Matrix Games Forums

Hello,

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its puzzling though.

In my WIFFE 1996 manual 13.3.2 includes this sentence: "If an entry option is not aimed at any particular major power, you have to show that your entry level against both major powers is high enough".

In the 2004 manual I am looking at, however, this particular sentence is missing - infact, there is no absolutely clear indication that its the case.

Maybe I am just overlooking something - but if someone with more recent experience with the rules could point to the exact sentence is the newest manual that covers this exact point clearly I would appreciate it. Ofcourse it may just the be the manual I am viewing in which case the mistake is all mine.

I did not follow this discussion closely (the statistic seemed very interesting, but I had not enough time to digest it), but I can chime in here. When it is about the rule, I know a little how to deal with it.

It is true that the rule do not have this sentence anymore.

However, the example stills show that you need to have the entry and tension level required against all axis powers to choose an unaligned option.
Download the latest rulebook at ADG's website, you should see it.
http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

****************************
Example: The US entry level against Japan is 23 and against Germany/Italy is 25. The US cannot repair Western Allies ships as Jay doesn't have an entry level of 25 against all three Axis major powers.
However, in a previous turn, the US has embargoed strategic materials (US entry option 13) and thus can now Freeze Japanese assets (US entry option 23). Jay rolls a 9. No marker is moved from the Ja entry pool to their tension pool and thus the US can pick another option against the Japanese.
Jay decides to gear up production (US entry option 22) and so checks US tension against all three major powers. Luckily for the US, it has a tension of 12 against Japan and 11 against Germany/Italy and so may choose this option (only 11 is required against each major power).
Jay rolls a 5 which requires him to move an entry marker from the Ge/It or Ja entry pool into the corresponding tension pool. Jay cannot pick another option as two options have been chosen against Japan and the first option chosen against Germany/Italy resulted in a marker being moved from the entry pool to the tension pool.
****************************

Moreover, the introduction of 13.3.2 seems clear to me, it says :

****************************
The US entry options chart lists political choices available to you. Each option is targeted against Japan (Ja), Germany/Italy (Ge/It), or all three (if neither is specified).
If you want to choose an entry option, you must be at a high enough entry level to pick it. The entry level is marked on the left hand side of the entry options.
****************************

It says that it is targeted against all three axis powers if none are specified.
And it say you must be at a high enough entry level, so I conclude it is a high enough entry level against the axis power against whom the option is targeted.
In the case of the option targeted at all axis powers, you need to be high enough against all axis powers.

Patrice.

The 1996 manual should not be used for MWiF. There was a major change to the USE in 2000 and a smaller one in 2003.

True. The 1996 manual is RAW1, and was modified very heavily during the years.
I managed to keep files showing the changes between the rules on my website, so everything can be tracked down.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/froon/WiF/wif.htm

ADG's official is RAW7m, I believe published in Jan 2005. It is available on their web site.

The latest is RAW7-august-04, it was published earlier, august 2004 I think.
RAW7m was published on 8th May 2003.

I have the list of changes if needed here http://perso.wanadoo.fr/froon/WiF/wif.htm.

I am well aware that my 1996 rules book is not current and I am not basing anything on that. I am reading the 2004 edition but because I recalled something being more clear 10 years ago I checked my old rule book. So, I merely referenced that it DID infact clearly state how to handle the case back in 1996 while the newer edition does a rather poor job.

I agree that the intention of the new edition seems to be the same - but from a rules lawyer point of view its not stated clearly enough. I would call that rewrite a mistake. Infact, the very fact that the sentence in question was removed would give a lawyer reason to speculate that it no longer applied. In terms of rules logic that would be the only reason to remove the otherwise very clear sentence from the rules. The rules lawyer would simply ask "If that still applies then why was the reference stating it removing?" and you would have no way to counter that beyond doubt.

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I am well aware that my 1996 rules book is not current and I am not basing anything on that. I am reading the 2004 edition but because I recalled something being more clear 10 years ago I checked my old rule book. So, I merely referenced that it DID infact clearly state how to handle the case back in 1996 while the newer edition does a rather poor job.

I agree that the intention of the new edition seems to be the same - but from a rules lawyer point of view its not stated clearly enough. I would call that rewrite a mistake. Infact, the very fact that the sentence in question was removed would give a lawyer reason to speculate that it no longer applied. In terms of rules logic that would be the only reason to remove the otherwise very clear sentence from the rules. The rules lawyer would simply ask "If that still applies then why was the reference stating it removing?" and you would have no way to counter that beyond doubt.

You are absolutely right, this might be one for Harry.

ORIGINAL: dhatchen

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
I agree that the intention of the new edition seems to be the same - but from a rules lawyer point of view its not stated clearly enough. I would call that rewrite a mistake. Infact, the very fact that the sentence in question was removed would give a lawyer reason to speculate that it no longer applied. In terms of rules logic that would be the only reason to remove the otherwise very clear sentence from the rules. The rules lawyer would simply ask "If that still applies then why was the reference stating it removing?" and you would have no way to counter that beyond doubt.

You are absolutely right, this might be one for Harry.

Harry's goal is to eliminate unnecessary sentences and to make the rulebook as short as possible.
The sentences as they are now make the point clearly that you need the level against all Axis powers.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Harry's goal is to eliminate unnecessary sentences and to make the rulebook as short as possible.
The sentences as they are now make the point clearly that you need the level against all Axis powers.

I quite disagree. There are several unneeded sentences in the rulebook - but the one that was removed certainly did clarify an important issue which is not 100% clear otherwise. Not that it matters - there are plenty of unclear passages in any rulebook and what one group of players agree is clear might be interpreted differently by another group. Thats quite natural. Atleast we agree on how to interpret this one so its not a major problem.