Rules Clarification List

[Frederyck]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

NOTE: The rules state that the modifiers to the die role are affected by the total garrison IN THE COUNTRY.


If the USSR has occupied Eastern Poland:

Polish Partisans are created in Poland NOT Eastern Poland.

Partisans cannot enter Eastern Poland it is part of the USSR.

We discussed this earlier in this very thread. See my original question in post #92 and the ensuing rules-discussions it lead to, especially Patrice's answer in post #99.

[Mziln]

patrice

Even if Eastern Poland is conquered by Russia, Poland itself is conquered by Germany. Eastern Poland is a subdivision of Poland, and is part of Poland from what 19.5.1 does not say.

This is wrong.

If the USSR is annexing Eastern Poland.

It must be conquered by the USSR before Poland is conquered by Germany. If the USSR is NOT annexing Eastern Poland then there is no Eastern Poland.

patrice

If a partisan can't appear in Eastern Poland, can it move there after it has appeared and thereby be out of reach for the German forces?

I think that nothing in the rule prevent this.

Rule 13.1 Partisans (option 36)

”You put a partisan in the country if the result is less than or equal to that countries (modified) partisan number.”

The country is Poland conquered by the Germans NOT Eastern Poland, which has been conquered by the USSR.

"Partisans may move anywhere within their home country. They can never leave their home country"

[/b] The country is Poland conquered by the Germans NOT Eastern Poland, which has been conquered by the USSR.



Please compare a map of Poland pre-WWII and post-WWII. You will find the USSR is still controlling "Eastern Poland" today.

You and Patrice discussed it there were no other coments. And now Patrice says it is "a real mess". I find it very clear and easy to understand.

[Froonp]

Mziln, I do not dispute the reality as to Eatern Poland being part of the USSR, what I say is that the status of Eastern Poland is muddy in the game's RAW.

There is the Poland Minor Country.
We know that Eastern Poland is conquered by USSR. By conquered, I mean, in the RAW sense.
We know that Poland is conquered by Germany.

Problem is : What is Eastern Poland in RAW terms ? In Geographical terms this is obvious, as the red dotted lines show it on the map. But Eastern Poland is not defined (as Vichy France can be for example) neither as a new Minor Country separate from Poland, nor as a new Territory separate from Poland.

I mean, it has not RAW existence, beyond being a part of Poland.

So if it is neither a Territory nor a Minor Country, and if it is part of Poland, its status of being conquered by a country that is on the other side of the conquerer of the country to which is belong makes the whole partisan affair muddy and unclear.

I agree with you that PART appearing in Poland should not appear in Eastern Poland, and that PART appearing in Poland should not be able to enter Eastern Poland. This is the solution that makes more sense historicaly.

In fact, the simple thing that would be needed, would be to clarify the status of Eastern Poland, to declare in RAW that it is a Territory separate from Poland, that belongs to Poland in 1939, and that is conquered by special rule by Russia, and that is liberated from Russia by Germany when Germany takes all its cities during Barbarossa (as this "liberation-thing" is also as muddy as the partisans-thing).

[Mziln]

You didn’t mention why Eastern Poland isn’t a territory. It meets the requirements.

“A territory is something similar to a home country but without a capital city and only reachable by an INF rather than a MAR (e.g. Gibraltar, British Somaliland, Papua)”

During the liberation step you can return control of the territory to the original owner.

So if Eastern Poland is a territory Germany could never liberate it since it conquered Poland (a minor power).

The USSR could liberate Poland (a minor power) and in so doing liberate Eastern Poland.

Eastern Poland serves 2 purposes:

(1) To be conquered by the USSR.
(2) To allow the USSR to conquer the Baltic States.

[Frederyck]

Well, if Eastern Poland is considered a Territory, Polish troops will not be able to use Brest-Litovsk or Lvov as primary supply sources. Heck, they wouldn't even be secondary supply sources for the poor Poles... I don't think this would be a good idea.

[Froonp]

Well, I think that Mziln's way is the best way to have a sound solution.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Well, if Eastern Poland is considered a Territory, Polish troops will not be able to use Brest-Litovsk or Lvov as primary supply sources. Heck, they wouldn't even be secondary supply sources for the poor Poles... I don't think this would be a good idea.

Eastern Poland only exist once the Russians enter it (and so, create it). This is similar for Bessarabia, who does not exist as a WiF entity before the Russians enter it, and make it part of Russia.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, I think that Mziln's way is the best way to have a sound solution.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Well, if Eastern Poland is considered a Territory, Polish troops will not be able to use Brest-Litovsk or Lvov as primary supply sources. Heck, they wouldn't even be secondary supply sources for the poor Poles... I don't think this would be a good idea.

