Rules Clarification List

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Norman42
So, what is the purpose of the rule phrase "Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombing factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area" if sea area weather is irrelevant?

Sea areas and carrier planes are specifically included when also referring to land based attacks (you never use str factors at sea). By the above rule it seems clear that you halve the factors of the aircraft on carriers at sea during inclement weather, regardless of where/what they attack.

This only makes sense, launching an airstrike in snow is going to be difficult.

I agree about the land based hex flying out of storm and into clear, that is allowed, but this specific rule seems to say the weather at sea is also a factor in mission values.

I think that all factors are mentionned to keep the sentence short, because anyway it says just after what you quoted that you are affected by the target hex when attacking an hex. Carrier planes doing Ground Strike, Ground Support or Strat or Carpet are affected by the target hex, as other air units. Following your logic, CVP could attack a coastal hex that is under storm if their sea area is under only rain.

If you were right, it would be written plainly, not simply alluded to. It is not alluded to that air missions under storm are impossible, both at sea and at land for example.

Notice also that this is the same for shore bombardment. I think that the WiF Zen is the same.

I do not dispute the fact that air operations in bad weather at sea are not possible, I say that the weather in the fringes of a sea areas whose adjacent land is under another weather is different, allowing air missions.

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think that all factors are mentionned to keep the sentence short, because anyway it says just after what you quoted that you are affected by the target hex when attacking an hex. Carrier planes doing Ground Strike, Ground Support or Strat or Carpet are affected by the target hex, as other air units. Following your logic, CVP could attack a coastal hex that is under storm if their sea area is under only rain.

If you were right, it would be written plainly, not simply alluded to. It is not alluded to that air missions under storm are impossible, both at sea and at land for example.

Notice also that this is the same for shore bombardment. I think that the WiF Zen is the same.

I do not dispute the fact that air operations in bad weather at sea are not possible, I say that the weather in the fringes of a sea areas whose adjacent land is under another weather is different, allowing air missions.

For what it's worth, we always played as Patrice says. It's noteworthy that regular land based aircraft also are not affected by the weather at their base. They too can take off in a blizzard and fly to a clear weather hex and return to the blinding snow. We simply presumed this to be an abstraction of the "fringes" mentioned above.

As an aside, will aircraft flying an extended range mission be displayed sideways? 14.1.1

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think that all factors are mentionned to keep the sentence short, because anyway it says just after what you quoted that you are affected by the target hex when attacking an hex. Carrier planes doing Ground Strike, Ground Support or Strat or Carpet are affected by the target hex, as other air units. Following your logic, CVP could attack a coastal hex that is under storm if their sea area is under only rain.

If you were right, it would be written plainly, not simply alluded to. It is not alluded to that air missions under storm are impossible, both at sea and at land for example.

Notice also that this is the same for shore bombardment. I think that the WiF Zen is the same.

I do not dispute the fact that air operations in bad weather at sea are not possible, I say that the weather in the fringes of a sea areas whose adjacent land is under another weather is different, allowing air missions.

For what it's worth, we always played as Patrice says. It's noteworthy that regular land based aircraft also are not affected by the weather at their base. They too can take off in a blizzard and fly to a clear weather hex and return to the blinding snow. We simply presumed this to be an abstraction of the "fringes" mentioned above.

As an aside, will aircraft flying an extended range mission be displayed sideways? 14.1.1

No.

But the unit data panel will contain the note "Flying Extended".

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Norman42

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Paul is right. The weather in the sea zone is irrelevant for a CVP flying an air mission to a land hex.

Oh, err. I was sure this had been errata'd at some point, but now that I search for the ruling I cannot find it.

It does seem rather silly that a carrier can launch a full air strike in the middle of a blizzard, fly them 1000 miles to the coastal target, fly back 1000 miles and land safely...when they aren't allowed to send the same planes 2 miles away to engage in naval air warfare.

Are you positive about the above Patrice?

The rule I'm referring to is 8.2.3 "Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombing factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area, or attacking a hex, in rain or snow."

The above rule implies weather in the sea area DOES effect a carrier aircraft flying a mission to a land hex, since the tac/str factors are never used at sea, only if they launch to land targets, and by the following logic, are excluded from any mission other then rebase while in blizzard sea zones (also in 8.2.3).

