Rules Clarification List

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: Froonp

********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************

I hate this rule Option 37.
It should never have been part of normal WiF FE, and should have stayed with AiF, where it belongs.
It was made to have movement less harsh on pacific scaled maps in the first place, for the AiF game.
For me, having this used in regular WiF FE games on the European scaled maps, and worse in MWiF, is pure heresy. But I'm not the designer, Harry is, and Harry thought that having this in WiF FE was good.

I haven't kept up with the rules but I've always thought that rail movement didn't work quite right. It was frustrating to have a unit disrupted for up to 2 months after any rail movement when historically German Corps could pack-up in France, rail about 1500km to the Eastern Front and be in action in about a week. It often seemed quicker (in terms of being able to actually use it where required) to simply move the unit normally. We used to house-rule that railed units were unavailable until next impulse.

Option 37, however, seems like an overcorrection. Forgive me if I have missed something or got it hopelessly wrong as I haven't played a proper game of WiF for a few years.

Cheers, Neilster

Historically, rail lines into Russia were a problem for the Germans because the gauge was different. That meant different engines and rolling stock were needed for both gauges and that there were delays with men and equipment having to be unloaded and reloaded where the two gauges met. But your point is quite valid for units moving solely over European or USSR Asian rail lines.

[composer99]

The railway movement bonus doesn't have anything to do with rail movement per se.
 
Also, I am not certain that this option has much to do with Russian blow-outs, as I am not aware of how many people actually use it. Certainly my group never has, and we've had the odd blow-out nevertheless.
 
While I am not as likely to use religious terminology to condemn Option 37 as Patrice is ([;)]), I certainly don't like it either.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: composer99

The railway movement bonus doesn't have anything to do with rail movement per se.

Also, I am not certain that this option has much to do with Russian blow-outs, as I am not aware of how many people actually use it. Certainly my group never has, and we've had the odd blow-out nevertheless.

While I am not as likely to use religious terminology to condemn Option 37 as Patrice is ([;)]), I certainly don't like it either.

The option to try to help avoid Russia's Blowouts is Option 17 HQ Movement.
****************************************
Option 17: (HQ movement) An HQ-A and HQ-I spends one additional movement point for the first hexside it crosses that is not along a railway.
****************************************
We do not play it in our games, be I would love to, because we always forget it when moving the pieces, so it is meaningless. In the computer game, it will be a pleasure, because the game will not forget it.

A lot of the Russian Blowup problem comes from too much mobility from the German HQ.

[brian brian]

in our games the railway movement bonus helped the Japanese and hurt the Chinese the most. aside from that, it didn't seem very realistic to allow a movement bonus to groups of 20-40,000 men moving along a single track railway. WiF units are plenty fast enough already.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

in our games the railway movement bonus helped the Japanese and hurt the Chinese the most. aside from that, it didn't seem very realistic to allow a movement bonus to groups of 20-40,000 men moving along a single track railway. WiF units are plenty fast enough already.

Oh what the heck. As an historical note, during WW I, at the start of the war, the Russians moved masses of men to the west but had them get off the trains miles from their destination and then walk down the track while the empty trains continued on ahead. You've got to love those guys in logistics.

[brian brian]

The one with the rifle, shoots the rifle! The one with the bullets waits until he can pick up the rifle, then he shoots the rifle!



So was there any resolution on how to decide if is India or Canada that can deliver 3 BP's somewhere when the CW multiple is 1.25?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
So was there any resolution on how to decide if is India or Canada that can deliver 3 BP's somewhere when the CW multiple is 1.25?

Not yet.
In fact, I'm wondering if this question is in the list... I have made a quick search and did not find it.

[Froonp]

I've received a new batch of answers from Harry, and there's one that I always played wrong in my games, and that MWiF have wrong too IIRC.

******************************************
Q081 : Does a un-occupied Chinese hex belong to Communist China or Nationalist China for purposes of Notional determination? (for supply determination)

ANS081 : Rules appear clear to me. This has nothing to do with 11.14. Rule 2.5 changing control states only Chinese cities change control when cc and nashos move through them. All other hexes (even those containing Communist Chinese) are ALWAYS Chinese Nationalist control. Date 01/08/2007
******************************************
I wrote in the Rule Reference part of the question that it was 11.14, that's why Harry wrote this at the beginning.
So we learn that only Chinese CITIES ever change to Communist control. Other hexes always are Nationalist hexes.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been reading the code for ATRs vis-a-vis optional rules (part of my quest to determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded).

