Rumania and Bessarabia

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Each time the USSR has to DoW the neutral minor country Rumania it invokes:

US entrty action 31. USSR declares war on other minor or Vichy France (Ge/It) (-9).

Footnote 5: Rolled once per city, major power, neutral minor country or search.

How many US entry chits are left?

Yes Entry Action 31 is the action, but against Rumania it is (Ge/It) (-18) (the middle selection of Action 31 on the chart).

However, there is no danger of more chits being lost because RAW 13.3.3 says: "You can only pick markers for each action once, regardless of the number of times that the action occurs, unless the chart notes otherwise." (as I noted in Post #5). This is not the same as two different major powers declaring war on the same minor in the same impulse (which does generate two chit resolutions), it is the same major declaring on the same minor.

[Centuur]

I've never thought that two dice rolls in Vassal with 2D10 both resulting in a 2 on +10 attacks, created this result.

Personally, I think the USSR can indeed make another claim for Bessarabia. The USSR can also DOW Rumania without an extra US entry die roll being made. I agree with Paul here that this is RAW at this moment.

If this is an oversight by the developers? Who knows...

Anyway: von Ribbentrop did leave Berlin immediately for Bucharest and the Rumanian King took the wise decision to join the Pact of Steel. In the USSR it appears that there was a conspiracy against the Red Army in Moskow, causing the interception of the orders for the Rumanian Front. Therefore, while the Comrades of the Airforce went to war, the army stayed in their quarters... Democratic sources are rumouring about a very large purge in the Soviet Ministery of War... [:D]

[Extraneous]

AUSTRALIAN DESIGN GROUP WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary © 2009, Australian Design Group

9.2: All major powers on this side announce which major powers on the other side they are declaring war on this impulse. They then all announce which neutral minor countries they are declaring war on this impulse.

Each declaration of war on a major power or neutral minor country could trigger a US entry effect (see 13.3.3), which are rolled for after all declarations of war.

9.2 How to declare war
Each declaration of war on a major power or neutral minor country could trigger a US entry effect (see 13.3.3), which are rolled for after all declarations of war. There is no US entry roll if you declare war on a major power that has units in your major power’s home country (e.g. France could declare war on Italy without a US entry roll if Italian units were in German controlled hexes in Metropolitan France).

China may not declare war.

Additional examples of multiple US entry actions

10. Japan occupies Chinese city: - each time a Japanese controlled land unit occupies (or reoccupies) a Chinese controlled city in China, there is the possibility of an outrage like the rape of Nanking occurring, an atrocity that the USA public finds out about. You do not roll for cities controlled by the Japanese as a result of a Chinese surrender.

You can then execute a search and seizure if you want to. If you do, those resources (or build points) are lost. Each search and seizure you execute is a US entry action (see 13.3.3) if it is conducted against a major power not at war with the USA.

Your right about US entrty action 31 being -18.

US entrty action 31. USSR declares war on Belgium, Finland, Rumania, Sweden or Switzerland (Ge/It) (-18).

[paulderynck]

The Chinese city and Search and Seizure quotes are good examples of where RAW spells out a specific exception to the "only pick markers for each action once" rule. The other DoW quotes are not because they say "could trigger", which is a conditional statement.

I expect that the "only pick markers for each action once" rule was put in for places like Suez, Gibraltar and Singapore changing hands more than twice in a game, however the rule as written applies to a USSR DoW on Rumania, until ADG decides not and puts something specific to this situation in RAW.

[Extraneous]

I included “Japan occupies Chinese city” and “search and seizure” because Footnote 5 affects them as well. And because I though someone might get confused with our discussion because it begins “Roll once” when it is referring to Chinese cities.
 
 

US entrty action 31. USSR declares war on other minor or Vichy France (Ge/It) (-9).

Footnote 5: Rolled once per city, major power, neutral minor country or search.

 
 
Each declaration of war on a major power or neutral minor country could trigger a US entry effect (see 13.3.3), which are rolled for after all declarations of war.
 
