US Navy starts his turn in a hostile sz (95).
The US occupies Sicily and Sardinia in BM3 with Inf and Art.
The US can’t move out with TTs only in CM and move back in (after seabattle is solved) on NCM to load troops, Correct?
According to Page 21 in the Pac.'40 rulebook, Correct?
Yes.
Then this needs to be fixed in triple a i guess.
I was able to move all of my TTs on CM and moved them back in on NCM and load them.
(While i am thinking this not as bad as it is, being able to do so w. TTs)
My opponent locked my units on Sicily and Sardinia b/c all he needs to do is to buy a DD as long he has enough income.
Or getting somehow France or Anzak to clear the sz before US next turn (have fun w. that). Loophole :|
Will adress this issue in the League section concerning BM.
This will make the NO less favourable hmm :?.
Thank you Simon
You may want to check out the game notes in Triple A that lists known items where Triple A does not follow the rule book
Go to Help -> Game Notes in the menu bar
One of the known flaws is that you can move units in the combat phase and also the noncombat phase, when only aircraft are supposed to be able to do this
OK, serious announcement:
As many of you may know, Gargantua and I are playing a G40 2nd game in Vancouver BC. Last night, I parked a UK DD among the Japanese transport fleet and declared war with Anzac. Gargantua REFUSED to believe this was allowed despite the wording of the rule book and the FAQ.
Gargantua actually emailed and got a response from Larry Harris himself. Gargantua can post the response himself, but basically Larry said that such a move “should not happen” but that he was NOT going to hand down a “Supreme Court ruling” banning the move.
I am not sure what this means. Is the move now banned or just disapproved of? Krieg, can you get some clarity on this?
As far as I know you can declare war on Japan as the UK or ANZAC at the beginning of the combat movement phase without even moving your units. If a state of war exists between either the UK or ANZAC and Japan, then the other is automatically at war with Japan too because they are both members of the British Empire. At that time the same would have been true with any other member of the British Empire. For instance, Canada would then have been at war with Japan. Although, the others are represented in this game with the British roundel and their participation is obvious.
If I understand you correctly, you are both right and wrong. Yes you could declare war on Japan when you moved your destroyer in but you had to declare war with UK which would have also resulted in a DOW from ANZAC. You could not have declared war with ANZAC alone by moving in like that.
Last night, I parked a UK DD among the Japanese transport fleet and declared war with Anzac.
This scenario is perfectly legal, given it occurred like this:
Movement: A power’s ships don’t block the naval movements of other powers with which it’s not at war, and vice versa.
They can occupy the same sea zones.
ANZAC may declare war on Japan at the beginning of the Combat Move phase of any of its turns, resulting in a state of
war between Japan and both ANZAC and the United Kingdom.
This is a common strategy to prevent Japan from loading its transports on Japan’s next move.
If ANZAC would not declare war on Japan this way, Japan on its next turn would be allowed to declare war on UK and load its transports, because of
@rulebook:
During your Combat Move phase in which you entered into a state of war, your transports that are already in sea zones that have just become hostile may be loaded
in those sea zones (but not in other hostile seazones).
Because of ANZAC’s DOW on Japan the seazone is hostile when it comes to Japan’s turn. So Japan may not load the transports then.
@P@nther:
Last night, I parked a UK DD among the Japanese transport fleet and declared war with Anzac.
This scenario is perfectly legal, given it occurred like this:
- UK is not at war with Japan
- UK noncombat moved a destroyer into a seazone containing Japanese transports (or placed a newly built destroyer there). This is legal, because of
@rulebook:Movement: A power’s ships don’t block the naval movements of other powers with which it’s not at war, and vice versa.
They can occupy the same sea zones.
- So this seazone is not becoming hostile.
- On ANZAC’s turn, ANZAC declares war on Japan. This is legal, because of
@rulebook:ANZAC may declare war on Japan at the beginning of the Combat Move phase of any of its turns, resulting in a state of
war between Japan and both ANZAC and the United Kingdom.
