Posts made by Noneshallpass

Yes and losing one or two of those planes to a lucky roll will greatly cost Japan and handicap other operations with nothing much to show for in compensation.

@HBG-GW-Enthusiast I prefer giving credit to the game designers and leaving games as they were made.

This means that I have to accept that I am not that great at Chess (even if a random promotion of a Pawn to a Rook after x moves would help me) and can get lucky or unlucky in Poker (even when we are way passed due the Ace of Spades coming on the river).

GW1936 has both a preset and random aspect in peacetime increases so that all games don’t turn out the same. I respect your choice to house rules your games. It’s just the pretention of a universal luck/fun ratio that I don’t buy at all.

Yes, and lets get rid of these very not fun games that also rely too much on luck like Poker, Twilight Struggle, Catan… 🤔

It does not really make sense to be able to use a surprise attack against the Commonwealth when you are already at War with them. The condition that you must use the attack on the turn that Japan declares War is not really met.

If you can only declare War against the USA, you should only be able to surprise attack the USA. However, the wording does suggest otherwise.

Ok was confusing with the narrow crossing. I guess the minor port can be bombed.

Not sure that they are considered facilities that can be bombed. More like a geographic feature.

You would drop one paratroop behind enemy lines or land one marine in an adjacent coastal zone to prevent the retreat in that territory.

Again, greatly would favour the Axis at first. The IPP difference is huge.

The United States began providing weapons to Great Britain long before they were at war.

Our games always begin by upgrading facilities for the extra tech roll. That is pretty much what the US can spend it’s money on at first.

So you just prevent strategic bombings by placing MAP in all the coastal Seazones ? I don’t think that is what is intented…

@insanehoshi MAP aircraft can be attacked. The question was can they be ignored by passing enemy aircraft. I would tend to think so since the MAP engages only naval units.

Note that the USA rules were changed in the Errata a while ago :

Income-Determined Actions: (Page 2, Applied to v3.4)
Add: “US movement is very restricted in the beginning of the game. They can only move within their Home Country, until they reach a certain income level:”
At 15 IPP they:
“May close Panama Canal. May lend-lease to Spanish Factions (only one Allied sender per turn) and nations at war with a Major Power. (page 2)
At 35 IPP they:
“May move ships, build facilities and reinforce Pacific Islands. Ships must end movement bordering US land zones. May perform Escort duty for Allied Convoy Lines in the Atlantic Ocean within 3 sea zones of US Home Country.”

There are also a couple of clarifications in the FAQ :

Q: Is the USA able to upgrade its existing facilities before reaching 35 IPP income?

A: Yes

Q: I am still confused about the USA limits on ship movement. How can US ships perform escort duty ‘within 3 sea zones of US Home Country’ and still ‘end movement bordering US land zones’?

A: You can non-combat move ending adjacent to US land zones.
Escort duty is a combat move. You are able to do that “within 3 zones of US Home Country"

In your example, if the British plane in the Sea zone is on Maritime Air Patrol (MAP), then it will be ignored since MAP only engages enemy naval units (Rule 8.7).

If the fighter is on a carrier in the Channel, then the Bomber cannot pass it when Combat Moving Aircraft, as it may only fly over Enemy-possessed land zones and sea zones if there are no enemy fighters in that zone (Rule 8.3).

Finally, to answer your main question, since the rule about saving enough movement points is itself in the rule for Combat Moving Aircraft (Rule 8.3), then this calculation should be based on the state of the board during that phase and not on a possible state of the board after combat as occured.

Since you do not have to declare yet where you will land, the Combat phase may open additional options for you (especially if you use Optional rule 10.2) but I think that you must at least have one valid option at the start of the Combat Movement phase or the move is illegal.

The only exception could be taking into account carriers that are moved for the purpose of creating a valid landing spot for your attacking aircraft, but that may end up damaged or destroyed, depending on the outcome of the naval battle in the destination sea zone. I don’t see this in the rules either, but I think it’s a mechanic carried over from the Axis & Allies games.

@insanehoshi said in The FAQ Thread:

If LL is begun to a controlled minor power is at war, say france to Abyssinia, and then the abyssinians win the war, does the LL still get delivered?

Why would it not? The conditions for LL were already met when LL was declared.

If two powers are sharing the same turn, say USA and KMT, and USA begins LL, then KMT takes a territory (that is their home country), can that LL be delivered to the conquered territory?

I don’t think that this is convered in the rules, but there are so many restrictions on what can be done in newly conquered territories, that I expect that the answer would be no.

I would expect that this would have been specified in the Partisan rules if it was the case.

I don’t see how these rules would apply to Partisans in an enemy controlled city. It is not their city, hence no bonus and no penalty for being «surrounded».

Really bad wording for this rule.

If Japan and KMT are at war, Burma road opens in July 1938.

If they are not yet at war in July 1938, then the road will open on the very next turn after there is a state of war between them.

In practice, it is usually July 1938 as Japan will not wait that long to expand in China. Economic cooperation sphere and all…

Lol @HBG-GW-Enthusiast !

Made me laugh as much as the @GeneralHandGrenade example of building a Romulan War Bird since the rules do not say you can’t.

It has been stated multiple times that in GW1936 if the rules do not say that you can do something, you can’t do it.

If we had definitive answers to all these questions, this forum would be pointless.

Sometimes the answers are clearly in the rules but we missed them and sometimes they require interpretation and sometimes there is no answer to be derived from the existing rules and we get a FAQ or Errata.

“Is a Colonial Infantry for placement purposes” means that it could be built without a factory. I do not see how this prevents from also building FFL at a factory for lend-lease purposes.

Same as Militia, as @Caesar-Seriona pointed out.

The limit of 2 FFL units per turn would apply however.