Russia Question

@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 !

On the pacific map U.K. and Anzac are Allies.
On the European map Germany and Italy are allies.

If Anzac attacks japan then the U.K. is at war with Japan also.
If Italy attacks Russia then Germany ISNT AT WAR WITH RUSSIA?

The rules are very clear:
It is legal for Germany to move into allied (Italian) held territory - regardless of the original owner.
It is illegal for Russia to combat move into a territory that contain units belonging to a power with whom it is not at war - regardless of the original owner.

Why keep arguing the rules are dumb or make no real world sense? That has nothing to do with what the book clearly states. Change the at your table rules if you don’t like them and move on.

*Aside: it’s hardly uncommon for a ‘neutral’ power to occupy territory claimed but not controlled by another power without declaring war, either to hold it for a third party or annex it themselves. See: various ‘policing’ actions of the US, Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, etc.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Amalec

No it is not….Germans and Russians have a non aggression pact…this is not Italian territory…It is a Russian territory in control by Italy…The Pact makes it a Russian territory…ILLEGAL

There is no support for your claims in the rulebook. The section on territories makes things very clear.

Territories
The border colors of the territories on the game board show which power controls them at the start of the game. Each
power has its own color and emblem (the United Kingdom controls the Canadian territories in addition to those with
its own emblem). When the rules refer to the �original controller� of a territory, they mean the power whose emblem is
printed on the territory. All other spaces are neutral and are not aligned with any power.

[…]

All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war
(see �The Political Situation,� page 9). Neutral territories, such as Switzerland, have white borders and do not have any
power�s emblem on them. Most such territories also have a unit silhouette with a number, which indicates how many
infantry units the territory will generate to defend itself when its neutrality is violated. The Sahara Desert and Pripet
Marshes are impassable and may not be moved into or through by any units.

As you can see, Italian-held but originally Russian territory is defined simply as “Friendly”.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Exactly….the rule book does not cover this scenario…you just made my point

Germans entering into an original Russian territory controlled by Italians hence breaks the pact…it is a DOW so no bonus…if they want to honor the pact then they can’t make that move�

I honestly cannot understand how you leap from ‘a Russian territory controlled by Italy is Friendly to Germany’, to ‘therefor Germany cannot move there’.

The territory is strictly defined as Friendly to Germany because it is Italian controlled. Germany can move into friendly territory.

This is the entirety of Germany’s political situation. There is no pact.

Political Situation: Germany is at war with France, the United Kingdom, and ANZAC. Germany may declare war on
the United States, the Soviet Union, or China at the beginning of the Combat Move phase of any of its turns. A state of
war between Germany and one of these three powers won’t affect its relations with the other two.

@Leatherneckinlv:

the freaking non aggression PACT….sheesh man…Russian political situation

Europe rule book page 9…Molotov - Ribbentrop pact
Russia may declare war against AN axis power…SINGULAR…meaning Italy

German non combat move into East Poland (Italian controlled) is an aggressive move into a territory that was covered in the pact (All original Russian territories) hence breaking the pact meaning DOW and no bonus or it is an ILLEGALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL move…sheesh

and yes this scenario is not covered in the book in any form or fashion…hence those rules (Powers not at War) does not apply here

Russia may declare war against Italy, but it still cannot move into a territory with German units without declaring war on Germany.

A power can�t attack a territory controlled
by or containing units belonging to a power with
which it is not at war.

I do not know why you think the Powers Not At War section does not apply to two powers not at war (Germany and Russia), but it does. The rules are all clear. At this point, you are arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4. You have left logic behind.