The key phrase is at the beginning of the sentence “Each declaration of war” then we have “country could trigger” because there is a roll involved to determine if a US entry chit is drawn at all.
 
 
 

Original: Is this your example?
 
Example: Japan occupies Indo-China. This has a US entry cost of 12. So, you add 1 marker from the common marker pool to the Japan entry pool. Roll a die and compare it to the remaining 2 points. If you roll a 1 or 2, you put a further marker into the Japan entry pool.
 
You can only pick markers for each action once, regardless of the number of times that the action occurs, unless the chart notes otherwise.

 
 

1. Japan occupies Indo-China (Ja)
 
Footnote 2: May only be chosen after Vichy government installed.

 
Are you advocating that since the rules and not the chart says otherwise we should ignore the rules and only accept the chart?
 
If so then I would like to bring your attention “Footnote 1” from the chart.
 

Footnote 1: Each action is only rolled once per game unless otherwise specified.

 

I advocate that the rules and Rule Clarification Summary both clearly specify, “Each declaration of war can generate a chit “ and therefore meet the requirements of “ the chart noting otherwise”. 
 

[Red Prince]

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, I think what we are running into is a problem with the WiF definition of the word "once" as it is used in Footnote 5:

5 Rolled once per city, major power, neutral minor country or search.

The options:

A) Once = once per game
B) Once = once per attempt/occurance

Option A) seems to support the USSR being able to DOW a minor multiple times with only the first time resulting in a US Entry roll, but it also does not seem to support a US Entry roll for Japan taking over Sian (for example) each time it happens.

Option B) seems to support a US Entry roll for each of the multiple DOWs the USSR could make on a particular minor, and the Japan situation, too.

I have always thought this was a little ambiguous. Does the "once per" in footnote 5 apply to the target or the country taking the action?

For Example:

20. Axis declares war on:
--Poland, Spain, Turkey or any American country (12)
--Belgium, Finland, Rumania, Sweden or Switzerland (8)
--Other minor (3)

In this case, each of the lower three entries has footnote 5.

Is that there to clarify that it is "once per" minor country in this row?
This would be so that people don't think: okay, I've taken the hit for a DOW on Spain, so now I can DOW Turkey without any repercussions.

Or does it mean "once" per game for each major power making a DOW on any of these minors?
This would clarify that Germany only rolls once per game for a DOW on Spain, but if Spain becomes neutral again and then Italy makes a DOW . . . then Italy also has to roll for US Entry.

It's entirely possible that I'm missiing something somewhere in here.
-----
Edit: I think I know how I'd play it with my own "house rules", but I guess my point is that RAW needs some lessons in semantics and clarity.

[Extraneous]

US entry actions with Footnote 5:
 
10. Japan occupies Chinese city (Ja) (see US entry action 10 in the rules)
 
17. Axis conquers other CW Home Country (Major power) (Other CW Home Countries: Canada, India, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand)
 
18. Axis occupies Gibraltar (Ge/It), Singapore (Ja) or Suez (Objective Cities)
 
19. Axis align minor ~ Siam (Ja); other (Ge/It) (Neutral minor country)
 
20. Axis declares war on:
Poland, Spain, Turkey or any American country (Neutral minor country)
Belgium, Finland, Rumania, Sweden or Switzerland (Neutral minor country)
Other minor  (Neutral minor country)
 
21. Allies support attacked minor (Ge/It) (Neutral minor country)
 
30. Allies align minor (Ge/It) (Neutral minor country)
 
31. USSR declares war on (Ge/It):
Poland, Spain, Turkey or any American country  (Neutral minor country)
Belgium, Finland, Rumania, Sweden or Switzerland  (Neutral minor country)
Other minor or Vichy France  (Neutral minor country)
 
32. Other Ally declares war on (Ge/It):
Poland, Spain, Turkey or any American country  (Neutral minor country)
Belgium, Finland, Rumania, Sweden or Switzerland  (Neutral minor country)
Other minor or Vichy France  (Neutral minor country)
 
33. Japan declares war on the
CW, France or Netherlands (Ja) (CW & France Major power) (Netherlands Neutral minor country)
 
34. Japan executes a search and seizure (Ja) (search and seizure)
 
35. Other Axis major power executes a search and seizure (Ge/It) (search and seizure)
 
36. Allied major power executes a search and seizure (search and seizure)
 
 
 

[Centuur]

I agree with Paul. You roll once per game.

