This is all a bunch of B.S.
Players exploiting this rule because of a grammatical error should hang their heads in shame. You know damn well what the intention of the rule is but you exploit it like a despicable lawyer getting his guilty client off on a technicality.
The notion that you are 2 spaces away from sz 10 and not from Western US is false from and amphibious assault point of view. You don’t sail your ships into Nebraska and drop of your ground units, you sail them into sz 10 and drop them off (you despicable lawyers can speculate whether or not they’re dropping them off into the ocean and they’re swimming into San Francisco with all of their gear and artillery from there). That makes loaded transports indisputably 2 spaces away from Western US. Indisputably!!
I know you pretend lawyers will hate this post and jump all over me for what I’m saying but I don’t care whatsoever. Play the game with some honour instead of your sneaky little tricks, and fix the stupid computer that allows you to exploit grammatical errors.
If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit!
pretend lawyer, ouch.
I guess I can keep practicing regardless of your opinions.
It says within 2 sea zones. SZ 10 is #1. The ones next to that are #2. The ones after that are fair game
That is about counting, not law.
I was also on the wrong side of this argument for a while, if I find that im wrong again, I’ll admit it, apologize if necessary, tell other people the correct answer, and realize that sometimes, im simply wrong.
Your tanks must be good swimmers. Hopefully you drop them off in the ocean on a calm day. I can count too. Loaded transports can attack Western US from sz 26. Grammatical error.
I like to argue too!
The rule doesn’t refer to some threat or danger to the US. If they sense that while the Japanese are sitting next to them at PH (at any time and regardless of the state of war, they need to move everything to SZ 10 and WUS, which is how most players respond to this J4 during simulations.
You are inserting that consideration into what the rule says.
The game designers via krieghund are free to change this via errata or reinterpretation at any time, they lurk these forums and have not given the oracles’ wisdom on any subject save in re; Sierra Leone in the past 2 years. Which is also to say they think the rules are pretty clear on this one, after 2 eds.
I can agree with you on that point. They should weigh in and give an interpretation of the rule. They should also explain to us how heavy Japanese equipment is able to swim and a Japanese navy can park itself in Pearl Harbour without the Americans considering that as an act of war.
In other words, if this is not a grammatical error than it is even more ridiculous than Japan being able to march a mechanized army across Siberia, through the Ural Mountains, and attack Moscow.
Placing the Japanese fleet next to Hawaii puts them out of position until J4. I would immediately do an unprovoked UK1 DoW. You know that they will not be able to respond for the next couple of rounds anyway. Yunnan should quickly return to Allied control and Japan will be hurting economically for the rest of the game. The economies of India and ANZAC will be doing so well with control of the Money Islands for a few turns, plus the added objective incomes.
I almost fell for that fake Sea Lion plan once and I will never never allow that to succeed again.
I don’t feel any obligation to do the designer’s job. I also think that it’s fair that my opponents (who don’t read these boards or HGD) should be able to reference the rules of play using the documents provided. In my gaming circles, it is common for less experienced players to look through the rules to see if their strategy is legal. They don’t want to ask, because that gives away their plans.
If designers want us to play a certain way, it’s their job to reflect that in the rulebook or errata/FAQ. It’s not our job to guess their intentions and have a debate. Sometimes what a person says is more important that what they mean - especially with regards to a formal document.
Personally I would never assume the rules are meant the way you think they are meant. That would buffer would encompass almost half the Pacific Ocean. By your (generous) interpretation, Japan parking a transport in sea zone 7 would be an act of war! Really?
This would be ridiculously ahistoric, completely unnecessary from a balance perspective, and totally unsupported by the rulebook and FAQ.
This is all a bunch of B.S.
Players exploiting this rule because of a grammatical error should hang their heads in shame. You know damn well what the intention of the rule is but you exploit it like a despicable lawyer getting his guilty client off on a technicality.
Maybe you are joking?
To compare my desire to play by written rules to a serious moral lapse, I guess you can’t really be serious.
