Pearl Harbor

@simon33:

@creeping-deth87:

@simon33:

SZ26 is three spaces from W USA. It’s 2 spaces from SZ10 which is not W USA.

P. 8 of the rulebook “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the US mainland territories (Western US and Alaska)”

SZ1, SZ10, SZ2 are all one space from those territories.

SZs 11, 3, 8, 9 and 12 are all two spaces.

SZ26 is 3 spaces
SZ25 is 4 spaces

LOL wow you are really trying to stretch this. SZ 26 is within 2 sea zones of western us. There is no ambiguity here, it’s a very explicit rule.

@ShadowHAwk:

Lets think about the rule.

It was clearly intended to make sure that Japan cannot invade the US before they are at war. Especialy important in the pacific game.
So verry easy, you cannot put ships in any SZ that would ( if those ships where transports ) allow an invasion of the US continent.

Though this makes it pretty hard for japan to actualy attack russia as it would need to be at war with the US in order to do so.
Never thought of that rule.

The Japanese could not end their turn in SZ4, but they could end their turn in SZ 5, and therefore still invade the Soviet Union.

@creeping-deth87:

LOL wow you are really trying to stretch this. SZ 26 is within 2 sea zones of western us. There is no ambiguity here, it’s a very explicit rule.

Hmm, This has never come up in a game I’ve played. I guess if it says “sea zones”, your reading would be correct.

This debate about the meaning of the phrase “within two sea zones” has me somewhat confused about a rule I never really looked at before. For example, if you look at the map, then SZ26 is clearly three sea zones away from the Western US. Nobody would doubt that if they were land zones. But the fact that they are sea zones implies that an amphibious invasion from that zone would be possible.

And it stands to reason that you’d want to rule out such an invasion, as pointed out by ShadowHawk:

@ShadowHAwk:

Lets think about the rule.

It was clearly intended to make sure that Japan cannot invade the US before they are at war. Especialy important in the pacific game.
So verry easy, you cannot put ships in any SZ that would ( if those ships where transports ) allow an invasion of the US continent.

But if you consider that, then how about transports in SZ6? They can invade Alaska, but surely Japan can build them there?

So why I agree that SZ 26 is probably not accessible to Japan while not at war with the US, I’d appreciate an official ruling just to be sure.

Sea zone 6 is within 2 sea zones of the Aleutian Islands, not Alaska. There is no problem there with the rule.

After much contemplation, I agree with Simon’s interpretation of the rule.  We have never permitted the Japanese to “pass at peace” and hang out in SZ 26, but there is no obvious way of reading the “within 2 Sea Zones” as including SZ 26.

The first SZ counted must be SZ 10, SZ 1 or SZ 2.  It doesn’t make sense to say “within 2 SZ of the mainland” and then somehow NOT begin counting with the adjacent sea zone.    The rule might have said “within 2 SZ REACH” or “within 2 SZ of the coast etc.” but that isn’t what it says.

If this is correct, then SZ 4, SZ 14, SZ 13 and SZ 26 are all accessible by Japan before war.  Since the US can still block the Japanese passage to the west coast/Alaska during the Combat Move with screens, it doesn’t appear to result in any horrible outcomes.  It does make a new, unblockable/unscreenable squatting strategy possible.

It could also be an omission, I don’t know.

I think we need an official ruling here just to make sure, so I posted it to the FAQ.

@ShadowHAwk:

Yes was thinking about SZ6 but that is the only SZ that really creates the problem.

And transports cannot get to alaska on their own they need the naval base.

But the intend of the rule is the same, to prevent a sucker punch to the US that cannot be stopped.

So in stead of trying to find loopholes to abuse the rules just try to find out what was the intend of the rule and then play by that. We are not lawers here ( most of us ) and we are not in a courtroom defending a murder suspect. Its a friendly game between X players, just use common sense if things clearly look like your abusing the rules just dont do it.

Like for instance Russia in afrika, clearly their NO was designed with the idea to help speed up the game in case germany screwed up.
The historical sense was also related to this, the allies would never allow russia to take control of Axis countries in afrika.

Yes it is in the rules, yes you can land 1 inf on sicily and move your mech towards afrika. But it feels cheesy.
If you go purely by the book then yes japan can sucker punch the US because withing 2 SZ means you can be in the 3th and would be allowed an invasion without warning, and that is also kinda cheesy.

Although you made a good point, might be an idea to put a naval base a bit closer to the US and actualy invade them when you declare war. Might be a 1 off thing but surely will get their attention. Idealy combined with sea-lion.

