The FAQ Thread
-
I am pretty sure about this, but I want to get it proved beyond doubt on the main thread.
“Planes cannot land on newly placed carriers. Newly placed carriers may not be used to guarantee land spots. Thus, effectively, a carrier must sit naked for a turn after it is built.”
This is discussed in more detail here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36743/aircraft-carrier-rules-in-v3-a-new-way-of-thinking -
@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in The FAQ Thread:
However, if the British move to a sea zone where the Japanese fleet is and do not announce they are performing an amphibious assault, but instead announce they are moving through that sea zone to an adjacent one [where the Japanese player is worried the British will invade], in order to interdict the British fleet before it moves to that next sea zone where it will possibly conduct an amphibious assault, the Japanese would have to declare war on the British to try and stop them before they leave. That would incur the 5D12 penalty. And the delicious thing is, the British player may have just been feinting!
If the Japanese have to worry about a British invasion force, thay have bigger problems on their hands that the effect of a declaration of war !
-
@trig said in The FAQ Thread:
I am pretty sure about this, but I want to get it proved beyond doubt on the main thread.
“Planes cannot land on newly placed carriers. Newly placed carriers may not be used to guarantee land spots. Thus, effectively, a carrier must sit naked for a turn after it is built.”
This is discussed in more detail here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36743/aircraft-carrier-rules-in-v3-a-new-way-of-thinkingFor the purposes of this question, are you playing with optional rule 15.3?
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast Good point. I am not. The optionaly rule would allow aircraft to be placed on carriers when built.
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in The FAQ Thread:
“Planes cannot land on newly placed carriers. Newly placed carriers may not be used to guarantee land spots. Thus, effectively, a carrier must sit naked for a turn after it is built.”
This is my understanding, Trig, but I agree with you that it would be helpful to have it definitively answered. : )
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast That question was answered over a month ago on the thread that Trig referenced earlier. I didn’t re-answer it because the guy who wrote the rules gave the answer directly. When I have a question I ask him for the answer. His answers are more definite than mine.
-
Declarations of War
https://youtu.be/Kz5Kl9oOZSA -
@generalhandgrenade Wow! I didn’t catch that Munck was the designer! Thanks. Doesn’t get more definitive than that!
-
@generalhandgrenade said in The FAQ Thread:
Declarations of War
https://youtu.be/Kz5Kl9oOZSATwo follow ups:
- Does the Clarifying Ordering Effects on Page 37, (a), also apply to amphibious assaults, or is there some exception about amphibious assaults? I assumed it did apply to amphibious assaults.
- If a nation announces they will be engaging in an amphibious assault (or any other attack), is that not a declaration of war, in and of itself?
When you enter a sea zone where you will be doing combat (screening force, amphibious assault, etc.), your declaration of war occurs when you move into that sea zone. The Attacking player has to announce his intentions first and he has to do it upon entering the sea zone.
-
@generalhandgrenade in you Declarations of War video, when you move your British fleet next to Tokyo you say
« I didn’t tell you that was a combat move. I don’t have to declare War on you yet. ».Obviously if you are doing it during your Combat Phase, you will have to attack something in that zone by the end of the turn, so Japan knows that if he wants to block you he must declare war when the fleet enters zone 65 first.
There has to be some leeway for the players to figure out the timing of the declaration of War, especially if you skip over the zone that you have to go through to get to Tokyo when you move your fleet.
-
@noneshallpass said in The FAQ Thread:
@generalhandgrenade in you Declarations of War video, when you move your British fleet next to Tokyo you say
« I didn’t tell you that was a combat move. I don’t have to declare War on you yet. ».Obviously if you are doing it during your Combat Phase, you will have to attack something in that zone by the end of the turn, so Japan knows that if he wants to block you he must declare war when the fleet enters zone 65 first.
There has to be some leeway for the players to figure out the timing of the declaration of War, especially if you skip over the zone that you have to go through to get to Tokyo when you move your fleet.
Well, I can see situations where you move during the combat movement phase, even when you do not plan to declare war that turn. I agree we need clarification here, but on Page 34, 8.2 During Combat Movement, there are two examples which seem to argue that you could move during the combat movement phase, without necessarily declaring war. “Example: Germany wants to move two heavy cruisers into a sea zone with a medium bomber on MAP. it must do so during the Combat Move Phase even though the aircraft could decline combat if it wishes.” At the end of section 8.2, it reads, “Note that combat may not always occur as sometimes one or both players will be given the choice to engage in combat or not.” I like my interpretation better than GHG’s where the attacking player doesn’t “skip over the zone you have to go through to get to Tokyo” and instead announces his intention to move through that zone to get to the sea zone adjacent to Tokyo.