Axis captures Gibraltar: you roll. CW recaptures Gib and than Axis recapture Gibraltar: no roll.
USSR DOW's Rumania: you roll. Germany declares peace and the USSR than DOW Rumania again: no roll.

However: carefully rereading of this rules section gives me the impression that other interpretations of this rule can be defended. So, RAW should indeed be clarified to get this clear.

I'm getting an idea why this game takes so long to code...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince
In this case, each of the lower three entries has footnote 5.

Is that there to clarify that it is "once per" minor country in this row?
This would be so that people don't think: okay, I've taken the hit for a DOW on Spain, so now I can DOW Turkey without any repercussions.

Or does it mean "once" per game for each major power making a DOW on any of these minors?
This would clarify that Germany only rolls once per game for a DOW on Spain, but if Spain becomes neutral again and then Italy makes a DOW . . . then Italy also has to roll for US Entry.

It's entirely possible that I'm missiing something somewhere in here.
-----
Edit: I think I know how I'd play it with my own "house rules", but I guess my point is that RAW needs some lessons in semantics and clarity.

No question this part is really poorly written. We need to use both the rules and the chart and hope they don't contradict each other. It's too bad the chart can't be the one and only source of info but footnote 5 is an excellent example of creating confusion by trying to have a nice compact succinct statement that is applicable to umpteen actions.

AAMOF it was footnote 5 that got us into all the trouble with two majors declaring on the same minor in the same impulse. Until we check the RAW text about actions 20, 31 and 32, we don't have clarity. Some have argued that "roll once for each major power declaring war on this minor this impulse" also means you roll again on the second DoW on Rumania because it says "this impulse" so maybe it overrides the "once per action" wording too.

Personally I don't think so. We have some clear-cut statements which I view as the "roll more than once" exceptions:

Chinese cities because it says each time and more importantly "or reoccupies" - this one should be immensely clear.

Search and seizure - "Each search and seizure you execute is a US entry action..." It says it "is" a US Entry action roll, not that it "could trigger" one.

All the rest with footnote 5 generate a US entry roll once and once only, is what I see here.

Edit: And of course I do not mean Russia DoWing Rumania is the same action as Russia DoWing Finland just because they are on the same line on the chart with one footnote 5.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I agree with Paul. You roll once per game.

Axis captures Gibraltar: you roll. CW recaptures Gib and than Axis recapture Gibraltar: no roll.
USSR DOW's Rumania: you roll. Germany declares peace and the USSR than DOW Rumania again: no roll.

However: carefully rereading of this rules section gives me the impression that other interpretations of this rule can be defended. So, RAW should indeed be clarified to get this clear.

I'm getting an idea why this game takes so long to code...

Amen. I just posted a question in the development forum, hoping to clarify a rule that applies to a test we need to do . . . which is intended to clarify the MWiF position on a different rule. Ack! It's hard to design tests when the rules you are referencing have their own ambiguous bits and pieces. [:)]

[Extraneous]

I request that we get a clarification of this rule.
 
Yes a rule clarification on the AUSTRALIAN DESIGN GROUP WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary © 2009, Australian Design Group.
 

Each declaration of war on a major power or neutral minor country could trigger a US entry effect (see 13.3.3), which are rolled for after all declarations of war.

 
 
 
 
And then by using your own logic you may only “Claim Bessarabia” once.
 
Because nowhere in the rules or the chart does it say you can do it more than once.
 