Not at all, the type of combat is appropriate to whether it is a hex or a sea zone. The word naval applies to combat in the sea zone and the words tactical and strategic bombing apply to hexes. This is simply saying in one sentence what the weather effects chart says. Also, if it was trying to say something special about carrier planes wouldn't the words "in a sea area" be inside the parentheses along with the CVPs? Indeed the parenthesized portion is intended to expand upon the word aircraft and (like most parenthesized items) the sentence can be read effectively without that part.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Truthfully, I've always wondered why the CAP had to return in Step 9 (I think), but "the rules is the rules" and my job is to exploit them to your detriment. [:'(]

Mind you, I disagree.
When I see an exploit in the rule, I prefer to have the exploit solved by a rule correction (or a house rule or a gentlemen's agreement), as I hate exploit, and the group I play with is rather in this state of mind. But I like you anyway Paul [:D].

Then you will need a great deal of House Rules. There are about 30 items on the list of "cheesy, gamey, exploitive", etc. You may recall on the Rules Discussion List, I had said I would compile this list and eventually it could be developed into a sort of "WiF Primer for Newbies", so they could be educated to be watchful for them rather than be victimized. There are a few like the "No USA vs. Japan Gambit" that ought to be discussed and eliminated in a gentlemen's agreement prior to starting a game, but those are extreme cases and this little ATR tactic is very minor in comparison.

Of course if a group wanted to agree on everything on the list it is doable - just time consuming. I still plan on completing it, I've just been busy with another hobby project lately.

However, an exploit that is there in the rules for all to use and coded into MWiF because MWiF follows the rules - will be very hard to eliminate.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here I am again with another picky little question about the rules.

For artillery units that are bombarding an adjacent hex as part of a ground strike, does the weather in the bombarding unit's hex matter? It is clear to me that the mission can not be performed against a hex that is experiencing Storm or Blizzard, but it is unclear to me if the artillery can perform this mission if it, itself, is in a hex experiencing storm or blizzard.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here I am again with another picky little question about the rules.

For artillery units that are bombarding an adjacent hex as part of a ground strike, does the weather in the bombarding unit's hex matter? It is clear to me that the mission can not be performed against a hex that is experiencing Storm or Blizzard, but it is unclear to me if the artillery can perform this mission if it, itself, is in a hex experiencing storm or blizzard.

You treat the bombarding artillery as you would a AC giving air support to that hex so the hex the ART is in has no effect.

From RAW
"Its factors are affected by terrain and weather exactly like an aircraft’s tactical factors."

Since only the hex affecting AC is the target hex it is the same for ART.

So, yes, it can bombard from a hex in storm or blizzard but not into.

-Orm

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here I am again with another picky little question about the rules.

For artillery units that are bombarding an adjacent hex as part of a ground strike, does the weather in the bombarding unit's hex matter? It is clear to me that the mission can not be performed against a hex that is experiencing Storm or Blizzard, but it is unclear to me if the artillery can perform this mission if it, itself, is in a hex experiencing storm or blizzard.

You treat the bombarding artillery as you would a AC giving air support to that hex so the hex the ART is in has no effect.

From RAW
"Its factors are affected by terrain and weather exactly like an aircraft’s tactical factors."

Since only the hex affecting AC is the target hex it is the same for ART.

So, yes, it can bombard from a hex in storm or blizzard but not into.

-Orm

Thanks.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

All right, here I am, back again with an arcane rules interpretation.

Why can't the USSR set up units in Egypt (or Malta for that matter) at the start of Decline and Fall?

1 - The setup instructions say the USSR sets up its units in Europe, which includes North Africa.

2 - Egypt is not a major power's home country, so foreign troop commitment restrictions shouldn't apply.

It is not that I want to set up units there; it is just that I want to know which rule forbids it.

If none can be found, then I will change the setup location for the USSR and limit them to USSR/Baltic States/Finland/ ...

