Rules Clarification List

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Good point. I think the intent was for tracing the U.S. Fleet's oil when based in Australia or India and that whole numbers were forseen but I agree this will come up as either a rules abuse or a "gamer" ploy unless clarified.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: 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.

Good point. I think the intent was for tracing the U.S. Fleet's oil when based in Australia or India and that whole numbers were forseen but I agree this will come up as either a rules abuse or a "gamer" ploy unless clarified.

Coincidentally, today I was looking a bug that came up when the US player placed 2 saved oil points in Australia during setup.

[Taxman66]

Maybe (with either Harry's blessing or for MWiF 2) we could dump the whole fractional oil uses/doesn't use an oil marker simply by increasing all factors by 10.  Unlike the board game we don't need to limit the number of (or more likely the value of) markers on the board.  So each oil resource will generate either 1 bp or 10 saved oil (new term?); and it would take 10 saved oil to produce a build point... but each oil dependent unit would take a whole number instead of a fraction to be reorganized.
 
You would have to do something to put back in the freebie .4 each country is allowed.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: 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.

Good point. I think the intent was for tracing the U.S. Fleet's oil when based in Australia or India and that whole numbers were forseen but I agree this will come up as either a rules abuse or a "gamer" ploy unless clarified.

This ploy is against the rule.

If the Italian has 1.8 oil point to reorg units, they NEED to use 2 oil resources. They can use 1 German and 1 Italian, or 2 Italians or 2 Germans, but they NEED to SPEND 2 Oil points.
The Germans having 2.0 oil points needed to reorg units NEED to use 2 oil resources too.

So, in this case, there are 4 oil points to SPEND, whatever you decide as the origin of the oil.

There is nothing to add to the rule to make this enforced, and no clarification from Harry to ask, this is clear from the rule itself already.

[Zorachus99]

Wait a minute.  I didn't think Italy could use German oil unless it had already been lent AND transported to Italy in a previous turn.

[Norman42]

Its a new ruling from the 2008 annual, I assume.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Norman42
Its a new ruling from the 2008 annual, I assume.

You assume well Norman.
This is an errata from the Annual 2008, at page 50.

Quote from the Annual :
***************************
Oil (AfA option 48, WiF 13.5.1)
Co-operating major powers may freely use each other’s oil, provided the oil’s owner consents.
***************************

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Norman42
Its a new ruling from the 2008 annual, I assume.

You assume well Norman.
This is an errata from the Annual 2008, at page 50.

Quote from the Annual :
***************************
Oil (AfA option 48, WiF 13.5.1)
Co-operating major powers may freely use each other’s oil, provided the oil’s owner consents.
***************************

Since it is published as errata, MWIF will include this change. [Though I have closed the rules for MWIF as of July 4, 2008.]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
This ploy is against the rule.

If the Italian has 1.8 oil point to reorg units, they NEED to use 2 oil resources. They can use 1 German and 1 Italian, or 2 Italians or 2 Germans, but they NEED to SPEND 2 Oil points.
The Germans having 2.0 oil points needed to reorg units NEED to use 2 oil resources too.

So, in this case, there are 4 oil points to SPEND, whatever you decide as the origin of the oil.

There is nothing to add to the rule to make this enforced, and no clarification from Harry to ask, this is clear from the rule itself already.

I've re-read the Oil rule and now agree with Patrice. It is well defined. "This is the minimum number of Oil resources that you must spend" is the key sentence. Unless you want to argue that the word "you" now means two or more jointly co-operating powers versus the single major power that it used to mean.

[brian brian]

Does Bill Clinton write WiF rules? The answer would depend on what your defition of 'is' is, I guess. Re-reading the rule when I got all the way home from my first WiF gaming session of 2008 (checking email along the way at a pit-stop), I noticed the word 'freely'. So to me, you could borrow just a few tenths from the other Major Power, cuz you can do it 'freely'. So, I don't think it is clear from the rule at all. 'Freely' kind of opens it up pretty wide, imo.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Does Bill Clinton write WiF rules? The answer would depend on what your defition of 'is' is, I guess. Re-reading the rule when I got all the way home from my first WiF gaming session of 2008 (checking email along the way at a pit-stop), I noticed the word 'freely'. So to me, you could borrow just a few tenths from the other Major Power, cuz you can do it 'freely'. So, I don't think it is clear from the rule at all. 'Freely' kind of opens it up pretty wide, imo.

