@hbg-gw-enthusiast I would say that is “on the line”. It is in a sea zone with the line running through it. I would consider that “on”
Realistically, it will still cause diversion and force delays to the convoys. It isn’t like there is no impact, and this represents that.
@noneshallpass @insaneHoshi
It says:
“Channel ports are minor ports and narrow crossings.”
I would think that since they are a minor port, you can bomb them. This might only disable the non-infantry class units from crossing though.
@mike141500 I guess. But the Soviets can back off the border, and the Japanese often have better things to do with those planes.
@linkler It sounds interesting, but I do think it would mess up the game a lot. Imagine Germany having two turns back too back during Barbarossa. I would roll once at the start of the game, and then keep it constant.
@captainnapalm Post-it notes. Rip them longways (so both are sticky) and write the territory name. Then stick it to the ship on the chart.
@noneshallpass But you cannot pass over a land zone with a fighter, even if that fighter is on the ground without an air base and cannot ever engage. I would say MAP is the same way. The “threat” keeps you from moving through.
@monroe No. OOB strategic bombers can only attack facilities and ground units.
That said, I do have a house rule I like that allows them to carpet bomb naval units, but @1 instead of @2
@david-06 There is an option in the Partisans expansion for this:
2.1 Attack & Defense: Partisans have varying abilities. Most Partisans are too weak to attack full strength units but they can cause casualties if attacked. Some special Partisans are powerful enough to have an attack value meaning they can attack units in the zone they are in or possibly move and attack if they also have a movement value. Partisans may not retreat or move via rail or transport.
You can combine two partisans to a militia and attack with it then.
@insanehoshi I have a similar:
“A unit may retreat from combat to an adjacent friendly land zone. The decision is made after casualties are applied. It is effective immediately. The attacker choses first.”
This applies to both attack and defense, and I have a slightly different system for naval combat.
@insanehoshi I think that makes since, though it is problematic, as it can never stop a moving fleet.
If occurring during the combat movement phase, I would assume that it would count as the “new combat move” and the fight would occur.
@jon-b I play that in this case, you would have to move that movement in combat move, because of this problem.
In the RAW, I think that combat is not conducted and instead the fleet is stopped and combat will happen on Italy’s turn.
@insanehoshi I would assume you need to send to the “home country,” which I consider all land zones contiguous with the capital.
I don’t remember where I heard this, it may just be from my historical knowledge.
@linkler
“35 IPP: May move ships, build facilities and reinforce Pacific Islands. Ships must end movement bordering US land zones.”
From the US reference sheet
@hbg-gw-enthusiast
@insaneHoshi
I would say yes, as it is a noncombat move, and you do noncombat movement phase twice. Most “per turn” stuff goes out the window with lightning war.
@caesar-seriona The point is that English common law works great in a courtroom, but not so great in a board game. It does not apply here.
It has been stated many times that the interpretative method in GW36 is "if it isn’t in the rules, it’s illegal."
@caesar-seriona I do that that is being a bit harsh, there are so many situations that come up once in a hundred games, and with a game this size you can’t hit everything.
I would agree that they are removed. Going Vichy sounds just wrong, and disembarking also doesn’t sound as plausible, and has no basis in the rules. The remove from the board does have a basis in a surrounded Paris.
That said, this one needs an errata.
@mike141500 I believe that unless it says so, there is no limit on how many a nation can field. Just like all other units, there is not an upper limit. While there may be per turn limits, there is not a per board limit.
@spartantom I would apply it, they are nations. It just makes it alot harder for them to get VPs. You basically have to become a major power.