IIRC Triple A only looks to see if FIC is occupied by Japan with regards to the NO, so BM followed suit. It would make more sense if it were ‘‘attacked’’ instead of ‘‘occupied’’.
The problem with that language is that if Vichy is in effect Japan can occupy FIC without attacking it. I guess it should be attacked or occupy. The problem with that is if Japan activates FIC but then uses it to the Allies, they should still lose the NO. I think if that happens Triple-A might grant the NO but I don’t think it should.
The problem with that language is that if Vichy is in effect Japan can occupy FIC without attacking it. I guess it should be attacked or occupy. The problem with that is if Japan activates FIC but then uses it to the Allies, they should still lose the NO. I think if that happens Triple-A might grant the NO but I don’t think it should.
Occupy implies an attack, even if dice aren’t rolled.
Thank you for the quick reply Adam
So to be perfectly clear -
You’re saying that Japan can take control of Vichy FIC and not lose the NO, right? Because it’s a friendly neutral and Japan is not attacking FIC as per the 2nd edition NO language?
(That’s what I had told my opponent, who is playing Japan and laid off FIC) but we’ll play it according to what you say the rule is supposed to be.
No, there is no way for Japan to control FIC and still get +10. So you could say that the rule in BM is that if FIC is attacked or controlled by Japan, they lose the +10.
The problem with that language is that if Vichy is in effect Japan can occupy FIC without attacking it. I guess it should be attacked or occupy. The problem with that is if Japan activates FIC but then uses it to the Allies, they should still lose the NO. I think if that happens Triple-A might grant the NO but I don’t think it should.
Occupy implies an attack, even if dice aren’t rolled.
I trust Gamerman’s reply shows you that it doesn’t. It’s a non combat move.
If we can agree on phrasing I can update it in the notes.
The fact that the most senior people here, myself included (?), are still unclear about the rules, simply tells me that they are too complex. Just my two cents…not sure how we can effectively simplify while maintaining all that is great in B.M. and most of it is great, don’t get me wrong. I am not complaining just making an observation that you can toss out with yesterday’s news if you like. With that said I would also like to thank all the B.M. folks and everyone who puts in so much to this addiction I have. W/much love…
I don’t see anything more complex than what was in the original game to be honest. Remember the huge FAQ for G40? In BM there are a handful of ‘‘unclear’’ rules, with many of them coming from unclear vanilla rules and their implementation into TripleA.
Is there anything you don’t understand or you aren’t sure of?
The problem with that language is that if Vichy is in effect Japan can occupy FIC without attacking it. I guess it should be attacked or occupy. The problem with that is if Japan activates FIC but then uses it to the Allies, they should still lose the NO. I think if that happens Triple-A might grant the NO but I don’t think it should.
Occupy implies an attack, even if dice aren’t rolled.
I trust Gamerman’s reply shows you that it doesn’t. It’s a non combat move.
If we can agree on phrasing I can update it in the notes.
The phrasing should be that if Japan attacks or takes control of FIC, they lose the NO.
Sounds good to me. If everyone is happy about that, we can change it.
Thanks for the quick reply to my previous questions, got some more:
1. “An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.”
I assume this means an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan? Russia can’t trigger this by declaring war themselves?
Next two are not necessarily about BM3, but they came up since BM3 gives Russia and Japan incentives not to declare war on each other:
2. When Russia and Japan are not at war, can Russia land its planes on Allied carriers in the Pacific? Can UK/ANZAC land planes on American carriers when the USA is not at war (or when both are not, in case of the Pacific board)?
3. (Disregard this question if the answer to 2 is “yes”) There’s a Russian plane on a British Carrier on the Europe board. Russia and Japan are not at war. UK tries to move the Carrier to the Pacific board. What happens?
I would guess the standard rules apply then:
@Eur:
Neutral Powers: When a power is not at war with
anyone, it is neutral. Powers that begin the game
neutral, such as the United States and the Soviet
Union, aren’t initially part of the Allies or the Axis. The
Axis powers are on the opposite side of these neutral
powers, but they are not yet considered enemies.
While a power remains neutral, it operates under
even tighter restrictions. A neutral power can’t move
land or air units into or through neutral territories. It
can’t move units into or through territories or onto
ships belonging to another power or use another
power’s naval bases, nor can another power move
land or air units into or through its territories or onto
its ships or use its naval bases.
The Pacific rules don’t show this properly.
If USSR is at war in Europe but not with Japan, this rule would still prevent them from landing planes on allied CVs:
@Pac:
Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis
powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being
a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with
Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts
those restrictions on the Europe map only.
Thanks for the quick reply to my previous questions, got some more:
1. “An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.”
I assume this means an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan? Russia can’t trigger this by declaring war themselves?
Of course.
how do I select to start a BM2 game? In the menu, only original and BM3 are available
how do I select to start a BM2 game? In the menu, only original and BM3 are available
You should still have the saved game, so if you load that you can play BM2.
I don’t see anything more complex than what was in the original game to be honest. Remember the huge FAQ for G40? In BM there are a handful of ‘‘unclear’’ rules, with many of them coming from unclear vanilla rules and their implementation into TripleA.
You’re right. But adding a whole slug of more rules inherently adds a lot of complexity.
Just not a fan of the whole Vichy thing :-P
I don’t see anything more complex than what was in the original game to be honest. Remember the huge FAQ for G40? In BM there are a handful of ‘‘unclear’’ rules, with many of them coming from unclear vanilla rules and their implementation into TripleA.
You’re right. But adding a whole slug of more rules inherently adds a lot of complexity.
Just not a fan of the whole Vichy thing :-P
I was against Vichy initially too, but since it can easily be agreed upon to play without Vichy it doesn’t hurt to include it.
Yeah I might have to start doing that
“Vichy” isn’t that complex.
Says the guy who invented it
You and Adam are so biased.
Vichy adds a lot of confusion and a lot of rules
I don’t only criticize you guys - I hated on the game developers for coming up with that whole stupid Mongolia thing, and for too many Pacific air (compared to Europe) in the original version, and for their insane scrambling rules in the original version
But at least they eventually admitted their errors by dramatically changing their position.