I don't know if you're serious or not, but in case you are.
You can borrow any tenth you want from who you want, ANYWAY, you MUST spend 2 oil point, at your convinence.
This is the same as when you have units that are cut off in separate pockets. If you have 3 separate pockets of units that need 0.4 oil point to reorg, then all pockets need to access to some oil, and you MUST spend at least 1 oil point (1.2 rounded down to 1). You can take it from whatever pocket you want, but you NEED do spend 1.

[brian brian]

Yes, I am serious. The question is...can you borrow just a few tenths from the other MP, or can you only borrow integer amounts? It could be played either way. I lean towards allowing borrowing tenths. If you can borrow tenths, WiF players will inevitably use that to maximize efficiency of the rounding.

Meanwhile, the newest twist to the oil rules about ships still allows you to use oil cut off in obscure pockets...by just using it for ships at sea.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Yes, I am serious. The question is...can you borrow just a few tenths from the other MP, or can you only borrow integer amounts? It could be played either way. I lean towards allowing borrowing tenths. If you can borrow tenths, WiF players will inevitably use that to maximize efficiency of the rounding.

Meanwhile, the newest twist to the oil rules about ships still allows you to use oil cut off in obscure pockets...by just using it for ships at sea.

Nowhere do you borrow anything.
Either you spend German oil, or you spend Italian oil.
ANYWAY, you need to spend (in the above example where Italy has a 1.8 oil point consumption) 2 oil, wherever you want. If you want to spend German oil, it is your choice. If you want to say you are spending 0.4 German oil, this is your choice too. you MUST SPEND 2 oil whatever. So you'll spend 0.4 German oil PLUS 2 Italian oil.

Please read 13.5.1 again, particulary this :

********************************
Work out how many oil dependent units you want to flip face-up. Each HQ-I counts as 2 units, each HQ-A counts as 3 and each aircraft that takes 2 turns to build counts as half a unit. Divide the total by 5. This is the minimum number of oil resources (whether from the current turn or saved) that you must spend.
********************************

So in this case, you need to spend a minimin of 2 oil resources, can you read "minimum" differently than "minimum" ?

[brian brian]

If Italy has 1.7 oil units to flip face-up, and Germany has 2.1, Italy could use 0.3 from the Germans. Italy would use 1.4, and Germany would use 2.4. Then the Axis uses a total of 3 oil instead of 4. I think you might as well play it that way. It will be a slight gain in efficiency for Italy and Germany, and the three western Allies from the mid-game on.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

If Italy has 1.7 oil units to flip face-up, and Germany has 2.1, Italy could use 0.3 from the Germans. Italy would use 1.4, and Germany would use 2.4. Then the Axis uses a total of 3 oil instead of 4. I think you might as well play it that way. It will be a slight gain in efficiency for Italy and Germany, and the three western Allies from the mid-game on.

I think the point here is that, before deciding who is going to supply the oil, it is determined that the Italians have to spend 2 oil points and the Germans have to spend 2 oil points. Then you can freely determine from where those 4 oil points are taken.

[brian brian]

thanks Steve. So that way, you are saying you can only use integer amounts from the other Major Power. We just started a new game, and decided to allow using tenths, but we just about flipped a coin to pick. 'Freely' could go either way really. We didn't even think about it until the first re-org phase.

[composer99]

Taxman66 is probably on the right track: RAW and the Annual oil rule use 10ths of oil counters because even though theoretically there is little limit to your oil aside from what is in the rules, the counter mix & counter piles limit the use of oil markers in table-top WiF. MWiF has no such restriction. If each saved oil generates 10 oil points, you probably don't need the "free" .4 oil since you no longer are removing a whole oil counter (10 oil pts) when you spend 5-9 oil points.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Taxman66 is probably on the right track: RAW and the Annual oil rule use 10ths of oil counters because even though theoretically there is little limit to your oil aside from what is in the rules, the counter mix & counter piles limit the use of oil markers in table-top WiF. MWiF has no such restriction. If each saved oil generates 10 oil points, you probably don't need the "free" .4 oil since you no longer are removing a whole oil counter (10 oil pts) when you spend 5-9 oil points.