Currently the code interprets the deselection of Bombers-as-ATRs (i.e., the option is not in effect) to eliminate the No Para symbols from all ATRs. The result is that all ATRs can perform paradrops when the Bombers-as-ATRs option is turned off.

This doesn't seem correct to me. Your opinion and/or advice?

This was asked to Harry and answered, here it is :

****************************************
Q328 : The reading of Option 35 in 11.15 can be interpreted as meaning that if you don't use Option 35, then the no-paradrop symbols are ignored. Is this true ?

ANS328 : Yes (I think, can't find any other reference to no-paradrop outside of option 35, if not then this is correct, restriction only applies to opt 35). Date 01/08/2007
****************************************

[bredsjomagnus]

 
I wonder about a rule regarding notional units.


If you invade a hex and paradrop on the same hex do they meet two notional units and whatever unit already in that hex or do they just meet one notional unit and whatever unit already in the hex?


In my opinion isn´t the rule very clear on this matter:


11.15 Paradrops
”Like invasions, each hex you paradrop into defends with a notional land unit in addition to any actual land unit in the hex. The notional unit has 1 combat factor, modified like invasions. The rules applying to notional units during invasions also apply to notional units in paradrops.”


I guess this isn´t the right forum for these kinds of questions but i ask it here anyway, because i don´t know where else to go to.


I could really use a FAQ-list. Do anyone know if and where I can find one?




Thanks


/Magnus

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

 
I wonder about a rule regarding notional units.


If you invade a hex and paradrop on the same hex do they meet two notional units and whatever unit already in that hex or do they just meet one notional unit and whatever unit already in the hex?


In my opinion isn´t the rule very clear on this matter:


11.15 Paradrops
”Like invasions, each hex you paradrop into defends with a notional land unit in addition to any actual land unit in the hex. The notional unit has 1 combat factor, modified like invasions. The rules applying to notional units during invasions also apply to notional units in paradrops.”


I guess this isn´t the right forum for these kinds of questions but i ask it here anyway, because i don´t know where else to go to.


I could really use a FAQ-list. Do anyone know if and where I can find one?
/Magnus

There is only 1 notional.
A FAQ is in the making, to straighten issues for MWiF. Either it will be published by me somewhere, or directly at ADG's website which would be better.
There is an old 2004 one, but it can be missleading as all the answers are not from the designers, and sometimes the answers have been invalidated by rule changes.
The current work of rules clarifications is exactly to try to clear this up.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Ok, here's a new rule question.

In Brute Force the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up a unit in Burma. But they do not control any hexes in Burma and they do not cooperate with the British who do.

[doctormm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok, here's a new rule question.

In Brute Force the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up a unit in Burma. But they do not control any hexes in Burma and they do not cooperate with the British who do.

That's gonna have to go to Harry for a rule or setup change. As you say, there's no way that Chinese unit can be set up.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In Brute Force the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up a unit in Burma. But they do not control any hexes in Burma and they do not cooperate with the British who do.

That's gonna have to go to Harry for a rule or setup change. As you say, there's no way that Chinese unit can be set up.

Steve, in Brute Force (M/J 42) Burma is a minor country conquered by Japan, but who still have CW controlled hexes. Some on the north, and some on the east next to China's border.
China has completely the right to enter CW controlled hexes in conquered Burma.
China also has the right to enter Japanese controlled hexes in conquered or not conquered Burma (though not at setup, but thereafter with land moves).
China also would have the right to enter non conquered Burma (i.e. a CW controlled Burma), as Burma is a Minor Country China does not cooperate with, and China is a Major Power. Major Powers have no problem entering minor countries, cooperation is irrelevant.

So I think that there is no problem here, you just have to allow Chinese to setup in CW controlled hexes of Burma. Controll on hexes would not change to China, the hexes stay CW controlled.

[doctormm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In Brute Force the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up a unit in Burma. But they do not control any hexes in Burma and they do not cooperate with the British who do.

That's gonna have to go to Harry for a rule or setup change. As you say, there's no way that Chinese unit can be set up.

Steve, in Brute Force (M/J 42) Burma is a minor country conquered by Japan, but who still have CW controlled hexes. Some on the north, and some on the east next to China's border.
China has completely the right to enter CW controlled hexes in conquered Burma.

