RE: A few questions about the rules

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: A few questions about the rules

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: A few questions about the rules

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/10/2009 8:01:09 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

and if yes :�� when i INVADE a hex with 2 facedown units, then i should have a +3 DRM right ?� (1 for the facedown ``virtual unit``)

wow, if yes, that s a lot !

thank you.� And yes i have the game rule book but i sometime prefer to ask people :P

Yes. That is why ignoring the notional unit is a choice that the defender gets to make. Sometimes the +1 to the die roll penalty is not worth the additional strength point.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to gogol1st)

Post #: 31

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/10/2009 8:19:51 PM

gogol1st

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/10/2009
Status: offline

Thanks a lot.

i am noob. i bought the boardgame about 8 years ago, but i needed to read the rules about 20 times to start to understand something lol.
i am used to wargames but this one is so different that it is hard to get in. But once you re in, it s marvelous.
i can't wait for the Matrix release

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 32

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/10/2009 8:37:12 PM

Mike Parker

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

There are not alot of examples of ships attacking ships in port during WWII. The examples I could remember are

Mers el Kebir 3 July 1940

Dakar, 24 September 1940

Casablanca 8 Nov 1942

All of these involve French Naval assets under Vichy control. The first two were attempts to prevent fleet units being reflagged as German. The last I include for completeness, it was an unfinished vessel used as a gun platform.

I am not sure its entirely proper to have a surface engagement against ships in port in WWII. I could have missed some examples but the only ones I knew about were these, and when I looked them up for details I didn't find any other such engagements.

(in reply to gogol1st)

Post #: 33

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/10/2009 9:06:23 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

Thanks a lot.

i am noob.� i bought the boardgame about 8 years ago, but i needed to read the rules about 20 times to start to understand something lol.
i am used to wargames but this one is so different that it is hard to get in.� But once you re in, it s marvelous.
i can't wait for the Matrix release

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

True.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to gogol1st)

Post #: 34

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/11/2009 4:31:34 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

deleted

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to gogol1st)

Post #: 35

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/11/2009 4:34:03 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

hi and thank you Shannon

i play the 1D10 (standard)

Does your answer mean that if i attack a stack with 2 facedown units i have a +2 DRM� ??

Yes.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to gogol1st)

Post #: 36

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/13/2009 1:02:56 PM

Greywolf

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/15/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

The first two were attempts to prevent fleet units being reflagged as German. The last I include for completeness, it was an unfinished vessel used as a gun platform.

In due respect for the hundreds of french sailors killed in thoses unwarranted attacks by an ex ally, I wanted to point out thoses ships weren't in the process of getting under german nor italian control but were under neutral french control in mediterranean french controlled ports, out of German reach.

That is the very Catapult operation that enforce the regrouping of the french navy in metropolitan ports and its later scuttling when the german try to overrun it to prevent its escape.

The very events at Oran, Alexandria and later Toulon are proofs enough that the french navy weren't going to take part into WWII after 1940, was it against its former allies nor in violation of the Armistice France sign with the Axis. Please respect thoses peoples that dies uselessly to protect their honor, that's all they deserve.

_____________________________

Lt. Col. Ivan 'Greywolf' Kerensky

(in reply to Mike Parker)

Post #: 37

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/13/2009 3:42:27 PM

Mike Parker

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

The first two were attempts to prevent fleet units being reflagged as German. The last I include for completeness, it was an unfinished vessel used as a gun platform.

In due respect for the hundreds of french sailors killed in thoses unwarranted attacks by an ex ally, I wanted to point out thoses ships weren't in the process of getting under german nor italian control but were under neutral french control in mediterranean french controlled ports, out of German reach.

That is the very Catapult operation that enforce the regrouping of the french navy in metropolitan ports and its later scuttling when the german try to overrun it to prevent its escape.

The very events at Oran, Alexandria and later Toulon are proofs enough that the french navy weren't going to take part into WWII after 1940, was it against its former allies nor in violation of the Armistice France sign with the Axis. Please respect thoses peoples that dies uselessly to protect their honor, that's all they deserve.

I should say, the ostensible reason the UK attacked was to prevent these assets from falling into Axis hands. As for if this were possible or likely, I am unsure.

The whole Vichy thing is a mystery to me, and by that I mean the politics of it in relationship to their former allies the UK. I am not prepared to say the actions of the British were dastardly in these cases, just as I will agree there is nothing to suggest these vessels were destined to fall into Nazi hands.

I will agree that the French sailors that lost their life should be honoured, as they were just doing their duty, like most soldiers on both sides of that war.

