Matrix Games Forums

I would like to start a discussion of bad interactions between optional rules.

Not which optional rules are good or bad, but where combinations of optional rules produce results much worse than using (or not using) the optional rules separately.

An extreme example is using AMPHs and not using SCS invasions. One would only use this combination if one wanted to drive the Japanese player insane.

A classic example is artillery and the 1d10 CRT without the blitz bonus; it is generally agreed that the result better simulates WW I than it does WW II.

Lastly, limited overseas supply and limited supply across straits do not work well together, because of rules clarification by ADB. One needs naval assets to use straits, which I think is a completely wrong headed decision. For example, the Italians can not trace oil into Sicily unless they have a CP or transport in the Italian coast.

What other combinations of optional rules have people found not to work?

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Lastly, limited overseas supply and limited supply across straits do not work well together, because of rules clarification by ADB. One needs naval assets to use straits, which I think is a completely wrong headed decision. For example, the Italians can not trace oil into Sicily unless they have a CP or transport in the Italian coast.

I'm not sure this is wrong headed. If a strait isn't bridged it needs shipping of some sort to get across it. The rule reflects this by needing a CP or Trans in the sea zone. A CP in the Italian Coast does a pretty good job as it keeps both Sicily and Sardinia supplied while also shipping a resource. Keeping it there is another matter but that highlights the importance of control of the seas.

At least as an optional you can negotiate its inclusion or not.

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Lastly, limited overseas supply and limited supply across straits do not work well together, because of rules clarification by ADB. One needs naval assets to use straits, which I think is a completely wrong headed decision. For example, the Italians can not trace oil into Sicily unless they have a CP or transport in the Italian coast.

This may be the MWiF case as currently coded, but the actual clarification for using both options was and is: Straits can be used in the absence of a friendly CP/TRS/AMPH, if there's also an absence of enemy units that would block basic overseas supply (given current weather, i.e. air units with air-to-sea factors are no good in Storm or Blizzard).

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Lastly, limited overseas supply and limited supply across straits do not work well together, because of rules clarification by ADB. One needs naval assets to use straits, which I think is a completely wrong headed decision. For example, the Italians can not trace oil into Sicily unless they have a CP or transport in the Italian coast.

This may be the MWiF case as currently coded, but the actual clarification for using both options was and is: Straits can be used in the absence of a friendly CP/TRS/AMPH, if there's also an absence of enemy units that would block basic overseas supply (given current weather, i.e. air units with air-to-sea factors are no good in Storm or Blizzard).

This is the way I always played it, but that is not how the clarification was explained to me, or how it is currently coded.

The problem is this clarification:

Clarification: If also playing with Limited Overseas Supply, then all aspects of that rule pertain to the sea area (e.g., a friendly convoy, TRS, and AMPH must be present).

This has been interpreted to mean that you need a friendly convoy even if there are no enemy units. That is not how I read it, but that is how it has been interpreted.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Lastly, limited overseas supply and limited supply across straits do not work well together, because of rules clarification by ADB. One needs naval assets to use straits, which I think is a completely wrong headed decision. For example, the Italians can not trace oil into Sicily unless they have a CP or transport in the Italian coast.

This may be the MWiF case as currently coded, but the actual clarification for using both options was and is: Straits can be used in the absence of a friendly CP/TRS/AMPH, if there's also an absence of enemy units that would block basic overseas supply (given current weather, i.e. air units with air-to-sea factors are no good in Storm or Blizzard).

That is not how I read the clarification to question 2.4-7.

After 7 years on the Rules forum, first with the FAQ and second with RAW8, I confused the current rule in RAW8 with the clarification. As you say, since MWiF is coded that you need to satisfy LOS to use straits even when enemy units are nowhere near adjacent sea zones, those two options don't go well together in MWiF.

For what its worth (i.e. nothing), here is the draft RAW8 rule: "Option 12: (limited access across straits) A unit may only trace supply across a straits hexside if no enemy units capable of blocking supply are present in all adjacent sea areas, or you can trace supply through any adjacent sea area." That wording works for both basic and LOS supply, and is repeated for rail movement and resource transport.