- This brings UK into war with Japan and as a result the above seazone becomes hostile at that moment.
This is a common strategy to prevent Japan from loading its transports on Japan’s next move.
If ANZAC would not declare war on Japan this way, Japan on its next turn would be allowed to declare war on UK and load its transports, because of@rulebook:
During your Combat Move phase in which you entered into a state of war, your transports that are already in sea zones that have just become hostile may be loaded
in those sea zones (but not in other hostile seazones).Because of ANZAC’s DOW on Japan the seazone is hostile when it comes to Japan’s turn. So Japan may not load the transports then.
Yes it is legal, but now Larry has said something suggesting it is now illegal. We need clarity on it. Kreig?
It’s legal.
It’s legal.
Ok… so, Larry confirmed this despite what he told Gargantua?
Not to be a pest, but as you can imagine, Gargantua jumped down my throat waiving Larry’s post in my face saying Larry declared it illegal.
Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it. But I do know that it’s legal.
Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it. But I do know that it’s legal.
Hmm, maybe check with him?
Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it. But I do know that it’s legal.
Hmm, maybe check with him?
Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.” This move is made/contemplated all the time. If Larry calls foul…. then, what?
Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it. But I do know that it’s legal.
Hmm, maybe check with him?
Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.” This move is made/contemplated all the time. If Larry calls foul…. then, what?
I mean, Krieg can you please check on this? Can you please ask Larry with all respect and honor if this move is now illegal? I submit the question humbly and with respect! Thanks.
Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it. But I do know that it’s legal.
Hmm, maybe check with him?
Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.” This move is made/contemplated all the time. If Larry calls foul…. then, what?
That would be totally a bummer. :|
@aequitas:
Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it. But I do know that it’s legal.
Hmm, maybe check with him?
Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.” This move is made/contemplated all the time. If Larry calls foul…. then, what?
That would be totally a bummer. :|
Indeed. Actually, I am not too nervous about this, because it is highly unlikely, that a rule modification is behind that.
Why?
Actually the situation in question is not the consequence of “a move” but of some moves as elabroated before:
So what a rule modification could lead to the scenario becoming illegal?
At this moment only three possibilities come to my mind:
1. Nations not at war may no longer share seazones
2. ANZAC’s DOW on Japan no longer automatically brings UK into war
or something like
3. ANZAC may no longer declare war on Japan in the special case that UK shares a seazone with Japan
How reasonable are those?
So maybe a misunderstanding of the scenario is behind the discussed irritation?
Everythig is highly speculative, of course… :-)
There is no reason for ANZAC to DOW on Japan other than to exploit this loophole. Therefore, I submit that removing ANZAC’s ability to DOW on Japan would be perfectly reasonable and remove a loophole.
There is no reason for ANZAC to DOW on Japan other than to exploit this loophole. Therefore, I submit that removing ANZAC’s ability to DOW on Japan would be perfectly reasonable and remove a loophole.
Personally, I don’t consider this situation being a loophole, but simply a situation that Japan should be aware of and take into account.
Of course, maybe in general ANZAC’s ability to DOW on Japan is discussable - but I am not really a WWII expert to argue on that from a historical point of view.
@P@nther:
Personally, I don’t consider this situation being a loophole, but simply a situation that Japan should be aware of and take into account.
Exactly.
I checked with Larry, as requested. As P@nther and I said, the move is legal.
The thing to realize is that right now Larry is deeply involved with War Room, as has been for a few years now. As a result, he’s not as immersed in A&A as he might be. (He indicated in his email response that he wasn’t 100% sure of his answer.) Until this situation changes, your best course of action is to get your rulings right here.
Hello there. I’ve been reading this whole thread as it is an excellent exercise in being proficient for knowing / learning the rule book. Anyways was wondering if you were able to attack through a once hostile sea-zone as it occurs during an amphibious assault. To be more clear could one use a portion of their navy to clear a hostile sea zone and then use the unused portion (on the same turn) to move through the once hostile sea zone and attack another sea zone? Thanks for help!
