Turn 1 no JDOW….US moves Philippines fleet into 54 with ANZAC fleet…ANZAC declare war turn 1…turn 2 Japanese attack SZ 54…but will only fight the ANZAC fleet not the combined fleet…it’s the same thing except on land
semantics on power and territory when it comes to East Poland
East Poland is a territory occupied by a combat won by Italians
Germany and Russia are Powers not at warRussian political situation says an Axis power (singular)
East Poland is Italian and at war with Italy German troops are only visitors…they have no significance to the territory
Russia is allowed to combat the ItaliansTheoretically Germany may allow Russians to stage in Romania so they can attack Yugoslavia because it became an Italian territory turn 1
When discussing the part of the rule book that says that fleets can be selective in who they attack, you gloss over the point of the sentence above that says that on land, the rules are different. To quote the rule book:
Land combat, when there is a Neutral Army in the territory:
@Axis:
Combat
A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.
Naval combat, when there is a Neutral Navy in the sea zone:
@Axis:
Combat
If a power at war attacks a sea zone containing units belonging to both a power with which it’s already at war and a power with which it’s not at war, the latter power’s units are ignored. Those units won’t participate in the battle in any way, and a state of war with that power will not result.
Do you see the difference? When you Combat Move into a land territory that has an army neutral to your army (such is, in your example, the German Army is to the Red Army), you declare war on that neutral faction by the act of moving to attack that territory. At sea, in a sea zone, you can be selective whose fleet you attack. On land, in a land territory, you do not have that luxury and must either declare war in order to attack that territory or leave them alone. You can not legally combat move into a territory that has an army that is neutral to your army. You can’t ask a neutral German army to leave East Poland, because when you attacked East Poland you attacked the German Army, removing their neutrality.
What part of, “A power can’t attack a territory … containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.” (Axis & Allies Europe 1940, Second Edition, Rule Book, Page 15), is confusing to you?
-Midnight_Reaper
The quoted rules are very clear. It really is a well-written rulebook and is further supplemented by Krieg�s patient clarifications(although oftentimes unneeded if rulebook is read thoroughly).
Continuing to argue and create non-existent terms(�territory at war�) will only confuse yourself. You have the Official Answers response to show your friends which I assume was the goal.
Dislike it? House rule it. Simple.
Marsh
Seriously…what’s the difference between an attack on a sea zone or a territory?
They are both a combat move, no?
Especially if the Sea zone is also an amphibious assault
I know this rule has to be agreed upon in a game by all parties because there is no verbiage and all answers in this thread and my question is all based on peception
My point to this thread is….this is NOT covered in the rule book
Yes, it is, and Midnight_Reaper and P@nther have quoted the relevant rules.
People are responding based on perception as am I….you say tomato I say thamato…lol
People are responding based on the rules.
Those who wrote the rules probably never anticipated this happening
Yes, we did.
Seriously…what’s the difference between an attack on a sea zone or a territory?
They are both a combat move, no?
One is on land and the other is at sea, and the rules clearly explain the difference between the two.
Roger that Kreghund
I am going to let the cat out of the bag now
This thread is 3 fold
before I start this occurred in one of my games at YG’s tournament and General Hand grenade told us the rule, so I knew the rule
Desert Admiral and I spoke today and wanted clarification and since I had the time I posted this…
Before posting I realized since I am giving my opinions to Young Grasshopper for his deluxe edition game, that rules need to be black and white…not having to go to this section or that section to find technicalities
3rd Siredblood and I are close friends as well so to help his tournament this would benefit him as well…in fact been talking to Siredblood all day about this…I am also giving opinions and suggestions for his tournament…ie the Cavalry units and lend lease to China which will be a rule in the tournament and a few more concepts as well
Siredblood is making a card for this rule as well
hopefully those who have struggled with this strategy, now they are clear
I stand by my feelings that the rules do not clearly answer this scenario properly and perception is what drives what can and can not be done. I read this totally different than what Kreighund states…not arguing with him but I can rebuttal the heck out of it. Reason is technicalities…you have to go to different sections of the rule book to get the answer for a scenario that rules you look at are vastly different.
