You should know better than to engage me in conversation. You have me blocked on PM’s and I have you blocked. Why did you stick your nose in here?
He thanked me for the response, and it was clearly good enough for him, so just stow it, EM.
@Emperor:
I wasn’t going to say anything after your first post, but you have gone too far. You are way out of line. You like anyone else are free to post your interpretations of the rules, but they carry no weight, only Kreig can post “the law”.
EM, you’re a joke. I must have missed the coronation ceremony crowning you a moderator, because you’re acting like you’re one.
Krieg had me answer questions for him while he was away. He has thanked me for answering questions on the thread while he’s here - saves him the trouble. Just crawl back into your hole, “Emperor”. You should have known better than to post a scathing rebuke to me. I’m going to PM your opponents to warn them not to play you - I’ve seen the stunts you’ve pulled in other games besides your antics when playing Boldfresh or I.
You are absolutely welcome - glad to help.
I didn’t say it was a stupid question, I said I was puzzled as to why it would be a question. After posting, I wondered if you maybe didn’t have a copy of the Alpha+2 rules, and were maybe just hearing it from someone else.
I just don’t see any other way you could possibly interpret rule #9, and was sticking up for Larry/Krieg because they’re often criticized (by me) for ambiguous rules. However, this one is not ambiguous. But then I realized maybe you didn’t have your hands on the Alpha +2 rules. If you do have the Alpha+2 rules, then you should save yourself the embarassment and not respond that you do have them, because it’s in plain, unambiguous English. I guess you were just incredulous that there would be a rule like that? If so, I don’t know why. It’s extremely likely the US would have immediately entered the war if London became occupied by the Nazis.Please don’t take it personally.
For those who don’t know what we’re talking about, rule #9 says
“The United States may declare war on any or all Axis powers at the beginning of the Combat Move phase of its next turn if London and/or any territory in North America is captured by an Axis power.”
Is that not CRYSTAL??! :-)Please don’t hesitate to ask more questions, Variable. I’m a friendly person, but I’m gonna call a spade a spade, here. :-)
Why didn’t you highlight THESE parts, EM? Because it was proof that I was being nice?
I already know you despise me for calling you out on your antics in games before. You don’t have to let the cancer of your hate carry over into this thread. You should just delete your post, and save the moderators the trouble.
EM, please stop trying to pick a fight. Gamer’s response was both crystal clear and courteous. I agree that you should not have engaged him and it’s clear you are still holding a grudge from recent events. Please stop tormenting players on this site - I too have seen you in action on many other threads and it’s pretty clear you leave a trail of burned bridges. I think the truth is you are calling Gamer out on something he never intended, but something you are probably often guilty of, belittling others. Your double standards are wearing very thin and I hope it will eventually be acknowledged by the moderaters on here.
It seems to me from Variable’s second post that he didn’t question or misunderstand the meaning of the rule as written, but was rather questioning whether or not the wording reflected the intent of the rule. It does indeed.
I just don’t see any other way you could possibly interpret rule #9, and was sticking up for Larry/Krieg because they’re often criticized (by me) for ambiguous rules. However, this one is not ambiguous.
Yes, Larry and I took an (unfortunate) attitude early in the Alpha process that the wording of the test rules modifications didn’t need to be as polished as it would be in the final product. However, that’s changed since you pointed out the error of our ways! We’re now trying harder to avoid ambiguities. :-)
It seems to me from Variable’s second post that he didn’t question or misunderstand the meaning of the rule as written, but was rather questioning whether or not the wording reflected the intent of the rule. It does indeed.
I just don’t see any other way you could possibly interpret rule #9, and was sticking up for Larry/Krieg because they’re often criticized (by me) for ambiguous rules. However, this one is not ambiguous.
Yes, Larry and I took an (unfortunate) attitude early in the Alpha process that the wording of the test rules modifications didn’t need to be as polished as it would be in the final product. However, that’s changed since you pointed out the error of our ways! We’re now trying harder to avoid ambiguities. :-)
Krieg has understood me perfectly. All I was double checking was the intent of the rules in the case where Japan has not made any threatening moves against the US or UK. I got my answer and prefer we just stick to the facts.