China certainly has the right to enter the hex. The problem is that the setup rules specifically only allow the units to set up in hexes controlled by China or cooperating MPs. Clearly Harry intends the unit to be able to set up in Burma (since it's on the setup chart), but he wrote the setup rules in such a way that they actually need to be changed to allow for this.

[Froonp]

I see. The problem is with that sentence of 24.1.6 says :
*******************************
If the set up gives you some latitude (e.g. “Europe” or “Burma”), you can set up the unit in any hex you or a co-operating major power controls in that place.
*******************************

And 24.4.4 that says :
*******************************
1. China
Burma 1 INF.
*******************************

I think that for MWiF, we can agree that we know that the intend is to let China set up 1 INF in Burma, but I can also add this to the list of clarifications so that it is either corrected in RAW or erraticized for WiF FE the paper game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I see. The problem is with that sentence of 24.1.6 says :
*******************************
If the set up gives you some latitude (e.g. “Europe” or “Burma”), you can set up the unit in any hex you or a co-operating major power controls in that place.
*******************************

And 24.4.4 that says :
*******************************
1. China
Burma 1 INF.
*******************************

I think that for MWiF, we can agree that we know that the intend is to let China set up 1 INF in Burma, but I can also add this to the list of clarifications so that it is either corrected in RAW or erraticized for WiF FE the paper game.

Rather than modify the general rule in 24.1.6, I'll add an exception to it specifically for setting up the 1 Chinese unit in CW controlled hexes of Burma during Brute Force.

This is not to my liking, nor how I typically do things, but changing the general rule could have unforeseen consequences.

[brian brian]

Here is a question I've never thought of before. I was re-reading the Neutrality Pacts rules (9.5) to make up a fun solitaire game, and I noticed this:

"You may break a neutrality pact, any turn after the calendar year following its signing, provided you have...."


So with the main neutrality pact in the game being signed in August, 1939, does that mean you can't even break it until 1941?
The calendar year following its signing could be 1940. Or you could read it to mean that following it's signing, like the next day
or something I guess, the calendar year is 1939 of course, so on any turn after 1939 you can break it. Holy junior high school
sentence diagramming conundrum!

The part about "Double the defensive value of your units in the calendar year after the neutrality pact was made." pretty
much shows the intent, that you could break it the following calendar year (1940 for the German-Russian pact), or there is no point to the doubling.

That is how we have always played it but I could see someone reading it the other way.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Here is a question I've never thought of before. I was re-reading the Neutrality Pacts rules (9.5) to make up a fun solitaire game, and I noticed this:

"You may break a neutrality pact, any turn after the calendar year following its signing, provided you have...."


So with the main neutrality pact in the game being signed in August, 1939, does that mean you can't even break it until 1941?
The calendar year following its signing could be 1940. Or you could read it to mean that following it's signing, like the next day
or something I guess, the calendar year is 1939 of course, so on any turn after 1939 you can break it. Holy junior high school
sentence diagramming conundrum!

The part about "Double the defensive value of your units in the calendar year after the neutrality pact was made." pretty
much shows the intent, that you could break it the following calendar year (1940 for the German-Russian pact), or there is no point to the doubling.

That is how we have always played it but I could see someone reading it the other way.

Yes, I agree. But the intent is pretty clear.

[My grandmother taught 8th grade English for 30 years and was "hell on wheels" about the importance of diagramming sentences.]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Here is a question I've never thought of before. I was re-reading the Neutrality Pacts rules (9.5) to make up a fun solitaire game, and I noticed this:

"You may break a neutrality pact, any turn after the calendar year following its signing, provided you have...."


So with the main neutrality pact in the game being signed in August, 1939, does that mean you can't even break it until 1941?
The calendar year following its signing could be 1940. Or you could read it to mean that following it's signing, like the next day
or something I guess, the calendar year is 1939 of course, so on any turn after 1939 you can break it. Holy junior high school
sentence diagramming conundrum!

The calendar year following its signing is 1939. I'm not a native english speaker, and this is the only meaning I see here.

The part about "Double the defensive value of your units in the calendar year after the neutrality pact was made." pretty
much shows the intent, that you could break it the following calendar year (1940 for the German-Russian pact), or there is no point to the doubling.

That is how we have always played it but I could see someone reading it the other way.

There are always people to read things in the most bizarre way possible. Especially in the WiF FE community.