[jesperpehrson]

Ohh I think I know this one! Malta and Egypt are territoriy and minor country in respective order aligned to CW which does not cooperate with USSR. This means at least you need to have HQs for the foreign troop commitment. As for placing if satisfying the FTC I don´t know, perhaps only permitted set up in places you control or in other countries if you cooperate with them.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: capitan

Ohh I think I know this one! Malta and Egypt are territoriy and minor country in respective order aligned to CW which does not cooperate with USSR. This means at least you need to have HQs for the foreign troop commitment. As for placing if satisfying the FTC I don´t know, perhaps only permitted set up in places you control or in other countries if you cooperate with them.

No, that does not apply to a major power's units entering the country of a minor country aligned to another (non-cooperating) major power. See below, from RAC 18.2.
===============
Foreign troop commitments
A major power or minor country unit that ends any step in the home country of a friendly major power it doesn’t co-operate with is destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign troop commitment limit.

A minor country unit that ends any step in the home country of an aligned minor country on the same side is destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign troop commitment limit.

[Clarification. Axis units are also destroyed if they can not satisfy Foreign Troop Commitment requirements in Vichy Administration groups - 2008 WIF Annual.]

[Clarification. Home countries here may be new home countries. It does not refer to territory controlled by a conquering major power - Dec. 29, 2007.]

You satisfy the foreign troop commitment limit if there is at least one HQ from the unit’s home country there (any Commonwealth HQ will do for Commonwealth units) and the total number of that country’s non-HQ units there is less than or equal to the total printed reorganization values of the HQs.

[Clarification. Foreign Troop Commitments (FTC) restrict a unit from entering a country. Once in, it’s ok for the unit to remain, even if the HQ moves out. Note that if you cannot enter a hex because of FTC, then you cannot retreat into it either. However, if an HQ and another land unit are to retreat, and the only retreat path is such that the other land unit would be destroyed if retreated first (due to FTC), but it would survive if the HQ were retreated first, then the HQ must be retreated first. This is because “units must be retreated if possible” - Dec. 29, 2007. The USSR needs to abide by Foreign Troop Commitment requirements to enter Japanese controlled hexes in China, unless China has been conquered - May 12, 2008.]

Example: Two Commonwealth land units are retreated into France by the German player (even though there was a free hex in Belgium that the German player could have retreated them to). Unfortunately for the Commonwealth, Gort and one Commonwealth fighter are already in France. As Gort only has a reorganization value of 2, at the end of the Retreat step the Commonwealth player must destroy 1 of the retreating land units.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

All right, here I am, back again with an arcane rules interpretation.

Why can't the USSR set up units in Egypt (or Malta for that matter) at the start of Decline and Fall?

1 - The setup instructions say the USSR sets up its units in Europe, which includes North Africa.

2 - Egypt is not a major power's home country, so foreign troop commitment restrictions shouldn't apply.

It is not that I want to set up units there; it is just that I want to know which rule forbids it.

If none can be found, then I will change the setup location for the USSR and limit them to USSR/Baltic States/Finland/ ...

I think that it is because 24.1.6 says that :

********************************
24.1.6 Setting up
(...)
Where to set up
(...)
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.
A neutral major power can only set up in hexes it controls.
********************************
The CW controls Egypt, and Malta, and the CW is not a Major Power with whom the USSR cooperates.

I think that you are confusing foreign troop commitment, which is a way to enter places that belong to countries you don't cooperate with, with non cooperation which is a state that exist or don't exist.
I mean, Egypt is CW controlled, and as such don't cooperate with the USSR. This means that the USSR can enter Egypt (because a major can always enter a minor even if it don't cooperate with it), but Egypt and the CW nonetheless don't cooperate with the USSR.

[Froonp]

I'd add that this is the reason why we have the following question in the Q&A list :

***************************************
Q24.4-5
Brute Force Scenario.
Is China allowed to setup 1 INF in CW controlled Burma at the start of the Brute Force Scenario (China does not cooperate with CW)?

Harry> Yes, this is an exception. Date 16/01/2008
***************************************

The question was asked because 24.4.4 (in chart 30.) says that China should setup 1 INF in Burma, which contradicts 24.1.6 that I quoted above.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: capitan

Ohh I think I know this one! Malta and Egypt are territoriy and minor country in respective order aligned to CW which does not cooperate with USSR. This means at least you need to have HQs for the foreign troop commitment. As for placing if satisfying the FTC I don´t know, perhaps only permitted set up in places you control or in other countries if you cooperate with them.

