7.2 Rules question

:-D

@Tigerman77:

@ghr2:

@Tigerman77:

@SS:

@ghr2:

A few other things I have been asked:

• Can the UK build out of Far East Command and Anzac Factories?  I think not, but I want to be sure.

• Can Germany attack Baltic States/East Poland turn 2 if Russia did not take them?  I think yes.

• Can Germany collect money from a UK convoy zone?  This counts for all situations, not just G & UK.

• Is it true that the allies cannot attack strict neutrals first with the exception of Russia?

• Is it safe to assume that Germany can build out of the factories that start in the Minor-Axis countries, but only on the turn(s) after the turn the country was activated?

1. is yes. Uk can buy and place X amount of units in S.A., Calcutta, and Sydney.

2. if germany attacks Baltic state or eastern poland it is a decleration of war on Russia

3. No….convoy zones that are taken only subtract income from the original owner

4. yes…russia and Comm china are the only Allies that can attack Strict Neutrals

5. For Germany to build units out of Minor Axis territories they must have their own IC.

Tigerman,  have game Sunday. can you confirm these questions please ?

Can planes fly over neutrals and/or strict neutrals?  Have game going on and somebody asked.

On japans sneak attack do the Naval bases and Forts get there normal defends?

@SS:

Can planes fly over neutrals and/or strict neutrals?  Have game going on and somebody asked.

On japans sneak attack do the Naval bases and Forts get there normal defends?

like AA n such.

We didn’t have any issues with it. Just put country token under axis minor factory and if captured, took the factory away.

Major IC is reduced to a minor if captured. A Minor IC should be destroyed.  This will be put in the rules. Sorry for the confusion.

The only reason I put the Minor IC on the setups for the minor axis was because people had questions on naval builds.  The rules still state that each minor axis can only build 3 units per turn. If the territory the  IC is in is captures then the IC is destroyed.

can the new lend lease go to france?Holland? Are minor industrial complexes destroyed if they are liberated?

Seems like Tigermans answer is just for the axis minors and Germany.

liberating and capturing territories are very different things.  thus the capture of paris by an allied player would not destroy the minor factory.  the problem that would arise from the paris minor, is if paris is liberated but the allies are unable to hold it and the axis recapture it then would the minor be destroyed?  and is the minor is warsaw destroyed when germany captures it on the first turn?  maybe a more realistic option would be to capture the factories with full damage markers that the capturer has to deal with.

i also agree that sometimes people read to much into the rules, just use common sense.  in the case of minors building navy, if they can build troops without a factory, and a navy requires both a naval base and a factory then it stands to reason that for a minor power to build naval units they would only require a naval base.  i dont quite see the strategy for building naval units with minors.  it would require many turns of saved income just to build transports and to what avail.  as for industrial complexes being destroyed, i think reducing majors is important for game balance, but the destruction of minors doesn’t make much sense to me.  again i think gaining control of a minor with max damage would make more sense.  also could someone point me to the actual section of the rule book where it says minors are destroyed?  i didnt see it under facilities or capturing a territory.

Rohr94 is right. I think people try to read too much into the rules.  Example, the minor axis IC’s.  Before there were no IC’s but they could still produce units.  Then people asked about building naval units.  Just build a naval base and then build a ship!!  Lol.  On setup there are some countries that dont have naval bases and IC’s in the same zone……so what!  That just means in order for them to build more naval units they would have to buy and place an IC and naval base in the same zone.

You shouldnt put 2 ic’s in the same zone, although there is no rule against.  That is why the minor axis had special IC rules.

If you capture an IC, that is from the enemy, it is reduced in power or production. So if the IC in Paris is under axis control and it is a minor then the capturing of the IC would destroy it.  Also I thinkb there is nothing in the rules about capturing a major IC, it becoming a minor IC, but later upgrading it back to a major IC.

1. So if the allies take back Paris that minor factory is destroyed ?

2. So if Germany captures Warsaw that factory is destroyed ?

3. So that means any Minor factory captured anywhere is destroyed  ?

4. So take away the minor factorys in Axis minors on setup, let them build Naval and Air bases so to not have anymore confusion on factorys ?

