By the way, I believe that Greenland is, actually, considered an island.
The previous post was for Axis and Allies game purposes only.
You mean, in real life, Greenland doesn’t butt up against the edge of the world? :wink:
~Josh
By the way, I believe that Greenland is, actually, considered an island.
The previous post was for Axis and Allies game purposes only.
You mean, in real life, Greenland doesn’t butt up against the edge of the world? :wink:
~Josh
Are you saying that my girlfriend is from Greenland?
crack pipe lol
… :?
Technicaly Greenland is made up of three large islands but since they are covered with premenant ice this was only reciently discovered… :D
Getting back to the actual question….
I understand why England and Madagascar (and Australia and Japan too) are not considered islands. Clearly defined and ruled out. Not a problem.
I don’t, however, think that you can subjectively decide where on the map (or against which enemy power) a NA applies, though.
Does Russian Winter not apply to Russian Inf being attacked by the Japanese just because the backstory (which, like all “flavour text” in the OM is printed in a different typeface specifically to separate it from the rules) describes the winter as being difficult for German troops?
Does Britain’s Radar not work against Japanese air units because the story refers to the Luftwaffe crossing the channel?
The actual mechanical rule part of the Island Bases NA reads: When moving your air units, you may treat island groups as part of the sea zones containing them. For example, a fighter (move 4) could travel from Midway to the East Indies in one turn, assuming your side controlled both island groups.
The Pacific theater is referenced as an example only. Not as a restriction on usage.
I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to allow a US player with Island Bases to count the West Indies (which is not in the Pacific) as an island. It obviously IS one. (Some people might point out that the West Indies’ sea-zone actually borders on a land territory, unlike every island in the Pacific, which therefore differentiates it and declassifies it as well. That’s an interesting angle but not valid in my opinion. The territory of West Indies is certainly contained in one sea-zone. Nobody said anything about the sea-zone surrounding an island necessarily having to be surrounded by nothing but other sea-zones.)
If Greenland isn’t an island because it borders the map edge, well, then it can’t be used. Of course. But to not allow it just because it’s not in the Pacific theatre? That’s a subjective (and yes, thematically appropriate, but still subjective) player decision that violates the written rules.
~Josh
Here’s another angle: Not all of Greenland shows on the map. Therefore, it cannot be said that All of Greenland is contained within the Sea Zone. That’s the angle of thinking of the real Greenland.
The other angle, viewing Greenland as it is indicated in the fictitious world of the A&A board, would say that the only part that matters is the A&A version of Greenland, which only borders 1 seazone.
Here the standard rules become relevant: a sea zone does not include the land territory within it - they are two different zones. The Seazone does not continue along the map edge behind Greenland. Thus, the sea zone around Greenland touches the map edge at two points, one on either side of Greenland, like a horseshoe.
A horseshoe is not a closed shape. Therefore, the sea zone does not enclose Greenland.
Also, I think it’s the size of Greenland more than the fact that it is not in the Pacific that speaks against it. I realize the rule says nothing about size, but it fits the backstory of bases on small islands.
But it’s still a dumb rule. Planes can land on any island. Therefore, each island must be assumed to have an airbase from the beginning. It doesn’t take a move to move from in the air in a sea zone to landing on an AC in the same sea zone. And it makes no sense that it takes the same # of moves to fly through a seazone and land on an AC in the next seazone as it does to stop and land 1 seazone earlier.
A horseshoe is not a closed shape. Therefore, the sea zone does not enclose Greenland.
Now that, my friend, is sound reasoning. I’m convinced. Greenland is not an island then, in Axis and Allies.
~Josh
Well I’m glad that for once on these forums my answer is accepted as definitive. If only sound reasoning would prevail in the political threads…
A horseshoe is not a closed shape. Therefore, the sea zone does not enclose Greenland.
Now that, my friend, is sound reasoning. I’m convinced. Greenland is not an island then, in Axis and Allies.
~Josh
I disagree, I believe Greenland does qualify as an Island. Here’s the rules definition of an Island:
Islands:
An island is a territory located entirely inside one sea zone. A sea zone can contain at most one group of islands, which is considered one territory. It is not possible to split up land-based units so that they’re on different islands in the same group.
Greenland is located entirely inside sz2, there is no part of greenland that is located outside that seazone. No where does it state that the seazone must completely surround or enclose the Island, so the fact that Greenland and sz2 butt up against the edge of the map is irrelevant.
A horseshoe is not a closed shape. Therefore, the sea zone does not enclose Greenland.
Now that, my friend, is sound reasoning. I’m convinced. Greenland is not an island then, in Axis and Allies.
~Josh
I disagree, I believe Greenland does qualify as an Island. Here’s the rules definition of an Island:
Islands:
An island is a territory located entirely inside one sea zone. A sea zone can contain at most one group of islands, which is considered one territory. It is not possible to split up land-based units so that they’re on different islands in the same group.Greenland is located entirely inside sz2, there is no part of greenland that is located outside that seazone. No where does it state that the seazone must completely surround or enclose the Island, so the fact that Greenland and sz2 butt up against the edge of the map is irrelevant.