Logic is easy Russia gets attacked they have every right to get that territory back and rule states Russia may declare war against an Axis power…Singular so both Germans and Russians did not declare war the Germans become insignificant.
Easy fix is any Germans in Russian territories while not at war negates the 5 IPC Bonus that Germany is due
Germany already gets many bennies
Why does Russia not get 5 IPC bonus for the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact since Russia supplied the oil to the German war machine
Why can Russia not attack Finland if Finland was not taken over by Germany?
Things like that is things that make the Allies very difficult to play against very good Axis players
Trust me my games I have a ton of house rules
Russia is a very broken power in this game, UK Navy and Italy too in my opinion and my opinion only
Is this situation not similar to the Flying Tiger (Ch FTR)seeking refuge in Burma.
It has always been that Japan could not attack Burma , only pursuing the plane. It automatically means a DOW on UK India.
In fact Russian and Germans are actually friendly Neutrals in this scenario
If North Korea attacked and occupied Alaska then 2 days later China moved in 100,000 troops would that be an act of war against the United States from China? The answer is yes. IMO it is an illegal move by Germany unless they declare war.
Locke….I agree with you…It should be an illegal move officially
this is a completely illogical rule/technicality…I call it a gimmick
I just play tested this on tripleA and in fact I only had to battle the Italian units and Germany and Russia were in same territory co occupying after the Russian victory
…
… TripleA is handling this situation incorrectly.
Indeed, but TripleA developers and map-creators are aware of that and have informed the users about this issue in the game notes:
@game:
Rules specific to 1940 the engine does not do, but you must follow:
…
(PE) You may not attack a territory containing units owned by a nation that you are not at war with (even if the territory is owned by someone you are at war with).
Or in other words: Russia - being not at war with Germany - may not attack Italian owned East-Poland containing units owned by Germany.
Roger that Kreghund
I am going to let the cat out of the bag now
This thread is 3 fold
before I start this occurred in one of my games at YG’s tournament and General Hand grenade told us the rule, so I knew the rule
Desert Admiral and I spoke today and wanted clarification and since I had the time I posted this…
Before posting I realized since I am giving my opinions to Young Grasshopper for his deluxe edition game, that rules need to be black and white…not having to go to this section or that section to find technicalities
3rd Siredblood and I are close friends as well so to help his tournament this would benefit him as well…in fact been talking to Siredblood all day about this…I am also giving opinions and suggestions for his tournament…ie the Cavalry units and lend lease to China which will be a rule in the tournament and a few more concepts as well
Siredblood is making a card for this rule as well
hopefully those who have struggled with this strategy, now they are clear
I stand by my feelings that the rules do not clearly answer this scenario properly and perception is what drives what can and can not be done. I read this totally different than what Kreighund states…not arguing with him but I can rebuttal the heck out of it. Reason is technicalities…you have to go to different sections of the rule book to get the answer for a scenario that rules you look at are vastly different.
Logic is easy Russia gets attacked they have every right to get that territory back and rule states Russia may declare war against an Axis power…Singular so both Germans and Russians did not declare war the Germans become insignificant.
Easy fix is any Germans in Russian territories while not at war negates the 5 IPC Bonus that Germany is due
You can allways check out the Balanced Mod. here on triple a.
It is fixed there.
Also NO wise, Russia is served well with NO bonuses and are more fun to play.
I think all the peoples gave their best to explain it in the best manner.
Why so serious?!?