(in reply to Greywolf)

Post #: 38

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/13/2009 5:30:46 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

I think Churchill forced that decision through over some pretty strident objections by Royal Navy admirals.

The even sadder part is that the surface ships in question just weren't that important any more due to the new supremacy of air-power, which wasn't completely understood yet.

< Message edited by brian brian -- 7/13/2009 5:31:57 PM >

(in reply to Mike Parker)

Post #: 39

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/13/2009 5:44:03 PM

gogol1st

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/10/2009
Status: offline

Ok guys i now understand why we don't attack ships in port with ships.

now, talking about aircraft, i have another question about the rules :
we can rebase aircrafts in any controlled HEX right ? i find weird that there is at least one airfield in each Hex.
i would assume that we could only rebase them in a city or port. But maybe i missed something

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 40

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/13/2009 6:01:48 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

you are correct except aircraft can't stack in moutains or swamps unless the hex also contains a port, city, HQ, or engineer unit.

allowing airplanes to base from anywhere is a playability fudge to make the game play simpler. there is not an airfield in each hex but there are notional logistics/construction troops that can make this happen.

(in reply to gogol1st)

Post #: 41

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/13/2009 9:39:21 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

The first two were attempts to prevent fleet units being reflagged as German. The last I include for completeness, it was an unfinished vessel used as a gun platform.

In due respect for the hundreds of french sailors killed in thoses unwarranted attacks by an ex ally, I wanted to point out thoses ships weren't in the process of getting under german nor italian control but were under neutral french control in mediterranean french controlled ports, out of German reach.

That is the very Catapult operation that enforce the regrouping of the french navy in metropolitan ports and its later scuttling when the german try to overrun it to prevent its escape.

The very events at Oran, Alexandria and later Toulon are proofs enough that the french navy weren't going to take part into WWII after 1940, was it against its former allies nor in violation of the Armistice France sign with the Axis. Please respect thoses peoples that dies uselessly to protect their honor, that's all they deserve.

Warspite1

I think "The very events at Oran, Alexandria and later Toulon are proofs enough that the french navy weren't going to take part into WWII after 1940" is a very easy thing to say with the benefit of hindsight. The British in 1940 did not have that hindsight on their side. Given how close the Mediterranean war ended up being, I think - as terrible and as tragic as it was - the decision was the right one. As well as the Mediterranean, the British did not know that Spain would not enter the war on Germany`s side and take Gibraltar. If Gibraltar fell, then the Atlantic sealanes would be under intolerable pressure from the Italian, French and German ships.

Interestingly I saw a program the other day about the attack. Two French naval ratings - one, a survivor from Bretagne - were interviewed. One will never forgive the British for what they did that day. The other bears no ill feelings towards the British and realises that what happened was one of those things that happen in war.

Another point is that while yes, Admiral Somerville was most reluctant to give the order to fire and stopped the action at the earliest possible moment, the other thing to remember is that the decision did not come easy to Churchill who was a great francophile at heart.

I think the decision was less mis-trust of French - and particularly Admiral Darlan`s intentions - but more to do with the realisation that if the Germans wanted the ships, they would do whatever it took and the fact was the French could not guarantee that the ships would not fall into French hands.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Greywolf)

Post #: 42

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/13/2009 10:04:10 PM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

The discussion arose from an observation that you cannot surface-to-surface attack ships in port in the game of WiF. I think those three examples prove that you should be able to, although since it was a rare event I can see it not being modeled in the game, as undoubtedly special rules would need to be added, most likely requiring a healthy surprise differential.

Realistically, ports are well protected places and the attacker should expect to lose more in naval assets attacking them, then if he were to blockade the enemy and go after him when he sorties. This has been naval doctrine for hundreds of years. Gun platforms on coastal headlands are extremely difficult to sink.

"The Turks have 12 inch guns at Aqaba."
"Yes, but they face the sea and cannot be turned round."

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/13/2009 10:26:45 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 43

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/13/2009 10:17:32 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The discussion arose from an observation that you cannot surface-to-surface attack ships in port in the game of WiF. I think those three examples prove that you should be able to, although since it was a rare event I can see it not being modeled in the game, as undoubtedly special rules would need to be added, most likely requiring a healthy surprise differential.

Realistically, ports are well protected places and the attacker should expect to lose more in naval assets attacking them, then if he were to blockade the enemy and go after him when he sorties. This has been naval doctrine for hundreds of years. Gun platforms on coastal headlines are extremely difficult to sink.

"The Turks have 12 inch guns at Aqaba."
"Yes, but they face the sea and cannot be turned round."

