Russia Question

@Leatherneckinlv:

My point to this thread is….this is NOT covered in the rule book

Yes, it is, and Midnight_Reaper and P@nther have quoted the relevant rules.

@Leatherneckinlv:

People are responding based on perception as am I….you say tomato I say thamato…lol

People are responding based on the rules.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Those who wrote the rules probably never anticipated this happening

Yes, we did.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Seriously…what’s the difference between an attack on a sea zone or a territory?
They are both a combat move, no?

One is on land and the other is at sea, and the rules clearly explain the difference between the two.

Is this situation not similar to the Flying Tiger (Ch FTR)seeking refuge in Burma.
  It has always been that Japan could not attack Burma , only pursuing the plane. It automatically means a DOW on UK India.

@Leatherneckinlv:

In fact Russian and Germans are actually friendly Neutrals in this scenario

If North Korea attacked and occupied Alaska then 2 days later China moved in 100,000 troops would that be an act of war against the United States from China? The answer is yes. IMO it is an illegal move by Germany unless they declare war.

@Leatherneckinlv:

I just play tested this on tripleA and in fact I only had to battle the Italian units and Germany and Russia were in same territory co occupying after the Russian victory
…

@Krieghund:

…  TripleA is handling this situation incorrectly.

Indeed, but TripleA developers and map-creators are aware of that and have informed the users about this issue in the game notes:

@game:

Rules specific to 1940 the engine does not do, but you must follow:
…
(PE) You may not attack a territory containing units owned by a nation that you are not at war with (even if the territory is owned by someone you are at war with).

Or in other words: Russia - being not at war with Germany - may not attack Italian owned East-Poland containing units owned by Germany.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Roger that Kreghund

I am going to let the cat out of the bag now

This thread is 3 fold

before I start this occurred in one of my games at YG’s tournament and General Hand grenade  told us the rule, so I knew the rule

Desert Admiral and I spoke today and wanted clarification and since I had the time I posted this…

Before posting I realized since I am giving my opinions to Young Grasshopper for his deluxe edition game, that rules need to be black and white…not having to go to this section or that section to find technicalities

3rd Siredblood and I are close friends as well so to help his tournament this would benefit him as well…in fact been talking to Siredblood all day about this…I am also giving opinions and suggestions for his tournament…ie the Cavalry units and lend lease to China which will be a rule in the tournament and a few more concepts as well

Siredblood is making a card for this rule as well

hopefully those who have struggled with this strategy, now they are clear

I stand by my feelings that the rules do not clearly answer this scenario properly and perception is what drives what can and can not be done. I read this totally different than what Kreighund states…not arguing with him but I can rebuttal the heck out of it. Reason is technicalities…you have to go to different sections of the rule book to get the answer for a scenario that rules you look at are vastly different.

Logic is easy Russia gets attacked they have every right to get that territory back and rule states Russia may declare war against an Axis power…Singular so both Germans and Russians did not declare war the Germans become insignificant.

Easy fix is any Germans in Russian territories while not at war negates the 5 IPC Bonus that Germany is due

You can allways check out the Balanced Mod. here on triple a.
It is fixed there.
Also NO wise, Russia is served well with NO bonuses and are more fun to play.

I think all the peoples gave their best to explain it in the best manner.

Why so serious?!?

Have a great day !

@Leatherneckinlv:

Roger that Kreghund

I am going to let the cat out of the bag now

This thread is 3 fold

before I start this occurred in one of my games at YG’s tournament and General Hand grenade�  told us the rule, so I knew the rule

Desert Admiral and I spoke today and wanted clarification and since I had the time I posted this…

Before posting I realized since I am giving my opinions to Young Grasshopper for his deluxe edition game, that rules need to be black and white…not having to go to this section or that section to find technicalities

3rd Siredblood and I are close friends as well so to help his tournament this would benefit him as well…in fact been talking to Siredblood all day about this…I am also giving opinions and suggestions for his tournament…ie the Cavalry units and lend lease to China which will be a rule in the tournament and a few more concepts as well

Siredblood is making a card for this rule as well

hopefully those who have struggled with this strategy, now they are clear

I stand by my feelings that the rules do not clearly answer this scenario properly and perception is what drives what can and can not be done. I read this totally different than what Kreighund states…not arguing with him but I can rebuttal the heck out of it. Reason is technicalities…you have to go to different sections of the rule book to get the answer for a scenario that rules you look at are vastly different.