Yeah you could make flipped convoys free to re-org to both balance off the .4 (actually .45 if you do the one free Convoy a turn in addition to the .4) and to get rid of quarter units which would be half a point at the times ten scale. It is seldom that masses of convoys get re-orged (it plays hell with production).

[Orm]

In a recent discussion with a friend we had some trouble with simultaneus conquest.

Example 1.
USSR declares war on Persia. Germany gets control of Persia. Germany and CW is at war. Iraq is a CW minor. USSR units move into Tehran. The Persian cav moves into Baghdad. In the conquest step Persia is conquered by USSR and Iraq is conquered by Germany (since the hexes in Iraq is converted to German control).

Now to the tricky example.

Example 2.
USSR declares war on Persia. Germany gets control of Persia. Iraq is a USSR minor. Germany and USSR are NOT at war. Iraq moves it cav into Tehran and reverts it to USSR control. Persia moves it cav into Baghdad. The hexes stays Persian since Germany is not at war with Iraq(USSR). In the conquest step USSR is in control of Tehran and conquers Persia. Persia is in control of Baghdad. What happens to Iraq?

I am not comfortable with what comes to my mind. Persia conquers Iraq. Germany conquers Iraq. Iraq stays a USSR minor.



RAW7 AUG04
13.7.1 Conquest
You can only conquer a home country or territory if you are at war with the major power or minor country that controls it.
All conquest in a turn occurs simultaneously.
Minor countries never conquer anything. The home country or territory is instead conquered by the minor’s controlling major power (unless it is not at war, see 2.5).
2.5 Control
However, hexes taken from an enemy major power (or its controlled minors) are controlled by the major power taking them regardless of whether those hexes are taken by units of the major power or its controlled minors, unless the major powers are not at war with each other (in which case the hexes are controlled by the minor country taking them).


-Orm

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

In a recent discussion with a friend we had some trouble with simultaneus conquest.

Example 1.
USSR declares war on Persia. Germany gets control of Persia. Germany and CW is at war. Iraq is a CW minor. USSR units move into Tehran. The Persian cav moves into Baghdad. In the conquest step Persia is conquered by USSR and Iraq is conquered by Germany (since the hexes in Iraq is converted to German control).

Now to the tricky example.

Example 2.
USSR declares war on Persia. Germany gets control of Persia. Iraq is a USSR minor. Germany and USSR are NOT at war. Iraq moves it cav into Tehran and reverts it to USSR control. Persia moves it cav into Baghdad. The hexes stays Persian since Germany is not at war with Iraq(USSR). In the conquest step USSR is in control of Tehran and conquers Persia. Persia is in control of Baghdad. What happens to Iraq?

I am not comfortable with what comes to my mind. Persia conquers Iraq. Germany conquers Iraq. Iraq stays a USSR minor.



RAW7 AUG04
13.7.1 Conquest
You can only conquer a home country or territory if you are at war with the major power or minor country that controls it.
All conquest in a turn occurs simultaneously.
Minor countries never conquer anything. The home country or territory is instead conquered by the minor’s controlling major power (unless it is not at war, see 2.5).
2.5 Control
However, hexes taken from an enemy major power (or its controlled minors) are controlled by the major power taking them regardless of whether those hexes are taken by units of the major power or its controlled minors, unless the major powers are not at war with each other (in which case the hexes are controlled by the minor country taking them).


-Orm

Sorry, but this seems preety easy to me, unless I am missing something.

In your given scenario, a Persian unit can never conquer Iraq since Germany is not at war with the USSR (and hence Germany is not at war with Iraq). An Iraqi unit can conquer Persia, since the USSR is at war with Persia.