My argument is that Greenland is not an island for the Axis and Allies game, because on the game map, Greenland is contiguous to the edge of the map board. Therefore the territory is not entirely WITHIN the sea zone (per original rules). By the definition you gave, it is even clearer, an island is a territory LOCATED ENTIRELY INSIDE one sea zone.
Greenland is NOT entirely inside the sea zone, as you can see, because you cannot place a naval unit north of Greenland, because of the edge of the map.
Really, Greenland sticks into a sea zone, rather than being entirely contained within a sea zone.
If you think about it, the sea zone is an arbiitrary defined zone that by definition ends at the end of the game map. But Greenland does NOT end at the end of the game map in real life. So Greenland is NOT entirely within a single sea zone, even if the other sea zone(s) that would border Greenland are not on the game map.
Italian East Africa is another example of this. It is “entirely within” a sea zone, but it is adjacent to other land territories. But Italian East Africa is arguably not an island. By extension, I argue (given the previously mentioned facts) that Greenland is not an island.
Yes! Another trademark lengthy response. Mwaahahah.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent.
Ah, beer. An owl’s best frend.
By your very own logic, Greenland is an island. Just as sz2 ends at the maps edge so does greenland. Whether that’s true in real life is irrelevant.Â
However other compelling evedince can be found in the fact that every other Island on the map has it’s seazone named after it
West Indies Seazone (sz19); Hawaiian Seazone (sz52);Â Midway Seazone (sz56); Wake Is. Seazone (sz51); Solomont Is. Seazone (sz45); New Zealand Seazone (sz41); New Guinea Seazone (sz47); East Indies Seazone (sz37); Borneo Seazone (sz48); Philippines Is. Seazone (sz49); Caroline Is. Seazone (sz50); Okinawa Seazone (sz58)
SZ2 is labeled the “Greenland Seazone” which supports my assertion that Greenland is in fact an Island.
I have submitted the question to the designers site, let’s see what they have to say.
By your very own logic, Greenland is an island. Just as sz2 ends at the maps edge so does greenland. Whether that’s true in real life is irrelevant.
However other compelling evedince can be found in the fact that every other Island on the map has it’s seazone named after it
West Indies Seazone (sz19); Hawaiian Seazone (sz52); Midway Seazone (sz56); Wake Is. Seazone (sz51); Solomont Is. Seazone (sz45); New Zealand Seazone (sz41); New Guinea Seazone (sz47); East Indies Seazone (sz37); Borneo Seazone (sz48); Philippines Is. Seazone (sz49); Caroline Is. Seazone (sz50); Okinawa Seazone (sz58)
SZ2 is labeled the “Greenland Seazone” which supports my assertion that Greenland is in fact an Island.
I have submitted the question to the designers site, let’s see what they have to say.
Good job on submitting that question to the designers. But your logical argument that “that every other Island on the map has it’s seazone named after it”
1. posits as part of the argument that Greenland is an island by implication “every OTHER island” implies that Greenland is an island. Which it IS, but not necessarily for game purposes, which is the subject of the question.
2. If all oranges are fruit, it does not logically follow that all fruit are oranges. If every other island on the map has a seazone named after it, it does not follow that every territory that has a seazone named after it is an island territory.
I am not familiar with the source that names seazones as you mention. Are those the ONLY sea zones under that source that are named? For example, what is sea zone 10 called? Is it called the “E. US Seazone”?
The critical word is “inside”. Unfortunately, it is ambiguous.
I argue that for the purpose of an island, “inside” means “entirely surrounded by” - that’s what an island is in real life, a piece of land that is surrounded on all sides by water.
NPB introduced a helpful concept with his example of Italian East Africa, which is that of topology. Topology is the study of shapes and especially their continuity and holey-ness. Topologically, a donut and a coffee mug are identical - both are solids with one shape. If both were made of playdough you could mold one into the other without disturbing the hole.
Now, topologically, Greenland is not a “hole” in the seazone next to it. you could squish greenland flat against the edge of the board and turn both it and the sea zone into rectangles lying alongside each other - then it would become apparent that Greenland (on the AA map, because Sea zones also only exist on the AA Map, and the definition of island is one meant for the AA Map) does not lie within the seazone, but next to it.
The fact is, the seazone does not stretch around Greenland.
A clearer example yet would be India - it’s even a similar shape, and has water in a horseshoe shape around it. Its northern edge does not see ocean, and yet it is “surrounded” (but not “inside” the seazone.
If however this definition of “inside” is not accepted, then the word is ambiguous and you have to look to other circumstantial reasons. None of these are conclusive but if the word “inside” itself does not answer it there is no choice but to consider other aspects of it.
Eh, let’s just see what LH has to say…
It’s clear that the fact that greenland & sz2 butt up against the edge of the map board is what creates the abiguity in this case. Does that abuttment constitute attachement to something that would disqualify greenland as you argue or does the map simply end at the edge with greenland attached to nothing placing it entirely “inside” sz2 as I would argue. India’s attachement to other territories would clearly disqualify it as lying “entirely inside” SZ35, and the Eastern US occupies 2 seazones (Sz10-E. US Seazone/GSZ-Great Lakes Seazone)
According to Larry Harris, Greenland is NOT and Island.
“In the spirt of the game… Greenland is NOT an island.”
-Larry Harris
