So, if you take over an island or territory that has a convoy marker, your enemy can now attack that onvoy and reduce your IPCs?
No that is not the case, but it should be.
Why wouldn’t it be?
@Imperious:
No that is not the case, but it should be.
er I believe it is indeed the case, to a limit. regardless of how many warships are disrupting the convoy adjacent to your new terit(s), they cannot interdict more IPCs than what those new terit(s) are worth. so all else equal, you cannot become financially worse off with a terit than without it.
So what is the answer to my question??
yes
WOW! thats an advancement of the rules.
So the convoy centers are now interchangable to the side that controls the adjoining territory/ Island. That is not in the rules, though i suppose it could be implied.
With rule issues like this, I feel like I will not be able to play a clean game for weeks
I’m not sure there’s really an issue here. Does anyone else feel that the convoy disruption rules are unclear?
I do. DO you takte IPC befoer they spend them ( at the beginning of their turn) or when they collec tthem ( at the end)
I don’t see a problem, I think we had a ton of people asking questions who haven’t actually read the rules yet.
I think that they are pretty clear especially with the few clarifications that have been made.
They arent really that complicated.
I do. DO you takte IPC befoer they spend them ( at the beginning of their turn) or when they collec tthem ( at the end)
Page 20, under “Phase 6: Collect Income”:
However, before you can actually receive this income, you must check for any losses incurred by air and naval attacks against your shipping routes (see below).
Page 20, under “Conduct Convoy Disruptions”:
Each enemy surface warship in the sea zone causes the loss of one IPC from your income for the turn.
Why wouldn’t it be?
Because it wasn’t the case in the original AAP. Or in any other version that used convoy centers.
Additionally, I do not see in the rules where it states: If you lose the territory attached to the convoy, the enemy can now be attacked in the same manner because the convoy is now his convoy.
@Imperious:
Because it wasn’t the case in the original AAP. Or in any other version that used convoy centers.
Don’t let the rules of previous games color your perception of this one.
@Imperious:
Additionally, I do not see in the rules where it states: If you lose the territory attached to the convoy, the enemy can now be attacked in the same manner because the convoy is now his convoy.
Sea zones don’t belong to anyone, so convoys don’t belong to anyone. If you have a ship in a sea zone with a convoy marker that’s adjacent to an enemy’s territory during his/her collect income phase, you reduce his/her income. It’s as simple as that.
I’m not sure there’s really an issue here. Does anyone else feel that the convoy disruption rules are unclear?
The convoy rules are perfect.
Need no markers to show control.
The loss of IPCs is caused by the number and kind of enemy warships hunting the convoys.
You can clear off the Seazone with planes (except subs) and don’t need to send warships.
Subs can fullfill their one and only determination: HUNT CARGO VESSELS!
I think maybe some of the confusion comes from the difference between the old rules and the new. I think if you just read the new rules then they make sense and everything is clear. If you think about it in terms of the old rules I can see how people could be a little confused.
oops. Didn’t see Krieghunds post saying the same thing about getting confused by looking at older rules that dont apply anymore.
Sea zones don’t belong to anyone, so convoys don’t belong to anyone. If you have a ship in a sea zone with a convoy marker that’s adjacent to an enemy’s territory during his/her collect income phase, you reduce his/her income. It’s as simple as that.
I love this new rule, Kev. Was it Mons that come up with the idea ? Anyway, lets take an example:
UK controll Kwangtung (3IPC) and Japan controll Formosa (1 IPC)
UK has a sub in seazone 20 and Japan has a sub in seazone 20. This is legal according to the rules.
The Japanese sub deny UK 2 IPC income, and in next turn, if still alive, the UK sub deny Japan its 1 IPC income. This happens because convoys belong to everybody that control any adjacent territory, right ?
Take the above example, and add that UK has a factory in Kwa and mobilized a destroyer in seazone 20.
That destroyer will not cancel the Japanese sub’s convoy disruption in “Collect income Phase” ?