Several threads above, I wrote something like: The Attacking (moving) player’s intent needs to be declared upon entering a sea zone, sea zone by sea zone. The announcement is something like, “My fleet enters this sea zone and intends to keep moving to this next sea zone. Do you want to declare war before I leave?” The Attacking player’s fleet reaches the final sea zone they want and they announce, “We now declare war because we are going to try to perform an amphibious assault with these ships/units.” If there are enemy naval units, the Attacking player adds, “These units are my screening force.”
It seems GHG disagrees with that approach, but I think it is elegant, fair, and clear. The core principle with my approach is the the attacking player announces their intended actions in a sea zone when they enter a sea zone. Most of the time, it won’t matter, but when it does matter, it’s clear as can be. With GHG’s proposed system, you have fleets skip over sea zones; Attacking players moving so that the Defending player declares war, but then the Attacking player undoes their movements and attacks somewhere else; and a new rule where sometimes the Attacking player has to announce their intention when they enter a sea zone, but other times they do not. But little, by little, we polish the surface of the mirror to perfection, my friends! Clarification by clarification! 8 )
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast Good job! Excellent statement. I completely agree with everything you said.
I also highly encourage GHG to remake his latest video to better explain the way moving through sea zones work after reading page 37. He obviously didn’t check more than that “one sentence” he talks about so much before he made it. Sorry if I am being too harsh, but I was appalled by all the inaccuracies and over-simplifications.
-
- Do controlled (not aligned) minors have a home country for the purposes of lend lease and militia? Can they move militia in that home country?
-
There is a reference to Minor Power Home Countries in rules 9.24 and 11.5.
In the Glossary, it specifies that “For a Minor Power the Home Country includes the primary nation but not its colonies, islands or conquered land zones.”
So yes, they do have a Home Country, so they can receive lend-lease (rule 11.4), but the rules also state that Mililia may only move within a Major Power’s Home Country (rule 12.2).
-
@insanehoshi Noneshallpass already got most of it, but I want to mention the the “primary nation” is all land zones connected by land to the nation’s capital. (the brighter roundel)
-
@trig said in The FAQ Thread:
@insanehoshi Noneshallpass already got most of it, but I want to mention the the “primary nation” is all land zones connected by land to the nation’s capital. (the brighter roundel)
That makes common sense, but where do you find that, in the rules?
-
@captainnapalm said in The FAQ Thread:
@trig said in The FAQ Thread:
@insanehoshi Noneshallpass already got most of it, but I want to mention the the “primary nation” is all land zones connected by land to the nation’s capital. (the brighter roundel)
That makes common sense, but where do you find that, in the rules?
Page 6, Home Country, 2nd sentence.
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast That does not say that the “‘primary nation’ is all land zones connected by land to a nation’s capital.”
-
@captainnapalm Oh, sorry Napalm! I was deducting. “For a minor power the home country includes the primary nation but not its colonies, islands or conquered land zones.” So we know the primary nation is not colonies, islands, or conquered land zones. The perfect example is Greece. The Greek home countries are Macedonia, Thessaly, and Peloponnese. Crete is not home country.
-
@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in The FAQ Thread:
@captainnapalm Oh, sorry Napalm! I was deducting. “For a minor power the home country includes the primary nation but not its colonies, islands or conquered land zones.” So we know the primary nation is not colonies, islands, or conquered land zones. The perfect example is Greece. The Greek home countries are Macedonia, Thessaly, and Peloponnese. Crete is not home country.
That is a fair deduction, and probably correct. I was just wondering if it was specifically stated in the rules. Some major nation’s home counties don’t follow those rules, so I hesitate to have full confidence in that meaning.
New Zealand is an island, yet is home country. Northern Ireland is not connected to a capital by land, but it is home country. East Prussia is neither an island, colony, nor conquered territory, yet it is not home country.
I agree with your deduction, but I’d like to see the rules state the rules, rather than relying on our individual deductions.
Suggested Topics