As for the other stuff between Emperor Mollari and Gamerman01 et al: I regret ever posing the question here. Krieg gave me a simple answer on Larry’s site which is all I wanted. Mods, please feel free to remove any material that does not contribute to resolving FAQs…
Question for Krieg regarding IC’s. Are upgraded IC’s immediately capable of producing at the higher rate?
No. They may only produce three units on the turn that they are upgraded (not including the upgrade itself).
If a defending sub retreats to a convoy zone, do this affect the attackers income during the collect income phase?
Defenders can’t retreat, so I assume you mean submerge, in which case it will still raid the convoy.
But a defending sub (if not hit) always had a choice of either retreat or submerge (if a destroyer is not present)?
In our last Global game (playing Alpha+.2) my Soviet Union attacked the westernmost territory in Mongolia, so we placed neutral units on the rest of the territories. My opponent then used one of Japan’s tanks from Manchuria to blitz through two Mongolian territories to capture them both to get the IPC values (the spaces were 1 and 2 IPCs). Is that allowed?
But a defending sub (if not hit) always had a choice of either retreat or submerge (if a destroyer is not present)?
No, defending subs can never move to a different zone. The only defending unit that can ever move to a different zone is a defending fighter that lost its carrier. It can move 1 space to friendly landing place.
In our last Global game (playing Alpha+.2) my Soviet Union attacked the westernmost territory in Mongolia, so we placed neutral units on the rest of the territories. My opponent then used one of Japan’s tanks from Manchuria to blitz through two Mongolian territories to capture them both to get the IPC values (the spaces were 1 and 2 IPCs). Is that allowed?
I don’t see any Mongolian territories with IPC values. Did you mean 1 and 2 Infantry, perhaps?
You can’t blitz to claim a neutral because you claim a friendly neutral (which Mongolia and all other true neutrals have become, to the Axis) in the noncombat phase. You can only blitz in the combat movement phase.
Maybe you guys don’t know that when you invade a true neutral all true neutrals in the world become friendly to the enemy? If Russia takes the westernmost territory in Mongolia to violate neutrality, you have just allowed the Axis to walk into Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, the African ones, etc etc for free, getting all the infantry and IPC values.
I don’t see any Mongolian territories with IPC values. Did you mean 1 and 2 Infantry, perhaps?
Ok I’ve misunderstood this for a long time then. Is there no point in attacking Mongolia aside from position? Are they treated as a strict neutral in the Global game?
Any hint when the FAQ will be published?
thanks
But a defending sub (if not hit) always had a choice of either retreat or submerge (if a destroyer is not present)?
No, defending subs can never move to a different zone. The only defending unit that can ever move to a different zone is a defending fighter that lost its carrier. It can move 1 space to friendly landing place.
Thank you for the correction :oops:
Re: Mech infantry movement-
Krieg, I just want to confirm my understanding of movement of a Mech infantry as I understand the definition of “blitzing” as there are SO many questions relating to “blitzing”.
Blitzing refers ONLY to taking control of an unoccupied territory as the first space of a 2 space move (by tank or tank/mech inf). Change in control is the defining feature of a Blitz, not movement itself. It never refers to the movement of 2 spaces as a combat move in and of itself, correct? Combat moving 2 spaces (total) through a friendly territory and ending in a hostile territory is thus NOT a blitz (as a hostile empty territory was not captured).
Thus a mech infantry can move during combat in 3 possible ways:
Or, is ANY 2 space movement in the combat phase considered a “blitz”, in which case a mech infantry can only move two spaces during the combat phase with a tank, even if no empty hostile territory is “blitzed” in that first move?
Re: Mech infantry movement-
You have it right with your three options. Think of mechs as infantry units that can move two spaces. If they’re paired with a tank, they can blitz as well. If not, they have to stop in the first enemy territory they enter, even if it’s empty.
