@Eggman:
Again, please pull out the manual before trying to say I’m in error.
I did.
Fair enough. Sometimes it doesn’t suffice to read a rule, if it contains game terminology in it you also have to go back and read the exact definitions of those terms.
Regarding Krieghund’s answer, what version of the rules was in place when he gave that reply? There is nothing in the 2e books that supports the claim that you could move through NW Persia into Persia as part of one move or two moves (for example, a unit moves into NW Persia, then a 2-movement unit moves into Persia). If he is saying authoritatively that is indeed allowed, then the manuals are incorrect and need revision.
Did find this so far - Krieghund said you can blitz true neutrals and neutrals not pro-you if there are no units in them to activate.
I stand corrected, Eggman. You want my badge?
This would be true under the assumption that you are attacking those countries, not activating them.
Keep the badge. If you make some horrible mistake in our current game, I’ll be happy enough!
@Eggman:
@Eggman:
Again, please pull out the manual before trying to say I’m in error.�
I did.
Fair enough.� Sometimes it doesn’t suffice to read a rule, if it contains game terminology in it you also have to go back and read the exact definitions of those terms.
Regarding Krieghund’s answer, what version of the rules was in place when he gave that reply?� There is nothing in the 2e books that supports the claim that you could move through NW Persia into Persia as part of one move or two moves (for example, a unit moves into NW Persia, then a 2-movement unit moves into Persia).� If he is saying authoritatively that is indeed allowed, then the manuals are incorrect and need revision.
No, I was incorrect and I edited the post about NW Persia. It’s non-friendly neutrals that you can blitz during the combat move.
It doesn’t matter which version of G40 it is, because this rule has remained completely unchanged since the original OOB in the fall of 2010.
For the record, it’s STUPID that you can’t blitz into a friendly neutral on the 2nd move of a blitz. It’s a technicality that exists due to adding neutrals to the A&A mechanics of separating combat and non-combat moves. Since tanks can blitz an enemy territory and then move into a friendly all in the combat movement phase, it creates a bit of a paradox. As you astutely pointed out, a friendly neutral is not “friendly” in the tank blitzing rules. That was my bad, but you can understand the misinterpretation, I’m sure. “Friendly” would seem at first to include “friendly neutral”
@Eggman:
This would be true under the assumption that you are attacking those countries, not activating them.
Right - that’s why I said true neutrals or non-friendly neutrals. You would always be attacking them and not activating them.
@Eggman:
If he is saying authoritatively that is indeed allowed, then the manuals are incorrect and need revision.
Look at how many pages of FAQ there are, in two different threads. A lot of questions are due to people not even having or not reading their rulebooks, but a slug of them are because a lot of things are pretty unclear, or at least not at all obvious.
What I’m saying is, just because you can prove something using the rulebook doesn’t always make it the actual rule, and yes there are things that should be edited/amended.
However, in this case you were right that “friendly” in the tank rules did not include “friendly neutrals” because “friendly” is elsewhere defined as “controlled by you or a friendly power”. But beware that sometimes you can make a similar case by mixing and matching rules throughout the rulebook and be pretty darn sure, and Krieghund comes along and says that’s not the way it is… In other words, Krieghund trumps rulebook
…in other words, Krieghund trumps rulebook
That’s pretty much what I said. If a developer comes out and says the rule is wrong, then the manual needs another revision. In the meantime the manual is all we have.
There may be some things in the rulebook that are a bit unclear, but as far as I know there’s nothing in there that’s actually wrong that isn’t already corrected in the FAQ.
This seems stupid to me. In my game I have an axis tank in Trans Jordan. I can’t take an empty french Syria and activate Iraq in one move?
Why would this make logical sense? I could blitz two enemy territories but can’t travel through one empty enemy territory and a friendly neutral.
Could I activate Iraq with a different TJ unit in non-com and then move the tank during non-combat into the now axis Iraq with the leftover movement point after blitzing Syria one movement point in combat move?
This seems stupid to me. In my game I have an axis tank in Trans Jordan. I can’t take an empty french Syria and activate Iraq in one move?
Why would this make logical sense? I could blitz two enemy territories but can’t travel through one empty enemy territory and a friendly neutral.
I know, right? @Gamerman01:
For the record, it’s STUPID that you can’t blitz into a friendly neutral on the 2nd move of a blitz. It’s a technicality that exists due to adding neutrals to the A&A mechanics of separating combat and non-combat moves. Since tanks can blitz an enemy territory and then move into a friendly all in the combat movement phase, it creates a bit of a paradox.
:-)
@Jeff28:
Could I activate Iraq with a different TJ unit in non-com and then move the tank during non-combat into the now axis Iraq with the leftover movement point after blitzing Syria one movement point in combat move?
NO, NO, NO, you can’t. :-)
Because the entire tank’s blitzing move must always be COMPLETED during the combat movement phase. As Eggman astutely pointed out, ONLY PLANES move in the combat movement phase and then also in the non-combat movement phase.
For the record, it’s STUPID that you can’t blitz into a friendly neutral on the 2nd move of a blitz. It’s a technicality that exists due to adding neutrals to the A&A mechanics of separating combat and non-combat moves. Since tanks can blitz an enemy territory and then move into a friendly all in the combat movement phase, it creates a bit of a paradox.
It has nothing to do with the separation of combat and noncombat movement. The blitzing rule could easily have allowed tanks to end a movement in a friendly neutral and activate it if we had wanted it to.
Moving land units into a friendly neutral to activate it represents the time and diplomatic effort necessary to convince that territory to enter the war. As such, any unit doing so must spend its entire effort on that turn activating the territory, and it may not do anything else. That’s why a tank can’t blitz and activate a friendly neutral on the same turn.
Diplomacy with tanks - I see… :wink:
For the record.
Pro NEUTRAL’s, are not “friendly” territories, they are neutral territories. I think that’s where all the confusion is coming from.
No the confusion comes from the fact that in Boldfresh’s example, the territory is no longer neutral. But Eggman pointed out that it is not friendly either.
Also, there is confusion from multiple players about the exact timing of the blitzing of a tank. It is common for people to think that the tank blitzes the first territory in the combat movement phase, and then waits until the non-combat phase to move into a non-hostile territory. People can also overlook that friendly neutrals can never be activated in the combat movement phase.
Is there a limit on the number of minor ic’s you can have in a territory?
@captain:
Is there a limit on the number of minor ic’s you can have in a territory?
Yes, limit 1 IC per territory.
See “Industrial Complexes” in the rulebook
I’m seeing no such prohibition for air bases or naval bases, though…
Krieghund?? Can you build redundant bases to help prevent the enemy from disabling all your bases? :roll:
Is that in the rulebook? I’m only asking because I’m playing a game and my opponent has two minor ic’s in Egypt…the Triple A game engine allows that.
@captain:
Is that in the rulebook? I’m only asking because I’m playing a game and my opponent has two minor ic’s in Egypt…the Triple A game engine allows that.
You’re too fast - I edited my post. It’s under “Industrial Complexes” and is crystal clear.
“Only one industrial complex can be placed in a territory.”
Thanks…I’ll have to square things out with him.
@captain:
Thanks…I’ll have to square things out with him.
Yeah. If one of you has a rulebook, it will be easy. If you don’t, give me your e-mail address and I’ll e-mail you the applicable page.