Have a great day !
aequitas et veritas
Good morning……lol I love that line from the Joker in the Batman move…“Why so serious”
Have a great day as well
Roger that Kreghund
I am going to let the cat out of the bag now
This thread is 3 fold
before I start this occurred in one of my games at YG’s tournament and General Hand grenade�  told us the rule, so I knew the rule
Desert Admiral and I spoke today and wanted clarification and since I had the time I posted this…
Before posting I realized since I am giving my opinions to Young Grasshopper for his deluxe edition game, that rules need to be black and white…not having to go to this section or that section to find technicalities
3rd Siredblood and I are close friends as well so to help his tournament this would benefit him as well…in fact been talking to Siredblood all day about this…I am also giving opinions and suggestions for his tournament…ie the Cavalry units and lend lease to China which will be a rule in the tournament and a few more concepts as well
Siredblood is making a card for this rule as well
hopefully those who have struggled with this strategy, now they are clear
I stand by my feelings that the rules do not clearly answer this scenario properly and perception is what drives what can and can not be done. I read this totally different than what Kreighund states…not arguing with him but I can rebuttal the heck out of it. Reason is technicalities…you have to go to different sections of the rule book to get the answer for a scenario that rules you look at are vastly different.
Logic is easy Russia gets attacked they have every right to get that territory back and rule states Russia may declare war against an Axis power…Singular so both Germans and Russians did not declare war the Germans become insignificant.
Easy fix is any Germans in Russian territories while not at war negates the 5 IPC Bonus that Germany is due
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. We agree to disagree.
Thanks all. I appreciate the discussion! I’ve played that way where Russia would have to attack both Italy and Germany and then doubted myself especially when Triple didn’t handle it correctly. I know that Triple A isn’t perfect and that the players are still expected to play by the Rule Book.
I’m thinking about a house rule where the countries I play all get a +5 IPC bonus every round and my enemies get -5!
:evil:
If U.K. takes Norway can a “neutral towards Germany” USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is “neutral towards Russia” be able to put units in originally Russian territory?
No way this should be allowed. What’s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?
If U.K. takes Norway can a �neutral towards Germany� USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is �neutral towards Russia� be able to put units in originally Russian territory?No way this should be allowed. What�s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?
Yes
Zombies
A6 +1 if wearing a Bennie with prop
D6
C6
M6
FS 2
RB twice
If U.K. takes Norway can a �neutral towards Germany� USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is �neutral towards Russia� be able to put units in originally Russian territory?No way this should be allowed. What�s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?
lol… because the territory isn’t Russian, its Italian. It doesn’t matter who held it before, or who will hold it in the future. Italy and Germany are allies.
In your first example, the US is neutral to both the UK and Germany, so it can’t land on the UK’s territory, same as it can’t land on Germany’s.
If U.K. takes Norway can a �neutral towards Germany� USA land units in Norway? No.
Why should Germany who is �neutral towards Russia� be able to put units in originally Russian territory?No way this should be allowed. What�s next, are we going to put zombies in the game?
lol… because the territory isn’t Russian, its Italian. It doesn’t matter who held it before, or who will hold it in the future. Italy and Germany are allies.
In your first example, the US is neutral to both the UK and Germany, so it can’t land on the UK’s territory, same as it can’t land on Germany’s.
Ridiculous.
If we are at war with Mexico and they occupied California there is no scenario where the United States would be ok with Cuba(who is neutral in this war) putting its troops in California.
It would be an act of war. This cannot be debated.
Weddingsinger….no It is originally controlled Russian territory in control of Italy but the Germans and Russians have a non aggression pact which makes this scenario unique…This is not considered Italian but Russian due to that pact…this move is illegal…technicality on the part of the Russians since everyone wants to throw technicality towards Germans favor…this is NOT covered in the rule book and this move is ILLEGAL …first it’s an aggressive move by Germans INTO ORIGINALLY CONTROLLED RUSSIAN TERRITORY…nullifying the pact and considered an ACT OF WAR so no bonus money and the Powers are at war or two this move can not be made legally…PERIOD
The PACT makes this unique and not covered by the rule book
My games you can’t do this without repercussions and to add insult to injury you want to give 5 IPC to Germany…that’s quite laughable
