How about you test it, and go from “believe” to “know”? :-)
Yes, if it is illegal to deliberately over-buy, that will be helpful in automatically controlling that.
well, it would not automatically control the issue, but it would put at least a potential roadblock up which would deter most players… :-P
How would it not automatically control it? Edit mode doesn’t count
yeah a player could do an entire move and then say, tripleA wouldn’t allow my legal move so i just edited through it. LOL
Sure, that’s not what I meant. It controls someone sneaking in this move.
Ya’ll are gonna have to wait for Krieghund. I don’t see that intentional over-purchase is disallowed.
Re-reading Krieghund’s reponse, he says “if for some reason you have purchased more units”
STILL room for interpretation! Can you over-buy intentionally, or NOT?!
I’m guessing intentional over-buy is not allowed, and that if you were playing face to face, you could stop your opponent during the purchase phase, but what do I know? No rule against intentionally over-buying, and Krieghund hasn’t yet said there is.
Need Krieghund to see this
tripleA does not allow you to build more units than you have production capacity i believe so that’s helpful.
Not true. TripleA only gives you a prompt saying you have more units than you can place. You can just click through if you want. This came up in a game of mine recently where Japan never actually declared war on the USA, and since the factories don’t become majors until after the buy, it told me I couldn’t place. I just said, w/e and clicked through, placed all my units just fine.
I just confirmed it with Japan as well. YOu can totally buy however many units you like in TripleA - it just warns you, and then saves them for later rounds when you don’t place.
there ya go. so it’s a minor roadblock at best.
There’s no rule that says you can’t intentionally over-purchase.
so there we have it. thanks krieg.
Two related questions:
1. If you over-purchase, can you choose not a mobilize carrier if one of your planes can’t land without it?
2. If you over-purchase, can you choose not to mobilize a carrier whose purchase was originally required to launch an attack (by creating a hypothetical landing zone)?
For the record, I will not be over-purchasing in my games, I just wish to know what my opponents can get away with.
More simply put, is there ever any exception to the part of the rules that reads “your choice of units” (page 23 rev.2 rulebook)?
Your choice doesn’t allow you to violate other rules, so:
1. No.
2. Only if the air units that were going to land on the carrier either no longer exist or have another place to land.
Thanks for your time and patience Krieghund :-)
Wonderful. A complicated game that takes forever to play just got more complicated, with more options. Bad enough the ANZAC declare war on Japan while UK stuffs a destroyer right in the Japanese fleet loophole never got closed. Now I need to think about over-buying when I have to buy carriers to catch planes, especially with Japan.
That’s right, the carrier tactic will still work. You only have to place them if the planes live, but you have to buy them to make the attack. Over-buy, lose the planes, then get the money back from the carriers. LOOPHOLE!
You unilaterally closed the fleet avoiding combat with subs/transports rule, Krieghund, I thought you would do the same here. But if I haven’t learned anything else, I have learned that you are unpredictable. :-P
You’re welcome, gentlemen. The next time I think of a weird rule exploit, I’ll let you know. :-D
Excellent work Herr Kaleun!
I’ve got another one. Suppose you are ANZAC and you have $17 in hand (maybe you have Brazil and the islands NO). All you have left in Australia is a couple AA guns and your only destroyer is with the fleet up by Hawaii. You would really like to kill the 1 Japanese infantry defending Java and take it next turn, but low and behold there is a Japanese sub sitting next to New Guinea. What to do, what to do? You build 2 inf, 1 art, 1 transport. If your destroyer sinks the sub you mobilize 1 inf, 1 art, 1 transport and take a $3 refund. If the sub lives you mobilize 2 inf, 1 art and take a $7 refund. Would that be considered playing dirty?
Would that be considered playing dirty?
No, that’s legal and smart. However, it could be considered dirty if you pull this nifty little loophole out of the hat at a critical time. Would be a good idea to be up front with your opponent if you think it’s likely they know nothing about this… technique… before springing it on them. Yesterday none of us knew about it.
Thanks Gamerman. OK I’ve got 1 more and I’ll shutup.
Russia has $32 in hand, they only have the Moscow IC left to mobilize from, and it has been SBR’d for 8 damage points. The Germans just took Bryansk and an ominous stack of 10 tanks just rolled in to West Ukraine from the Romania IC. So Russia has decided to attack and kill the Germans in Bryansk right now. If they win the battle the capitol is safe but if they fail to block their movement those Romanian tanks will exterminate Moscow. Even if they win at Bryansk, they suspect another round of SBR is likely coming so they would prefer to hang on to their money rather than waste it on repairs. If they lose, they would like to blow as much money as possible on something expensive rather than hand it over to the Nazis, and they certainly would rather them conquer the ashes of a damaged IC than inherit a repaired one. So they forego spending any money on repairs and purchase 2 infantry and 2 bombers, and keep $2. If they win at Bryansk they will mobilize 2 infantry and take a $24 refund (plus $2 saved, plus whatever they collect this turn). If they lose they will build the 2 bombers and take a $6 refund ($18 less for the enemy to plunder). Some might think its dirty that Russia could have spent their remaining $2 on repairs and mobilized all 4 of these units but they chose not to repair the SBR damage just so they could have the overbuild option. But that’s legal isn’t it?