We didn’t have any problems with the rules but just to be more clear.

how about lend lease to Holland and France?

I love this game but it seems to just keep getting more confusing. The spirit of what is intended is clear cut. The writing of the rule itself seems to be an issue.

I never did see where paratroops clarifications were written into the rules. The Japanese sneak attack rules are still a bit cloudy. I believe we play both correctly but I’ve been wrong about my interpretation before.

Maybe rewrite the rules like they were written in the original Third Reich. Example: See rule 7-1.a.c. and rule 6-4.b.t.

The fortification rules I thought were going to say only 1 fort per territory?

You only need one great game and everyone will buy it.

There are so many AA variants out there and in many ways this is the best, but it’s still fiddly with rules. Changes should be made slowly and with great care in wording. We keep getting in fights and flip a coin over tiny issues that actually change the whole game. For example, it doesn’t say Japan can’t move into Vichy…so Japan does so UK can’t attack it unless UK declares war on Japan. It’s exploitation but it’s allowed so it can’t really be argued.

In this game you can attack Russia first turn and leave UK/Poland/France alone. They can’t even attack Germany until after Japan attacks UK. I actually really love this option but it seems a bit unrealistic. Just little ways to exploit the game here and there at times makes it a bit frustrating for us.

3/4 of the questions out here are actually clear cut in the rules, but some things should be rewritten to be more clear. Basically the longer the rules get the more fun the game - but more interpretation issues occur.

@billcallaway:

I love this game but it seems to just keep getting more confusing. The spirit of what is intended is clear cut. The writing of the rule itself seems to be an issue.

I never did see where paratroops clarifications were written into the rules. The Japanese sneak attack rules are still a bit cloudy. I believe we play both correctly but I’ve been wrong about my interpretation before.

Maybe rewrite the rules like they were written in the original Third Reich. Example: See rule 7-1.a.c. and rule 6-4.b.t.

The fortification rules I thought were going to say only 1 fort per territory?

You only need one great game and everyone will buy it.

There are so many AA variants out there and in many ways this is the best, but it’s still fiddly with rules. Changes should be made slowly and with great care in wording. We keep getting in fights and flip a coin over tiny issues that actually change the whole game. For example, it doesn’t say Japan can’t move into Vichy…so Japan does so UK can’t attack it unless UK declares war on Japan. It’s exploitation but it’s allowed so it can’t really be argued.

In this game you can attack Russia first turn and leave UK/Poland/France alone. They can’t even attack Germany until after Japan attacks UK. I actually really love this option but it seems a bit unrealistic. Just little ways to exploit the game here and there at times makes it a bit frustrating for us.

3/4 of the questions out here are actually clear cut in the rules, but some things should be rewritten to be more clear. Basically the longer the rules get the more fun the game - but more interpretation issues occur.

I agree the rules could be more clear, my friend and i would get into arguments about little things that could have a huge impact.  but i’ve been trying to adapt my own one month rules and so i know how hard it is to address every issue that may come up.  also i think sometimes common sense just needs to be used.

with regards to your issue about germany attacking russia and the allies not getting involved.  while it may seem broken for game balance i think it is accurate.  there is a ww2 computer game called hearts of iron.  there are actually three alliances within it all with their own play style.  it’s broken up into the axis, allies, and comintern, and considering that the capitalist system of the allies is the antithesis of communist russia, i dont think it would be far off for the allies to ignore germany should the german player avoid attacking poland or any other neutral which the allies have guaranteed sovereignty to.  i think that if Germany were to make substantial progress into russia the stalin may call for help from the allies, but this is hard to simulate in a baord game.  it works on the computer because diplomacy can run through an algorithm which runs all the possibilities.  i havent even touched on the political situation in my variant, but just brainstorming ideas i’ve come to appreciate how difficult it is.

there will always be ways to game the system, and rules that may seem prefect to one group but another group finds all sorts of issues with them.  i think people, who are lucky enough to have groups that play together consistently, should just address the rules from the get go and write down their interpretations and stick to those.

Wait, I thought the UK and France start the game at war with Germany?