your path for you. He didn’t even help the Polish partisans in the Warsaw uprising.
To balance, the same thing should apply to Japan in regard to German and Italian units and tts, as there was practically no military cooperation between Japan and the Euro Axis.
In other words Japan and the USSR should be considered to have allies only in the sense that they have enemies-in-common with other powers. They are still members of the two great alliances for game victory purposes, but are essentially fighting different wars. Some monetary aid to Russia from the West is authentic, but then Germany got huge non-military aid from Russia until it decided to invade the place…
How does that work? If Z125 has 2 British DD’s and a Russian SS, and Germany attacks it, it can say it just wants to attack one and ignore the other? What about in a Russian territory? If Germany kills the Russian units and there are 2 british ftrs, does Germany capture the territory?
How does that work? If Z125 has 2 British DD’s and a Russian SS, and Germany attacks it, it can say it just wants to attack one and ignore the other? What about in a Russian territory? If Germany kills the Russian units and there are 2 british ftrs, does Germany capture the territory?
Yes, Calvin, you always ignore sea units of powers with which you are not at war.
You are not allowed (page 15 sidebar) to attack a territory with ground or air units of a power with which you are not at war. That’s the issue here. If Russia lands a plane in London, Germany must declare war on Russia to attack London.
I thought that’s why you were making a beeline for Egypt with your Russian tank in our game! I also half expected you to land a plane in Egypt to exploit the rule. Guess you didn’t know about it, to even exploit it. :-)
See, Krieg? The reason it wasn’t an issue in my game was because calvin didn’t realize how this rule worked. :lol:
How does that work? If Z125 has 2 British DD’s and a Russian SS, and Germany attacks it, it can say it just wants to attack one and ignore the other? What about in a Russian territory? If Germany kills the Russian units and there are 2 british ftrs, does Germany capture the territory?
Yes, Calvin, you always ignore sea units of powers with which you are not at war.
You are not allowed (page 15 sidebar) to attack a territory with ground or air units of a power with which you are not at war. That’s the issue here. If Russia lands a plane in London, Germany must declare war on Russia to attack London.
I thought that’s why you were making a beeline for Egypt with your Russian tank in our game! I also half expected you to land a plane in Egypt to exploit the rule. Guess you didn’t know about it, to even exploit it. :-)
See, Krieg? The reason it wasn’t an issue in my game was because calvin didn’t realize how this rule worked. :lol:
No, it’s because I needed that mech and tank in London and I didn’t want to risk planes
Sorry, I meant Russia-not London
If a ftr’s carrier is destroyed on the opponent’s combat move, it must land one space away. Do they decide where to land before or after the noncombat moves of the attacker?
Not 100% sure, but I think the def ftr would land after all combat is complete, and before the aggressors non combat moves.
If a ftr’s carrier is destroyed on the opponent’s combat move, it must land one space away. Do they decide where to land before or after the noncombat moves of the attacker?
Yes, the owner of the fighter decides.
AAE40 rulebook pg.29>AirCraft Carriers>second to last paragraph on Carriers.
If a ftr’s carrier is destroyed on the opponent’s combat move, it must land one space away. Do they decide where to land before or after the noncombat moves of the attacker?
Yes, the owner of the fighter decides.
AAE40 rulebook pg.29>AirCraft Carriers>second to last paragraph on Carriers.
That’s not what I was asking. I’m asking if they decide before or after the attacker’s noncombat move
If a ftr’s carrier is destroyed on the opponent’s combat move, it must land one space away. Do they decide where to land before or after the noncombat moves of the attacker?
Yes, the owner of the fighter decides.
AAE40 rulebook pg.29>AirCraft Carriers>second to last paragraph on Carriers.
That’s not what I was asking. I’m asking if they decide before or after the attacker’s noncombat move
And that question is answered in the paragraph I refered to.