A Major Power can always enter an active Minor, and never need an HQ (cooperation is irrelevant). The only times where a HQ is needed is a minor entering a major it don't cooperate with, or a major entering a major it don't cooperate with.

The only problem with entering a minor you don't cooperate with (US or USSR units in Egypt) is that the Capital of the Minor don't supply you.

[jesperpehrson]

Oh dear, we have played those rules completly wrong then... good to know how it is supposed to be played then [:D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

All right, here I am, back again with an arcane rules interpretation.

Why can't the USSR set up units in Egypt (or Malta for that matter) at the start of Decline and Fall?

1 - The setup instructions say the USSR sets up its units in Europe, which includes North Africa.

2 - Egypt is not a major power's home country, so foreign troop commitment restrictions shouldn't apply.

It is not that I want to set up units there; it is just that I want to know which rule forbids it.

If none can be found, then I will change the setup location for the USSR and limit them to USSR/Baltic States/Finland/ ...

I think that it is because 24.1.6 says that :

********************************
24.1.6 Setting up
(...)
Where to set up
(...)
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.
A neutral major power can only set up in hexes it controls.
********************************
The CW controls Egypt, and Malta, and the CW is not a Major Power with whom the USSR cooperates.

I think that you are confusing foreign troop commitment, which is a way to enter places that belong to countries you don't cooperate with, with non cooperation which is a state that exist or don't exist.
I mean, Egypt is CW controlled, and as such don't cooperate with the USSR. This means that the USSR can enter Egypt (because a major can always enter a minor even if it don't cooperate with it), but Egypt and the CW nonetheless don't cooperate with the USSR.

Well, then we can add another exception to the one for the Chinese in Burma. In the Decline and Fall scenario the US sets up units in China, a major power with which it does not cooperate. I'll write the code that way.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: capitan

Oh dear, we have played those rules completly wrong then... good to know how it is supposed to be played then [:D]

Not necessarily, it was like this a long time ago, in the first versions of RAW.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Well, then we can add another exception to the one for the Chinese in Burma. In the Decline and Fall scenario the US sets up units in China, a major power with which it does not cooperate. I'll write the code that way.

I think that you can safely make the assumption that each time the setup charts indicate to setup a unit where 24.1.6 would prohibit it to setup, then this means that this is an exception.
For example, if a setup chart told you to setup Russians unit in Egypt, then this would be an exception.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Well, then we can add another exception to the one for the Chinese in Burma. In the Decline and Fall scenario the US sets up units in China, a major power with which it does not cooperate. I'll write the code that way.

I think that you can safely make the assumption that each time the setup charts indicate to setup a unit where 24.1.6 would prohibit it to setup, then this means that this is an exception.
For example, if a setup chart told you to setup Russians unit in Egypt, then this would be an exception.

Well, for Decline and Fall the setup instructions are to place the US units in US, Pacific, or China. China is not normally permitted, so this is an exception.

For the same scenario, the setup instructions say to place the USSR units in Europe, (which includes North Africa). But this time no exception to the general rule (24.1.6) is permitted and the USSR can not place units in North Africa.

These all have to be hard coded (i.e., specifc lines of code added to achieve the intended results case by case).

[brian brian]

OK, I hate to ask this question, but one part of the new errata or optionals in the Annual, I forget which, creates a question for me. When using Option 48, Oil, the new capability for one Major Power to use oil owned by another Major Power is intriguing. Seems like a no-brainer, we don't need to simulate administrative details of exactly when oil is transferred where in a game with 2 month turns. But when you go to use this rule, what are some limits on using it? I'm not sure if Steve will include it in MWiF, but he will quickly come across these questions if he does. Let's say the Italians use oil-dependent units worth 1.8 oil points. Then let's say in the same turn the Germans use 2.0 such points. Now, can the Italians say they borrow .4 from the Germans, so the Italians use one saved oil point and the Germans only 2, since they would then use 1.4 and 2.4 respectively? (1.4 rounds down to 1.0 for using oil in whole integer amounts.) I'm not real concerned with which way to answer that, but it would kinda need to be answered to use the rule.