 
 

[Centuur]

I think that this should be asked. The claim should be asked also. Personally, I don't see anything historically wrong by allowing the Soviets from trying to use diplomatic means a second time to get Bessarabia, with again the compleet rule in use... Strange? Yes. Unlikely? No.
Diplomats and politicians tend to use the same tactics: repeat, repeat, repeat and one time you'll make you're point.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I think that this should be asked. The claim should be asked also. Personally, I don't see anything historically wrong by allowing the Soviets from trying to use diplomatic means a second time to get Bessarabia, with again the compleet rule in use... Strange? Yes. Unlikely? No.
Diplomats and politicians tend to use the same tactics: repeat, repeat, repeat and one time you'll make you're point.

Declare war, make peace and then declare war again with the same country all within a couple of months time is unheard of to me. I feel it is totally unrealistic.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I think that this should be asked. The claim should be asked also. Personally, I don't see anything historically wrong by allowing the Soviets from trying to use diplomatic means a second time to get Bessarabia, with again the compleet rule in use... Strange? Yes. Unlikely? No.
Diplomats and politicians tend to use the same tactics: repeat, repeat, repeat and one time you'll make you're point.

Declare war, make peace and then declare war again with the same country all within a couple of months time is unheard of to me. I feel it is totally unrealistic.

Maybe only if you view "declaring war" as an formal political declaration. Wif doesnt allow any any grey areas about states of war, but what happened in Centuur's game sounds more like a border skirmish.

[Centuur]

Maybe there wasn't a skirmish after all. No effect can main such a FOW that there wasn't any fight, apart from the bombardment on the Ploesti oilfields of the Russian air force. Now, if we see that as a serious warning by the Soviets, that they mean business and want to have Bessarabia, it sure would be possible that the diplomatic talks took a couple of months convincing the stubborn Rumanians that they better give up...

[paulderynck]

The question of more than one claim on Bessarabia, and more than one DoW on Rumania in the case where a peace is enforced; was referred to Harry Rowland, the game's designer.

Harry is working on RAW8 and an NDA prohibits me from posting an exact quote of the changes that will be made.

However if these changes remain in for publication (which is highly liikely) they will make it clear in the next issue of the rules that Russia may perform these actions only once per game. This of course renders moot any discussion of whether US Entry is affected more than once by a Russian claim being denied.

[Orm]

Thank you Paul for the clarification. [:)]


Edit: And you saved me hours of potential arguing if this had been an issue in my next game. Thank you.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Thank you Paul for the clarification. [:)]


Edit: And you saved me hours of potential arguing if this had been an issue in my next game. Thank you.

Well, if that happens, you've also rolled two times 2 on the 2D10 table and not moving any Russian unit into Bessarabia. I don't think I'll ever make that last mistake again...

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL:  paulderynck
 
The question of more than one claim on Bessarabia, and more than one DoW on Rumania in the case where a peace is enforced; was referred to Harry Rowland, the game's designer.
 
Harry is working on RAW8 and an NDA prohibits me from posting an exact quote of the changes that will be made.
 
However if these changes remain in for publication (which is highly likely) they will make it clear in the next issue of the rules that Russia may perform these actions only once per game. This of course renders moot any discussion of whether US Entry is affected more than once by a Russian claim being denied.

 
I asume that you mean moot because of your NDA.  [:)] Gratz on your being allowed to test RAW8. [:)]

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL:  paulderynck

The question of more than one claim on Bessarabia, and more than one DoW on Rumania in the case where a peace is enforced; was referred to Harry Rowland, the game's designer.

Harry is working on RAW8 and an NDA prohibits me from posting an exact quote of the changes that will be made.

However if these changes remain in for publication (which is highly likely) they will make it clear in the next issue of the rules that Russia may perform these actions only once per game. This of course renders moot any discussion of whether US Entry is affected more than once by a Russian claim being denied.

I asume that you mean moot because of your NDA.  [:)] Gratz on your being allowed to test RAW8. [:)]

Actually, I took "moot" to mean that if the rules end up saying Russia can only do it once, then there is no possibility of a 2nd claim/roll.