As proof of the difficulty in taking out land based gun emplacements with ship bombardment, the invasion of Normandy, especially the bombardment of Cherbourg, offers a good example.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 44

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/14/2009 8:15:06 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

Guys. here comes another question. Can a HQ which is unsupplied give emergency supply any moment or only when the owner player is active?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 45

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/14/2009 8:54:13 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Guys. here comes another question. Can a HQ which is unsupplied give emergency supply any moment or only when the owner player is active?

Any moment (in RAW).
In MWiF, this is at specific moments.

Please, see also Q2.4-10, Q2.4-11, Q2.4-12, Q2.4-13 and Q2.4-14 about Emergency HQ Supply in the WiF FE FAQ.

***********************
Q2.4-10> First, when do you declare that you use the emergency HQ supply?
answer> Anytime you like. Date 11/03/1998
***********************

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 46

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/14/2009 9:24:59 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Guys. here comes another question. Can a HQ which is unsupplied give emergency supply any moment or only when the owner player is active?

Any moment (in RAW).
In MWiF, this is at specific moments.

Please, see also Q2.4-10, Q2.4-11, Q2.4-12, Q2.4-13 and Q2.4-14 about Emergency HQ Supply in the WiF FE FAQ.

***********************
Q2.4-10> First, when do you declare that you use the emergency HQ supply?
answer> Anytime you like. Date 11/03/1998
***********************

Thx a lot. Yesterday we were playing and, although I checked the RAW, it was not totally clear for me (it seems I was not the only one, hence the clarifications). Thanks, Patrice.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 47

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/14/2009 6:35:34 PM

micheljq

Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

When the Operation Torch's landings began in North Africa. I recall that french vessels did exit to sea to fight but were neutralized by the Royal Navy.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 7/14/2009 6:36:02 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 48

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/14/2009 10:42:40 PM

Mike Parker

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

When the Operation Torch's landings began in North Africa. I recall that french vessels did exit to sea to fight but were neutralized by the Royal Navy.

When the Wallies invaded Vichy N. Africa, of course the French fought. I don't think most folks were worried about Vichy use of the french navy, but rather the thought that Vichy might be pressured into turning over these ships to the Italians and/or Germans for use.

(in reply to micheljq)

Post #: 49

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/15/2009 6:20:52 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

What does

mean? - most of these are self evident but I dont get this one. Thank-you.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mike Parker)

Post #: 50

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 12:00:44 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

Hello, if Vichy is created, there are no territories for Free France, but then the german collapses Vichy, the lands overseas from the former vichy belong to:

- Vichy in exile
- A new Free France?

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 51

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 5:02:25 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Hello, if Vichy is created, there are no territories for Free France, but then the german collapses Vichy, the lands overseas from the former vichy belong to:

- Vichy in exile
- A new Free France?

Free France is created in this case. From Question 17.2-4 in the latest issue of the FAQ:

Q. Can a completely conquered Free France upon Vichification (17.2) be liberated by returning a French Minor Country?

A. No, Free France has to be founded as per the Vichification rules. If and when Free France is created and then immediately conquered, it can be re-created only by Collapsing Vichy. You liberate France (which then replaces any existing Free France) by retaking Paris. Note that by RAW France will cooperate with its liberator and the U.S. (per "who can cooperate" in 18) so if the U.S. is the liberator (on the occasions when Free France is conquered) then France will not cooperate with the CW unless the CW has territory to return to it and does so.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 52

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 5:52:01 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Hello, if Vichy is created, there are no territories for Free France, but then the german collapses Vichy, the lands overseas from the former vichy belong to:

- Vichy in exile
- A new Free France?

Free France is created in this case. From Question 17.2-4 in the latest issue of the FAQ:

Q. Can a completely conquered Free France upon Vichification (17.2) be liberated by returning a French Minor Country?

A. No, Free France has to be founded as per the Vichification rules. If and when Free France is created and then immediately conquered, it can be re-created only by Collapsing Vichy. You liberate France (which then replaces any existing Free France) by retaking Paris. Note that by RAW France will cooperate with its liberator and the U.S. (per "who can cooperate" in 18) so if the U.S. is the liberator (on the occasions when Free France is conquered) then France will not cooperate with the CW unless the CW has territory to return to it and does so.