Worth noting I intend to play by the rules when I am assigned the Allies too. This ought to shoot a big hole into the notion that I am somehow exploiting something.
your gut may want it to say “within two territory’s REACH” of WUS because you believe that the designer intended to put a cordon sanitaire around the USA during peace
If that were his intent, he could have said it clearly that way but chose not to.
this is probably not a case of an error, a mistake, or any kind of grammatical problem. it is that you interpret the word “within” in light of how a transports move and want it to say “within reach of” with transports but that’s not what it says.
ABH;
Yes, you’re so right, the continent immediately collapses, Russia grows into a giant beast while the axis scare the crap out of the USA.
But only 1 round of Japanese ships can pass through, further waves stay back to protect the homeland. Trying to pass 2 waves of ships risks a deep block
.
this is probably not a case of an error, a mistake, or any kind of grammatical problem. it is that you interpret the word “within” in light of how a transports move and want it to say “within reach of” with transports but that’s not what it says.
This. So much this.
It’s very presumptuous.
I for one have a little more faith in Avalon Hill and LH’s team to represent the desired game system. And they’ve had ~5 to catch this supposed mistake.
There is a reason why you don’t ever see Kill US-first plaid among the better League matches: it doesn’t work well against experienced players. Sure you can have fun against relatively novice players and sometimes grab a funny victory, but it is not something to try against someone who has much skill. The United States can easily build fighters that can defend the Mainland, threaten attack against the Japanese fleet, and be redeployed to another sector of the world in just a round or two.
As Ichabod mentions, it is a one-time-use-only sort of strategy.
I think Larry should put flying tanks into the game too. Not for every nation mind you, just for ANZAC because that makes as much sense in 1940 as parking the entire Japanese fleet in Pearl Harbour despite the political situation. Yeah, flying tanks for ANZAC that move 3 spaces. That doesn’t ruin the spirit of the game either.
I was told that I’m a rabble rouser…moderators, it wouldn’t bother me if you deleted this post. All of my comments have now been deleted.
I misunderstood the rule which I thought restricted Japanese Naval forces when not at war. Apparently, they’re not really restricted to the point of it being able to stop them from getting into position to attack the US.
I don’t care anymore about this discussion post
Cheers!
@SS:
The rule should be no Axis naval pieces can stop next to any US mainland, Island territory and Convoy boxes while US is neutral.
If I’m reading rule correctly Japan can’t stop within 2 sea zones of Alaska and West mainland. Thats it ah. The above rule should apply.
I know its for game play but it should be all one way or the other way.
Unless you totally drop the ball, how can and Kill USA First ever work?
Japan moves to Hawaii, the US pulls back to the WUS, and puts 2 dd blockers out to stop attack. USA build troops in EUS to counter Germany advance.
UK declares war against Japan.
The end.
Does SZ 13, 14 and 26 are out for Japan until war is declared?
Japan moves to Hawaii, the US pulls back to the WUS, and puts 2 dd blockers out to stop attack. USA build troops in EUS to counter Germany advance.
This. The rule does not keep Japan out of striking range (like some people think it ought to), but it does ensure intervening sea zones that USA can block. Essentially it allows America to thwart a landing - but not if they just sit in Hawaii.
@Baron:
Does SZ 13, 14 and 26 are out for Japan until war is declared?
No. The only sea zones of limits are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
This gives America enough space to defend themselves.
It also means Japan cannot invade Canada without declaring war on the US before actually invading.
ROBOTS!!
Yeah, France could have robots. They attack at 5 and defend at 5. Movement 2. The only way you can kill them is with a Japanese Kamikaze at 1. Replace all of the French infantry in the starting setup with robots.
Sounds silly doesn’t it? Not quite as silly as parking the Japanese fleet in Pearl Harbour in 1940 given the tensions between the 2 nations, but silly nonetheless. If you can exploit a grammatical error in the rule book and feel justified about it don’t bother ever asking me for a game. I only play people who play the game honourably. Pathetic.
Lets add Russian land Battleships, they can move 10 and can only attack Berlin at a roll of 6 or less and take 20 hits to destroy, and Russia gets 20 of them. Again, not as silly as parking the Japanese fleet on SZ 26.
@SS:
The rule should be no Axis naval pieces can stop next to any US mainland, Island territory and Convoy boxes while US is neutral. If they do it’s an act of war !
:-D
