[House Rules] The 20 IPC Question....

Ah never mind my previous comments, Kriegshund has it correct. There’s a special rule just for this scenario:

“An attacking land unit can assault a coastal territory
from an ally’s transport, but only on the turn of
the attacking land unit’s owner.  All of the normal
requirements for transports offloading in a sea
zone must still be met by the attacking power (see
“Special Combat Movement, Transports”, page 16),
and any scrambled air units will prevent the landing
if they cannot be destroyed”

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf (page 21)

On page 16 it permits a scramble to resist amphibious attacks:

“They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious
assaults from adjacent sea zones”

@Stauffenberg:

Reading and understanding the rules is one thing, not very hard to do. BUT remembering all of them and bringing them into context with each other is a lot more complicated and the practical experience playing Global shows that there a lot of small “problems” occuring due to the fact that the rules are clear, but complex and complected.

Just look at the FAQ here on the board and the rather huge amount of videos about Global, they show that there is a need for information beyond the rulebooks. Or at least for a rulebook that is not divided into 2 parts, with a few more examples giving practical advice.

Laws are another example of this sort of thing.  To really understand a piece of legislation, you of course need to start with the text of the law itself, but then you often need to add other things…for example the administrative regulations (if any) that govern the application of the law, and the jurisprudence surrounding the law that may have been generated when judges have ruled on court cases that have involved the law.  After laws are initially published in their official form by government printing offices, some of them probably get re-published by commercial publishers in annotated editions which contain both the text of the law itself (what it says) and accompanying legal commentary (providing an opinion on what the law means and how it is customarily applied).  YG’s project sounds like it’s along the lines of such an “annotated edition” and it would have the same kind of usefulness to A&A gamers as such annotated editions have for lawyers, law students, legal schloars and so forth.

I think what also helped the USA in the Pacific was the type of war it was; wasn’t the majority of the Japanese land forces fighting in China? The USA could use their wealth of equipment and air-power to good use this way.

I like the idea of the different start-ups and scenarios and maybe more victory conditions for the Global Games.

I don’t think WW2 Axis & Allies games are dead either; I like the idea of more Theater type games as well like:
Eastern Front (have lots of territories; maybe make good use of rail-roads and blitzkrieg tactics etc… have extra "special infantry to represent the SS and other stuff)
Stalingrad would be cool…
Kursk would be cool…

Maybe some form of Atlantic Battles (subs vs convoys etc…)
Maybe some form of Battle of Britain (air battles) or some form of Bombing strategy game of the allies vs Germany (air battles).

I think there’s lots of games and ways they could still go.

You are right on all counts MeinHerr.

@kcdzim:

In addition to what was already stated by Moralecheck -

While the game engine may sometimes allow it, you are not technically allowed per the game rules to load during the combat phase if those units cannot or will not be used for an amphibious assault during that combat phase.

Yes, I understand. I was assuming that they could be offloaded at some point that turn, but either way it would have ended up being the same if I loaded them in combat move or non-combat, since they could do nothing either way.

@RedHunter:

@soulfein:

@Zhukov44:

Why bother if I’m not serious about the Sea Lion bluff and USA can buy bombers to reinforce London anyway?

to deny uk investing early in middle east, thus giving ita a real chance to make 30+ early on, instead of getting convoyd out of the game without doing anything at all.

plus the initial naval investment (ac+trans) actually helps ger against barb, enabling ger to have a solid stack drinking in novgorod g3.

Invest with what fleet lol? UK fleet should be gone turn 1. Its not that hard to sink it. Just use fighters and fleet correctly. And if you want to annoy the UK take Scotland turn 2. But build armor for Russia. 1 tech token and 4 armor…best German 1 build I have found for Alpha 3. You are not going to be able to pull off Sealion unless the UK is stupid and even if you pull it off you bring USA into the war a turn early for which Japan is not thankful to you. You won’t normally be able to hold the UK and build enough for Russia, depending on turn 1 USA builds. If they think you are going to sealion you can bet they are going to build to counter turn 1.

I have said this before and I will say it again. If France doesn’t fall and the UK has fleet left you can pretty much call the game turn 1. It digs Germany into a huge hole they have a hard time recovering from.

sigh those transports plus ac built in g1 is not for sealion it s for reinforcing barbarossa… with that build u can stack novgorod in g3 - fastest way to make money from barb with ger.

meant uk can invest in middle east (factories + newly purchased land/naval units), ofc ger should hit uk navy in g1 that s a no brainer.

taking scotland on turn2 doesnt help barbarossa at all.

slightly off topic, usa is already in war in 2nd round max if u want to threaten a pac win, so sealion doesnt interfere with that.

if allies think ger s going for sealion and build to counter it, that s all the better for axis, since it means barbarossa will be much stronger, because allies built against sealion, not barb.

As I suspected….damn. Thank you sir.

@BadSpeller:

@ThomasJefferson:

does the sun rise in the morning?

Poor answer, in some locations on this planet, that answer is no.
The sun is up for months, or the sun does not rise for months.

:-D :lol: