I don’t think that’s correct but I could be wrong. Even though it doesn’t explicitly say that in the Germany Political Situations it does say something the Soviet Union Political Situations section.
Specifically speaking, it states that while they are not at war with Russia;
" (Germany and Italy) may not move units into or through any original Soviet territories or Soviet controlled territories."Remember that nobody, not even their allies, are allowed to move into Soviet territories, nor can they move out of them. So Germany would have to declare war on Russia in order to move there, even on a ncm.
Hi GHG, that is referring to a situation that USSR is at peace with the European Axis. If Italy and USSR are at war, then the clause does not apply.
BTW, I can’t find that exact wording in the pacific rules.
Another situation, SZ 113 and those Islands there Germany could build a 2nd AB and place them there for a scramble,and Infantry….This is why I think a Global rule book is in need. I stopped playing OOB rules until recently, getting myself familiar for Young grasshoppers tournament. When I first started playing OOB earlier this year…I was making tons of mistakes. At times I clearly understood why I stopped playing OOB…there are a ton of frustrating situations that develop with the OOB rules. There are also a ton of situations that I don’t like. The best solution I came up with is simplicity.
As in this case the Italians clearly hold the territory. Germans may move into Italian territories. Simple…end it right there. My 2 cents worth on rules that are gray in explanation.
those islands are part of Denmark
I know….but technically they are a separate land mass distinctly defined by the water dividing them. Nothing states you can’t place an AB there or occupy it. It has never come up as a situation in any of my games…just saying
I know….but technically they are a separate land mass distinctly defined by the water dividing them. Nothing states you can’t place an AB there or occupy it. It has never come up as a situation in any of my games…just saying
I’m sure there is a rule that an unnamed island isn’t a territory so you can’t.
@Pac:
Islands
An island or island group is
a single territory surrounded
entirely by one or more
sea zones. A sea zone can
contain at most one island
or island group, which is
considered one territory.
It’s not possible to split up
land-based units so that they
are on different islands in
the same group. Islands that
have no name label, such
as the one in sea zone 1, are
not game spaces and may not have units moved onto them.
I suppose it doesn’t specifically say you can’t build a base but it is pretty clearly inferred. Such a base could never be conquered.
So technically you can….me thinks…my point though is how lots of rules are left to interpretation…people read and see things differently…rules in my opinion have to be so clear that it can’t be questioned wit…“but” “or” “if”
Those islands are not separate territories, thus you can’t build air bases on them.
Europe rulebook page 8, under the Islands header: “Each territory has a separate name and emblem on it.”
In addition:
“Only one facility of each type (industrial complex, air base, and naval base) may exist in each territory.”
page 27 Europe rules
The rules have no wiggle room on this particular point.
I thought I was right.
But here is my next question, if Russia doesn’t DOW on Germany, can it attack the lone Italian tank and reclaim e. Poland while co-locating with other German troops?
Kind of like subs from opposing nations, but not yet at war occupying the same sea zone. Gamism comparison here, not real life (don’t @ me that sea zone represent thousands of square nautical miles…ect).
No. If Russia attacks East Poland, they have to declare war on Germany and attack the combined force.
Thanks everyone for the rule clarifications and the link to where Krieghund already answered this!
Good question Ichabod
Yes it’s a really good question, Ichabod. I’m going to add this one to my “Know the Rules” video series.
My apologies leatherneckinlv for being short with you. It honestly is written differently in both rule books. I don’t take the Political Situations from the Pacific or Europe sections of the rule books, I get them from the Global rules contained in both. You would think they would both say the same thing but they don’t. I will show both rule books in my video and you can see the difference. Now that I know that I will be sure to check both books first before I try to interpret a rule.
As far as the island question, Simon’s post at the top of this page shows clearly that you can’t place units on those empty land spaces that aren’t labeled. Even if you could make the argument that an airbase wasn’t a unit and place one there, you wouldn’t be able to land any planes (they are units) there and it would be a waste of 15 IPC.
As far as the island question, Simon’s post at the top of this page shows clearly that you can’t place units on those empty land spaces that aren’t labeled. Even if you could make the argument that an airbase wasn’t a unit and place one there, you wouldn’t be able to land any planes (they are units) there and it would be a waste of 15 IPC.
That’s a great (and amusing) point there. Naval base could work or at least you could fire rockets if you had that tech.
Anyway, I’m sure that the intended rules aren’t in doubt now.
How do you figure that shadow hawk? I totally disagree with you
Now question to all…situations like this how do youse resolve it during a game?
In these kind of situations mid game, and the person that I am playing against disagrees and or I disagree with him, we roll for it. Usually 123 it sticks 456 it is no good.
How do you figure that shadow hawk? I totally disagree with you
Now question to all…situations like this how do youse resolve it during a game?
In these kind of situations mid game, and the person that I am playing against disagrees and or I disagree with him, we roll for it. Usually 123 it sticks 456 it is no good.
That’s fine for you guys but I got to have the correct rule. :wink:
You can also look at “Declaring War” on page 12 of the European rule book where it specifically says… “if Germany declares war on the United States, the United States is immediately at war with Germany, but it must wait until its turn to declare war on Italy.” In this situation the Soviet Union would need to wait to declare war on Germany until its following turn, meaning Germany is not at war and does not declare war on the Soviet Union on its turn, thus gaining the 5 IPC bonus. Germany moving units into an Italian controlled territory does not constitute a state of war between them and the Soviet Union. This is backed by the fact that the Soviet Union is no longer considered a neutral power.
I do not agree with this, and I will not be playing the game this way, however I do believe that if you are the type to go word for word, then I couldn’t disagree with you. I feel that it doesn’t violate the rules of the game but it violates the spirit of the game.
Why Germany can move units into an Italian controlled East-Poland and collect the NO for not being at war with Russia:
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where Units Can Move
Land Units: A land unit can move into any friendly or
friendly neutral territory, including territories that were
captured in the current turn. It can’t move into or through
a hostile territory (not even one that contains no combat
units but is enemy-controlled) or an unfriendly neutral
or strict neutral territory. If your power isn’t at war, you
can’t move your units into territories belonging to another
friendly power or a friendly neutral.
or
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where Units Can Move
Land Units: A land unit can move into any friendly or friendly
neutral territory, including territories that were captured in the
current turn. It can’t move into or through a hostile territory
(not even one that contains no combat units but is enemy-
controlled) or an unfriendly neutral or strict neutral territory.
Germany is at war (with England …), the territory in question is friendly, because it is Italian. Italy is at war with Russia, but Germany isn’t. So Germany collects the extra income.
The rules concerning a neutral Russia do not apply, as Russia, being at war with Italy, is no longer neutral - not being at war with Germany, as ShadowHAwk correctly pointed out.
@P@nther:
Why Germany can move units into an Italian controlled East-Poland and collect the NO for not being at war with Russia:
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where Units Can Move
Land Units: A land unit can move into any friendly or
friendly neutral territory, including territories that were
captured in the current turn. It can’t move into or through
a hostile territory (not even one that contains no combat
units but is enemy-controlled) or an unfriendly neutral
or strict neutral territory. If your power isn’t at war, you
can’t move your units into territories belonging to another
friendly power or a friendly neutral.or
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where Units Can Move
Land Units: A land unit can move into any friendly or friendly
neutral territory, including territories that were captured in the
current turn. It can’t move into or through a hostile territory
(not even one that contains no combat units but is enemy-
controlled) or an unfriendly neutral or strict neutral territory.Germany is at war (with England …), the territory in question is friendly, because it is Italian. Italy is at war with Russia, but Germany isn’t. So Germany collects the extra income.
The rules concerning a neutral Russia do not apply, as Russia, being at war with Italy, is no longer neutral - not being at war with Germany, as ShadowHAwk correctly pointed out.
Thanks P@nther
Yes thank you Panther. You gave the best clarification of the rule that made it easy to understand.
Here is the video that I made. You might find the rule book discrepancy interesting and informative;
https://youtu.be/7sHeisB8kUQ