I do appreciate your line of thinking and like to conduct actual games in that spirit, but at the same time I think it’s better to get clarity about rule issues when there’s no actual game involved. Attempting to understand the intent of a rule leaves us guessing, and may lead to debates about what is and is not reasonable during the game.

The USSR national objective is indeed a clear example of a rule that has the potential of being abused. Would a Soviet force have occupied Italian Somaliland during World War 2? Of course not. Could Soviet agents have infiltrated remote parts of Italy to bolster the already vibrant communist resistance and kick out Mussolini’s faltering regime? Now such a scenario could be open for debate.
And of course, it’s odd that the rule doesn’t apply to Korea. Taking Korea would clearly meet all the requirement of a major USSR success that should be rewarded accordingly, but it isn’t.

So all in all, I still prefer to do some rule lawyering here on this board, to having a debate about intent during a real game.

They also teach you this in law school;  the intention or outcome of a certain rule or law may be informative about why the law was passed or how it should be interpreted.  The “legislative history” or notes may also be informative.

But it has become especially unpopular to interject information that comes from outside of the “letter of the law”.  You can try to follow the “spirit of the law” (Japan may not position itself to the US’s great disadvantage at peace) but that concept is subject to exceptions (SZ 6 –-> is within range of Alaska so America can still be attacked).

Its much better to try and read the rules as literally (but flexibly) as possible.  Krieghund sometimes gets irritated that people question the clarity of the rules (though the designers have admitted mistakes/ambiguity when they have been made) because people seem to take for granted that the designers worded the rules at great length and that the rules are usually clear when they are not being twisted.

One very current example of this is Advise and Consent.  If the words “Advise and Consent” have any meaning at all, it means that Congress must approve all Federal Judicial Candidates (and Cabinet irrc).  However, there is little if any “advice” being given by a hostile congress controlled by the opposite party.  And, in this case, absolutely no Consent, discussion or debate.  The literal words do not require the Senate to debate the nomination, they can simply ignore it.

Then you would ask, why would the framers have created a non-functional system that prevents the court vacancies from being filled (except with candidates the senate would desire)?  The answer is, it was a compromise between allowing Washington/POTUS to appoint his own cronies and functionaries at will, and the Senate essentially doing so.  However, as we can see now, this compromise creates an impasse for which there is essentially no solution.

However, no matter how much we oppose the current state of affairs as being a nearly intentional uncorrected gridlock in our system (same gerrymandering, budget approval, and filibusters) and as being impractical, it is the only logical way to interpret the rules.  If “Advise and Consent” does not mean that the Senate can ignore these appointments, the do we reshape the meaning of that phrase to mean that Congress’s vote is not needed, or that they must vote simply because we don’t like the outcome (which is that ALL the appointments will go unfilled until there is a democratic congress)?

Thanks for FAQing the question.

How attacking Pearl Harbor went to invasion U.S.A. to American politics (which is banned by the forum) only a politician could answer–

I needed an example to blab about work is slow.

FYI HLK got the answer on the FAQ thread;  Japan can indeed park in SZ 26 (and many others debated here) at peace.

@taamvan:

One very current example of this is Advise and Consent.   If the words “Advise and Consent” have any meaning at all, it means that Congress must approve all Federal Judicial Candidates (and Cabinet irrc).   However, there is little if any “advice” being given by a hostile congress controlled by the opposite party.   And, in this case, absolutely no Consent, discussion or debate.   The literal words do not require the Senate to debate the nomination, they can simply ignore it.

I would guess that if that happens they are taken to have consented by not rejecting it??

That is exactly what “spirit” or “substance” would argue;  that if they refuse to debate/vote on the nomination, it passes because otherwise we don’t have a supreme court.

However, that is not what the “letter” or “form” of the law says which is that consent of Congress is necessary, period, no exceptions.  The supreme court must exist under the constitution, but the number of judges is not set.  This means that SCOTUS could have as little as 1 judge sitting and it would still be operating “correctly” in theory.  Just like a filibuster, this means that no debate or floor discussion is necessary;  Congress gets to choose its rules and its agenda and can refuse to do its implied duty (such as pass a functioning budget;  eg the sequester).

The supposed fix to this is that in theory, no one would vote to re-elect politicians that intentionally break the government to serve their own ends.  Again, in practice, people are so loyal to their agendas, they do not care (or want!) that their elected officials are intentionally disabling the president and damaging the government.

That’s how the system is supposed to “work”!

All good reasons not to try and use external information or the argument of pragmatism to argue for/against a rule.