Eastern Poland only exist once the Russians enter it (and so, create it). This is similar for Bessarabia, who does not exist as a WiF entity before the Russians enter it, and make it part of Russia.

Coming at this issue from a purely practical point of view, MWIF identifies each hex in Eastern Poland as belonging to the "governed area" named Eastern Poland. Governed area is a generic term that can be applied to any group of hexes that is referenced by the code. Indeed, some of them are not currently used by the program (e.g., Polish Corridor). I assume some of the extra ones in the data files are in anticipation of adding the rules from Days of Decision III eventually.

Anyway, in addition to the association of each hex to the governed area Eastern Poland, Eastern Poland itself starts as belonging to the Poland. This is identical to Austria starting the Global War scenario as belonging to Germany. Finally, the program uses the definition of Eastern Poland to change control of individual hexes within it when the USSR claims Eastern Poland.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, I think that Mziln's way is the best way to have a sound solution.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Well, if Eastern Poland is considered a Territory, Polish troops will not be able to use Brest-Litovsk or Lvov as primary supply sources. Heck, they wouldn't even be secondary supply sources for the poor Poles... I don't think this would be a good idea.

Eastern Poland only exist once the Russians enter it (and so, create it). This is similar for Bessarabia, who does not exist as a WiF entity before the Russians enter it, and make it part of Russia.

This was discussed again recently on the WiF list and although I agree it could use clarification and may well be unintended by the designers, the present rules in RAW do provide the answers.
1. East Poland is part of Poland (nothing else having been specified in RAW) and so it can be subject to partisans.
2. Russians don't count for the anti-partisan garrison because the CW must be the controller of the partisan and per RAW: "A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan."
3. Thus the partisan can be placed in East Poland, but cannot go inside the Nazi-Soviet pact area because per RAW neutrality pacts: "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power."
4. The CW is placing the partisan and RAW says that: "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool." It also says: "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." This last quote proves that the "enemy controlled hexes" are relative to the partisan - not to the CW.

So we may not like it, but RAW allows it.

[Froonp]

This was discussed again recently on the WiF list and although I agree it could use clarification and may well be unintended by the designers, the present rules in RAW do provide the answers.
1. East Poland is part of Poland (nothing else having been specified in RAW) and so it can be subject to partisans.
2. Russians don't count for the anti-partisan garrison because the CW must be the controller of the partisan and per RAW: "A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan."
3. Thus the partisan can be placed in East Poland, but cannot go inside the Nazi-Soviet pact area because per RAW neutrality pacts: "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power."
4. The CW is placing the partisan and RAW says that: "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool." It also says: "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." This last quote proves that the "enemy controlled hexes" are relative to the partisan - not to the CW.

Well, seems to me that if "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. ", then no PART can be placed into Eastern Poland, as Eastern Poland is not an "enemy controlled hex", as it is controlled by Russia.

There is, pending, the problem of how is Eastern Poland "liberated" by Germany, that is removed from being conquered by Russia, and when does it become part of Poland again.

[mmn]

I promised to follow up on the issue with liberation of Portugal. Below is my question to Ruediger Rinscheidt and his answer.

> Given the following steps:
>
> - CW DoWs Portugal and Portugal aligns with Italy
> - CW incompletely conquers Portugal
> - Germany evicts CW from Portugal and takes control of Lisbon
> - Germany does not liberate Portugal but instead chooses to revert
the
> hexes she controls to Portugal
>
> This is the situtation you clarified earlier:
> - Lisbon is (again) a secondary supply source for Italy.
> - Portugal becomes red partisan country.
> - Italy cannot liberate Portugal.
>
> The question I was asked to pass along is the following:
> Why can't Italy in a later Peace step liberate Portugal?

--->>> Because Italy doesn't control Lisbon at any time. This is the
pre-requisite for this action. At first GE controlled Lisbon and then
Portugal (after the reversion of previous GE controlled hexes).
Portugal is
the controller of these hexes now, not Italy (see rule 2.5, Changing
Control: "Note that even though major powers may control minor
countries
(see 9.8 & 13.7.1), it is the minors themselves that control hexes in
that
minor.")

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

This was discussed again recently on the WiF list and although I agree it could use clarification and may well be unintended by the designers, the present rules in RAW do provide the answers.
1. East Poland is part of Poland (nothing else having been specified in RAW) and so it can be subject to partisans.
2. Russians don't count for the anti-partisan garrison because the CW must be the controller of the partisan and per RAW: "A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan."
3. Thus the partisan can be placed in East Poland, but cannot go inside the Nazi-Soviet pact area because per RAW neutrality pacts: "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power."
4. The CW is placing the partisan and RAW says that: "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool." It also says: "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." This last quote proves that the "enemy controlled hexes" are relative to the partisan - not to the CW.

