I think there is a problem in the game.
Case: germany declares war to belgium. GB, rolls 2D12 but not triggers wartime income. So it cannot declare war. France rolls 2D12 and reaches wartime income. Then France declares war on Germany. Britain is still at peace because according to the rules they need wartime income to declare war OR France/Poland is attacked by axis/USSR.
Because France is at war, Poland ALIANGS to GB.
In my point of view this must be controlled. Because britain is not at war with Germany.
But I think it is strange it even happens, because France is the aggresor, not Germany.
What do you guys think?
Greetings
Jan
@jan-aerts Germany is the aggressor. They just invaded one of their neighbors, Belgium. One of their other neighbors, Poland, is alarmed by that, and joins the Allies. I don’t see a problem with the rule.
@Jan-Aerts I could be wrong on this, but the GB reference sheet does say they have a peace time income increase for when the “Axis or Comintern declares war on France”. Since France is now at war with Germany in this scenario, I think that just automatically pulls GB in. I know it specifics the Axis being the ones to declare war on France though, and not the other way around, so keep that in mind. Again, I could be wrong there, but I certainly get your point. If I am wrong, then something is off with the wording I think.
@chris_henry I think in the above scenario France has declared war on Germany, however GB doesn’t have to income to do so as well.
In regards to the OP, I see no issue with Poland Aligning to GB. Yes it does not follow the standard Control/Alignment rules, but Poland is special so the standard rules shouldn’t really be considered.
@insanehoshi Yeah that’s my exact thinking too. I was thinking the same thing.
So how is Poland played in that scenario then? Are they Aligned to a neutral GB, but allowed to fight Germany even if GB is not? Or does Poland somehow just align fully to a neutral GB, and now GB gets the extra IPP from Poland until such time as Germany attacks them?
It just seems like a specific enough example where you’d want to clarify. We’re making a lot of assumptions with how it would be played here it seems!
@chris_henry Poland would be aligned to GB (and thus cease to exist) and they would not be at war with Germany.
@insanehoshi So it’s just completely outside of the standard rules for alignment then, got it. I guess I would have thought the rules would say something like Poland Aligns to GB regardless of GB’s neutrality status to specifically mention this veering from the standard rules. But I guess not.
@chris_henry There are a number of special alignment conditions (including Poland) that are outside the normal rules. You will find them on tables 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 on pages 22 and 23.
@generalhandgrenade I’m aware of the tables. However, every one of those other tables require the nation to be at war with a Major Power, or their Aligning Major Power already has their full/wartime income (basically the Axis in that example). Poland would seem to be the only exception to that, as this example shows that it’s possible to Align Poland even if GB is still neutral and/or not at wartime economy just yet. That’s fine of course if that’s the rule, I’m not debating that if that’s the case. The point I was making is that qualifying that part by saying Poland Aligns to GB regardless of GB’s war/neutrality status, would be more clear. As it’s stated now it can cause a lot of questions (as the original post here has) as to how that’s possible given the games usual Alignment conditions. Adding a “regardless of GB’s war status” qualifier would serve to clear up the rule entirely and leave zero ambiguity.
@chris_henry It does say that. It says that Britain can align Poland if France is at war with Germany. There’s nothing ambiguous about that.
That’s no different than Germany aligning Austria without being at war with a major power.
@generalhandgrenade The big difference there though is that Germany already starts out at full income/wartime economy. GB doesn’t necessarily have to be with this example.
I’m just saying, adding that qualifier would alleviate questions entirely. Because as it stands now, as evidenced by this questions even be asked here, people see Aligned and will say “but how is that possible when the rules says you need to be at war with the same major power to align a minor nation?”
will say “but how is that possible when the rules says you need to be at war with the same major power to align a minor nation?”
But the rules don’t state this. They state there are generalized conditions for control and alignment. They then state there are special rules on alignment as well. There is just two methods to consider.
@insanehoshi It’s a very unique circumstance. I think 99 out of 100 games this situation doesn’t pop up, but it is possible of course, as this example shows. I’d be willing to bet a lot of players hadn’t considered this scenario as being likely.
I’m just saying, people know the alignment/control rules as written. And then there are the unique alignment conditions as written. But with all of those other nations and rules, Poland is alone as being potentially aligned to a neutral major power is unique. Every other one happens with a major power at war or full income. That in itself makes this situation unique.
I’m not saying the rule is written incorrectly, because it’s not, but I’m just pointing out a way to write it that would take away this question being asked again. The OP wasn’t off-base for asking this question is all I’m saying. And if it was asked here, I’m sure it’s been asked by others playing the game that maybe came across this situation as well. It’s frankly a simple 4-5 word clarification errata.
@chris_henry The minor powers that are listed in the tables that I referenced are aligned in a variety of different ways and that’s why they are in a separate section titled Special Alignment Conditions. It’s not enough to assume that all nations are treated the same, players need to read all of the rules to understand how to play the game. Rule 4.8 explains this in a single paragraph and there’s no need to explain with each one of them that they don’t follow the regular alignment rules.
@generalhandgrenade I’m simply pointing out it’s understandable how this question was asked. It’s nothing to take personal, as I’m not attacking anyone’s knowledge of the game or anything. It’s not a secret to players that the rule book has a lot of questions that arise from it with assumptions and ambiguities written in, and HBG has said multiple times they appreciate feedback to be able to clarify the rules (as is evidenced by a running 9-page errata). I’ve seen rules way more clear cut than this get clarification errata’s haha. I won’t argue the point anymore here, as my goal isn’t to make back and forth arguments. A question was asked, and it’s a pretty simple assumption to make that the OP isn’t the only one asking the question as they play. I’m frankly surprised a simple clarification suggestion has been met with this much hostility. I would think a clarification would be welcome for players and not met combatively, but I guess not.
Anyways, on to other posts :)
@chris_henry Hear, hear!
How hard is it to type a sentence on a goggle doc?
