The Australian Axis Rebels versus the Swedish Allied Empire (5 player game)

Orm · Post by **Orm** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:23 am

: 504.jpg (932.3 KiB) Viewed 727 times

Picture from Jul/Aug '41 Impulse #6 (Axis) - DOW

Orm · Post by **Orm** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:24 am

: 505.jpg (773.89 KiB) Viewed 727 times

Picture from Jul/Aug '41 Impulse #6 (Axis) - DOW

Orm · Post by **Orm** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:24 am

: 506.jpg (1.03 MiB) Viewed 727 times

Picture from Jul/Aug '41 Impulse #6 (Axis) - DOW

Orm · Post by **Orm** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:26 am

: 507.jpg (948.11 KiB) Viewed 727 times

Picture from Jul/Aug '41 Impulse #6 (Axis) - DOW

Orm · Post by **Orm** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:27 am

: 508.jpg (1.22 MiB) Viewed 727 times

Picture from Jul/Aug '41 Impulse #6 (Axis) - DOW

Courtenay · Post by **Courtenay** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:16 pm

I think you just found a bug:

USA:
CA + INF Div Pago Pago -> San Diego
CA + INF Div San Diego -> Norfolk
CA + INF Div Norfolk -> BoB 0-box

While it is legal to chain moving a unit, you have to move out of the port and back into it to pick the unit up, and US cruisers don't have the range to go out of San Diego, back into San Diego, and then to Norfolk. Some CW cruisers do, so if there were a CW cruiser on the west coast, this could be legal, but you say it was a US cruiser.

This is not in RAC, but is in the FAQ:

Q11.4-2 11.4.5 Is chaining Naval Transports legal? Yes. Date 07/03/2008
Note however that second and subsequent transports must pick up the unit by "moving through" the port and cannot pick up the unit before it itself starts moving. Date 25/06/2008

It seems that MWiF does not implement this ruling.

Orm · Post by **Orm** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:40 pm

Courtenay wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:16 pm I think you just found a bug:

USA:
CA + INF Div Pago Pago -> San Diego
CA + INF Div San Diego -> Norfolk
CA + INF Div Norfolk -> BoB 0-box
While it is legal to chain moving a unit, you have to move out of the port and back into it to pick the unit up, and US cruisers don't have the range to go out of San Diego, back into San Diego, and then to Norfolk. Some CW cruisers do, so if there were a CW cruiser on the west coast, this could be legal, but you say it was a US cruiser.

This is not in RAC, but is in the FAQ:

Q11.4-2 11.4.5 Is chaining Naval Transports legal? Yes. Date 07/03/2008
Note however that second and subsequent transports must pick up the unit by "moving through" the port and cannot pick up the unit before it itself starts moving. Date 25/06/2008
It seems that MWiF does not implement this ruling.

Looks like RAC has further clarifications that makes this legal. The extra cost is just one MP. See below.

Cut from RAC 11.4.5 Naval transport:
....
Chaining naval transports is legal. However, the second and subsequent transports need to pick up the
unit by “moving through” the port. If the second (or subsequent) transport starts in the port where it picks up cargo
that just arrived on another transport, it costs 1 MP but 0 range to pick up the cargo - July 19, 2007.]

Courtenay · Post by **Courtenay** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:23 pm

Orm wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:40 pm
Courtenay wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:16 pm I think you just found a bug:

USA:
CA + INF Div Pago Pago -> San Diego
CA + INF Div San Diego -> Norfolk
CA + INF Div Norfolk -> BoB 0-box
While it is legal to chain moving a unit, you have to move out of the port and back into it to pick the unit up, and US cruisers don't have the range to go out of San Diego, back into San Diego, and then to Norfolk. Some CW cruisers do, so if there were a CW cruiser on the west coast, this could be legal, but you say it was a US cruiser.

This is not in RAC, but is in the FAQ:

Q11.4-2 11.4.5 Is chaining Naval Transports legal? Yes. Date 07/03/2008
Note however that second and subsequent transports must pick up the unit by "moving through" the port and cannot pick up the unit before it itself starts moving. Date 25/06/2008
It seems that MWiF does not implement this ruling.
Looks like RAC has further clarifications that makes this legal. The extra cost is just one MP. See below.

Cut from RAC 11.4.5 Naval transport:
....
Chaining naval transports is legal. However, the second and subsequent transports need to pick up the
unit by “moving through” the port. If the second (or subsequent) transport starts in the port where it picks up cargo
that just arrived on another transport, it costs 1 MP but 0 range to pick up the cargo - July 19, 2007.]

Thank you. I missed this completely. I am annoyed that this is not in FAQ, and the FAQ entry has a later date.

Orm · Post by **Orm** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:28 pm

Courtenay wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:23 pm
Thank you. I missed this completely. I am annoyed that this is not in FAQ, and the FAQ entry has a later date.

I suspect that this might be an addendum to the clarification and made at a later date and only for MWIF. I know that they asked for several clarifications when they translated RAW to RAC. Not sure that all those added clarifications have the new clarification date added.

toenailthehun · Post by **toenailthehun** » Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:14 am

Jul/Aug '41
Impulse #6 (Axis)

No DoW

Actions:
Naval:
Combined: Italy, Japan
Land: Germany

No Naval Air

Naval Moves:
Japan:
Task Force from Fukuoka of CV Soryu + 3 x BB's -> 2 Box South China Sea (SCS)