So we may not like it, but RAW allows it.

As per the RaW Eastern Poland is not a Major or Minor power it does not meet the requirements. That would leave it as a territory.

(1) Poland is the source for partisans not Eastern Poland. Eastern Poland will only exist when the USSR conqueres it.

(2) USSR garison values would count if you are allowed to put partisans in Eastern Poland because you are puting them in a USSR conquered controled area.

(3&4) Using your example when did the CW sign a neutrality pact with Germany or the USSR? Polish partisans are controlled by the CW. So as per your example "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." Placing partisans in Eastern Poland would make them at war with the USSR not Germany. If Eastern Poland is considered a territory then it would have no effects on partisans placed in Poland and vice versa.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

This was discussed again recently on the WiF list and although I agree it could use clarification and may well be unintended by the designers, the present rules in RAW do provide the answers.
1. East Poland is part of Poland (nothing else having been specified in RAW) and so it can be subject to partisans.
2. Russians don't count for the anti-partisan garrison because the CW must be the controller of the partisan and per RAW: "A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan."
3. Thus the partisan can be placed in East Poland, but cannot go inside the Nazi-Soviet pact area because per RAW neutrality pacts: "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power."
4. The CW is placing the partisan and RAW says that: "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool." It also says: "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." This last quote proves that the "enemy controlled hexes" are relative to the partisan - not to the CW.

Well, seems to me that if "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. ", then no PART can be placed into Eastern Poland, as Eastern Poland is not an "enemy controlled hex", as it is controlled by Russia.

There is, pending, the problem of how is Eastern Poland "liberated" by Germany, that is removed from being conquered by Russia, and when does it become part of Poland again.

The Russians are enemy to the partisans, not the controller of the partisans - that is what #4 above is all about.

Liberation per RAW must be by walking over all the hexes - this applies even if you engage in the theory that the creators of RAW really meant that E. Poland is a territory.

[paulderynck]

As per the RaW Eastern Poland is not a Major or Minor power it does not meet the requirements. That would leave it as a territory.

(1) Poland is the source for partisans not Eastern Poland. Eastern Poland will only exist when the USSR conqueres it.

That is one theory that requires clarification from Harry. Against it is arrayed the argument that if that were the case, why not just say so somewhere in rule 19. It's probably easier to simply ask Harry if partisans can be placed in E. Poland. It being a territory or not has no other effect on game play.

(2) USSR garison values would count if you are allowed to put partisans in Eastern Poland because you are puting them in a USSR conquered controled area.

Not by RAW - "The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan." to be counted as part of the garrison. And the Russians are not on the opposite side to the CW.

Using your example when did the CW sign a neutrality pact with Germany or the USSR?

You miss the point entirely. The CW controls the partisan. The rule says "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power" (Germany and Russia do this), "units controlled by other major powers" (the partisans are controled by the CW) "on your side" (CW and Russia are on the same side) "cannot enter hexes that are part of your" (Russia's) "common border with that major power" (Germany) "if they" (the partisans) "are at war with that other major power" (Russia). The partisans are at war with both Germany and Russia because both conquered their country.

If E. Poland were considered a territory - this solves this issue. Does that mean Occupied France is a Minor Country? Does Bessarabia become a territory once taken by Germany from Russia? Be careful that a seemingly simple solution to one problem does not create several more elsewhere.

[Froonp]

If E. Poland were considered a territory - this solves this issue. Does that mean Occupied France is a Minor Country? Does Bessarabia become a territory once taken by Germany from Russia? Be careful that a seemingly simple solution to one problem does not create several more elsewhere.

I don't think that considering Eastern Poland a Territory would mean that other problems would arise with other places. Bessarabia is well defined (as part of a Home Country, either Rumania or Russia), Occupied France too (as the incompletely conquered French 1939 home country).

Eastern Poland has so many questions asked because it is not well defined by the RAW.

The Russians are enemy to the partisans, not the controller of the partisans - that is what #4 above is all about.

Yes, I got it. I did not see it this way. Thanks.

So, this PART, if placed in Eastern Poland would deny the russians the benefits of controlling the hex it is in (as normal PART do). So, I don't see the reason why the CW would put a PART in Eastern Poland to hamper the Russians.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

As per the RaW Eastern Poland is not a Major or Minor power it does not meet the requirements. That would leave it as a .

(1) Poland is the source for partisans not Eastern Poland. Eastern Poland will only exist when the USSR conqueres it.

That is one theory that requires clarification from Harry. Against it is arrayed the argument that if that were the case, why not just say so somewhere in rule 19. It's probably easier to simply ask Harry if partisans can be placed in E. Poland. It being a territory or not has no other effect on game play.