Logic is easy Russia gets attacked they have every right to get that territory back and rule states Russia may declare war against an Axis power…Singular so both Germans and Russians did not declare war the Germans become insignificant.

Easy fix is any Germans in Russian territories while not at war negates the 5 IPC Bonus that Germany is due

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.  We agree to disagree.

Thanks all.  I appreciate the discussion!  I’ve played that way where Russia would have to attack both Italy and Germany and then doubted myself especially when Triple didn’t handle it correctly.  I know that Triple A isn’t perfect and that the players are still expected to play by the Rule Book.

I’m thinking about a house rule where the countries I play all get a +5 IPC bonus every round and my enemies get -5!

:evil:

If U.K. takes Norway can a “neutral towards Germany” USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is “neutral towards Russia” be able to put units in originally Russian territory?

No way this should be allowed. What’s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?

@Locke888:

If U.K. takes Norway can a �neutral towards Germany� USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is �neutral towards Russia� be able to put units in originally Russian territory?

No way this should be allowed. What�s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?

Yes

Zombies
A6 +1 if wearing a Bennie with prop
D6
C6
M6
FS 2
RB twice

@Locke888:

If U.K. takes Norway can a �neutral towards Germany� USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is �neutral towards Russia� be able to put units in originally Russian territory?

No way this should be allowed. What�s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?

lol… because the territory isn’t Russian, its Italian.  It doesn’t matter who held it before, or who will hold it in the future.  Italy and Germany are allies.

In your first example, the US is neutral to both the UK and Germany, so it can’t land on the UK’s territory, same as it can’t land on Germany’s.

@weddingsinger:

@Locke888:

If U.K. takes Norway can a �neutral towards Germany� USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is �neutral towards Russia� be able to put units in originally Russian territory?

No way this should be allowed. What�s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?

lol… because the territory isn’t Russian, its Italian.  It doesn’t matter who held it before, or who will hold it in the future.  Italy and Germany are allies.

In your first example, the US is neutral to both the UK and Germany, so it can’t land on the UK’s territory, same as it can’t land on Germany’s.

Ridiculous.
If we are at war with Mexico and they occupied California there is no scenario where the United States would be ok with Cuba(who is neutral in this war) putting its troops in California.
It would be an act of war. This cannot be debated.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Weddingsinger….no It is originally controlled Russian territory in control of Italy but the Germans and Russians have a non aggression pact which makes this scenario unique…This is not considered Italian but Russian due to that pact…this move is illegal…technicality on the part of the Russians since everyone wants to throw technicality towards Germans favor…this is NOT covered in the rule book and this move is ILLEGAL …first it’s an aggressive move by Germans INTO ORIGINALLY CONTROLLED RUSSIAN TERRITORY…nullifying the pact and considered an ACT OF WAR so no bonus money and the Powers are at war or two this move can not be made legally…PERIOD

The PACT makes this unique and not covered by the rule book

My games you can’t do this without repercussions and to add insult to injury you want to give 5 IPC to Germany…that’s quite laughable

You do have a point with the Pact but until it gets officially changed the rule stays.
Hey if these Germany guys want the 5 icps that bad maybe just give them 5 Zombies instead. Geeeeezzzzzz I hope they corrected this rule in the new A&A Zombie game !

Please lets just all go and attack and roll some dice 24-7 !

Common sense must prevail.
We�re going to need a 3rd edition with the new rules, and while we are at it, new sculpts, a larger map, new units etc etc  :-D

G40 Deluxe baby !