Also, from RAW 17.4 :
*********************************
Other home countries and territories aligned with Vichy France align with Free France (or become Free France with a new home country if it is currently completely conquered).
*********************************

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 53

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 7:01:35 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Hello, if Vichy is created, there are no territories for Free France, but then the german collapses Vichy, the lands overseas from the former vichy belong to:

- Vichy in exile
- A new Free France?
Login Joseignacio

Free France is created in this case. From Question 17.2-4 in the latest issue of the FAQ:

Q. Can a completely conquered Free France upon Vichification (17.2) be liberated by returning a French Minor Country?

A. No, Free France has to be founded as per the Vichification rules. If and when Free France is created and then immediately conquered, it can be re-created only by Collapsing Vichy. You liberate France (which then replaces any existing Free France) by retaking Paris. Note that by RAW France will cooperate with its liberator and the U.S. (per "who can cooperate" in 18) so if the U.S. is the liberator (on the occasions when Free France is conquered) then France will not cooperate with the CW unless the CW has territory to return to it and does so.

Jeez, it's not clear at all. Sorry for asking before checking the clarifications but it was 12 pm yesterday and we are supposed to play today too just after work, so there was no much time for that.

It seems contradictory, no?:

quote:

Q. Can a completely conquered Free France upon Vichification (17.2) be liberated by returning a French Minor Country?

A. No, Free France has to be founded as per the Vichification rules.

quote:

If and when Free France is created and then immediately conquered, it can be re-created only by Collapsing Vichy.

Apart from rather contradictory, the only way the would fit together would be (IMO) if there is no Free France unless it was created when Vichificaton is made and could only come back if it is conquered and it would be re-created if Vichy is collapsed or Paris liberated.

But in my case, although Vichy has been collapsed, it can not be re-created because it was never created. :( Am I wrong?

quote:

Also, from RAW 17.4 :
*********************************
Other home countries and territories aligned with Vichy France align with Free France (or become Free France with a new home country if it is currently completely conquered).

However this would mean that if Vichy is collapsed the territories would become Free FRance, I am confused.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 54

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 7:40:23 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio
But in my case, although Vichy has been collapsed, it can not be re-created because it was never created. :( Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong.

Your case is that :
1) Vichy was created,
2) There were no territories for Free France so Free France existed but was immediately conquered.
3) Then when the german collapses Vichy,
4) So home countries and territories aligned with Vichy France become Free France with a new home country as it is currently completely conquered.

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 55

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 8:07:36 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio
But in my case, although Vichy has been collapsed, it can not be re-created because it was never created. :( Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong.

Your case is that :
1) Vichy was created,
2) There were no territories for Free France so Free France existed but was immediately conquered.
3) Then when the german collapses Vichy,
4) So home countries and territories aligned with Vichy France become Free France with a new home country as it is currently completely conquered.

Thanks. My mate in the game always gets hold even to a "red-hot iron" if he thinks he can get an advantage, and of course point 2 would be his objection, but the answers support my position, and much more if it comes from you (he knows pretty well who you are

), anyway thanks you both for your help and the fast replies.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 7/16/2009 8:08:51 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 56

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 9:00:52 PM

micheljq

Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What does mean? - most of these are self evident but I dont get this one. Thank-you.

I am not sure myself

I just find them cute.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 57

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 9:13:39 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What does mean? - most of these are self evident but I dont get this one. Thank-you.

I am not sure myself I just find them cute.

Warspite 1

Did your mother never tell you; never use computer Smileys you don`t know the meaning of?

Seriously, the reason I asked was that I did not understand what you were saying in your response with

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to micheljq)

Post #: 58

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 9:28:06 PM

sajbalk

Posts: 264
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Davenport, Iowa
Status: offline

Two new topics:

1. With unlimited divisional breakdown, are minors also given this ability?

2. Under RAW 5.1, if USSR DOW Hungary, GER may choose to receive another USSR oil or keep another GER build point per turn. Also under RAW 5.1 there is another section that states if GER aligns Hungary, the USSR gives GER one less resource per turn.

If the USSR DOW a neutral Hungary, which GER then aligns, how do these sections interact?

_____________________________

Steve Balk
Iowa, USA

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 59

RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 10:17:26 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

Two new topics:

1. With unlimited divisional breakdown, are minors also given this ability?

2. Under RAW 5.1, if USSR DOW Hungary, GER may choose to receive another USSR oil or keep another GER build point per turn. Also under RAW 5.1 there is another section that states if GER aligns Hungary, the USSR gives GER one less resource per turn.

If the USSR DOW a neutral Hungary, which GER then aligns, how do these sections interact?

1 - No.

2 - I haven't checked the code for this I inherited from CWIF.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to sajbalk)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: A few questions about the rules

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

3.344

Slitherine

RE: A few questions about the rules