(2) USSR garison values would count if you are allowed to put partisans in Eastern Poland because you are puting them in a USSR conquered controled area.

Not by RAW - "The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan." to be counted as part of the garrison. And the Russians are not on the opposite side to the CW.

Using your example when did the CW sign a neutrality pact with Germany or the USSR?

You miss the point entirely. The CW controls the partisan. The rule says "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power" (Germany and Russia do this), "units controlled by other major powers" (the partisans are controled by the CW) "on your side" (CW and Russia are on the same side) "cannot enter hexes that are part of your" (Russia's) "common border with that major power" (Germany) "if they" (the partisans) "are at war with that other major power" (Russia). The partisans are at war with both Germany and Russia because both conquered their country.

If E. Poland were considered a territory - this solves this issue. Does that mean Occupied France is a Minor Country? Does Bessarabia become a territory once taken by Germany from Russia? Be careful that a seemingly simple solution to one problem does not create several more elsewhere.

Ah but you are forgetting that the USSR is a Neutral Major Power (per the RaW) and not on the same side as the CW. It is at peace. I will uae your quote from the RaW again "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer."

"After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power". Note it says ENTER not PLACED.

Thanks Patrice for pointing out the status of Metro France (per the RaW) [:)]

Bessarabia becomes part of the USSR (per the RaW) (IMO) the same as Eastern Poland.

I agree with Paatrice. The use of Polish partisans against the USSR would be highly non-productive to the Allies.


Per the RaW Eastern Poland is a territory:

13.7.1 Conquest

"You can only conquer a home country or territory".

[composer99]

Bessarabia becomes part of the USSR home country. Eastern Poland does not, but it probably should.
 
The conclusion that placing Polish partisans in E. Poland is pretty foolish (until the Germans are the ones in control) is entirely correct.

[paulderynck]

Ah but you are forgetting that the USSR is a Neutral Major Power (per the RaW) and not on the same side as the CW.

That is not a concept recognized in RAW. These powers are on the same side regardless of whether they are neutral. There are two and only two sides in RAW - the axis and the allies - active or not. The rules are full of examples of this - start with the Sequence of Play and then browse thru the use of convoys in pipelines and for LOS supply. There are numerous other examples.

Note it says ENTER not PLACED.

Once its placed it obviously has entered the hex. But if I'm placing it and you insist that I CAN put it within 3 hexes on the Russian side of the border, then I wouldn't complain. As for why I might want to do this, please see my reply to Patrice.

[paulderynck]

So, this PART, if placed in Eastern Poland would deny the russians the benefits of controlling the hex it is in (as normal PART do). So, I don't see the reason why the CW would put a PART in Eastern Poland to hamper the Russians.

Here is a situation where the CW player might do it: France has fallen and the Germans are racing back east to get into position for Barb 41, but have not got enough units into Poland to get a garrison of 6 or more. A partisan for Poland comes up. The CW player knows two things: Barb is coming and any partisan in German-controlled Poland is going to get vaporized. So if he places it in E. Poland, it will live to increase the partisan number in future rolls (though that likely won't matter) and it also stands a chance of being moved into a speed bump position without hindering the Russians. If so it would actually save the Russians a unit. (Is that entirely foolish, Christopher?)

Clearly since the CW places the partisan, he won't do it to hinder the Russians (except perhaps in a really vicious 5-player end-game). He'll do it because it is a better move then putting it in German-controlled Poland. The points I'm making are that RAW does not prohibit it, and that it can make sense to do it.

[oscar72se]

I have a question regarding partisans. Sometimes when we have played, the roll for partisans have been a '10' while the Netherlands are neutral. Does this mean that a partisan should be set up in NEI(which is a red country)? If yes, who controls the partisan? We have had quite a few discussions on this topic and house-ruled that no partisan should be set in a country that no major power controls. The problem, as I see it, is that no major power is eligble to control the partisan. We would greatly appreciate your views on this topic since we find that RaW under these circumstances is very fuzzy...

[composer99]

Outside of the Pripet Marshes, where would a partisan placed in Eastern Poland actually be safe? And aside from letting one less Russian army stand on the front line, how would it do any good as a speed bump? By 1941 most partisans are still 0-1 factor. Sure, there are plenty of forests and swamps in Eastern Poland, but a single partisan unit will stand no chance against any German army force that wants to take care of them - and since the slow-moving German forces will end their impulse in that area, I don't see how a partisan in Eastern Poland will actually slow the German advance. Either it goes in the clear and dies from the overrun, or it goes in the Carpathians and/or Pripets and either gets screened or gets blown away by slow-moving Germans, or it goes in the forests and gets blown away by slow-moving Germans.