brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
|
OK, look, here is how the whole rule, part of 13.6.1, really works. You continually ignore this sentence:
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
A resource starts in Hex A in an enemy ZoC. If there is a friendly unit present, it may leave the hex. Upon entering the next hex, we check the rules, just as the MWiF program will:
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
If there in Hex B, the first hex it is going to enter, there is an enemy ZoC, whether from the same unit or any other unit, the movement of the resource must stop. It may only enter a ZoC-ed Hex B at all if there is a friendly unit present, as per the first sentence of the two rules sentences under consideration in this ridiculously over-long thread on this. And note that second sentence does not prohibit entering an enemy ZoC at all, only the first sentence takes care of how that works.
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
When you posted an example of a resource entering a hex from the east with an enemy ZoC exerted into that hex, and whether it could keep moving from a hex with an enemy ZoC, Centuur/Peter answered "No." Why?
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
I am not sure why you want to keep trying to take apart the first sentence of the rule with Exclusive-OR and 'both' constructions, when there is absolutely no need to do so. The second sentence is a rule in force simultaneously with the first sentence, as are all WiF rules, such as the definition of a ZoC and all of the rest. The second sentence answers all other combinations of what happens around enemy ZoCs:
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
When Paul (who volunteers to work on rules questions and issues for ADG in his own free time I believe) gave an example of a resource moving from the hex adjacent to Moscow into the factory in Moscow when both hexes are in enemy ZoC, this is perfectly correct and in agreement with what everyone else has been telling you, repeatedly. A resource can leave it's origin hex and move to an adjacent hex, even if both hexes are in an enemy ZoC, even a ZoC from the same enemy unit. Perhaps this qualifies as moving 'through' a ZoC, or doing 'both' or being an Exclusive-Or or an Inclusive-OR or whatever the heck you want to call it or set up a logic tree for. After it leaves it's origin Hex A and enters it's first hex away from home, Hex B, then we check the rule:
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
No one is staking out a position on a controversial rule or trying to be confusing or inserting a posted idea from the Yahoo group from some random internet user somewhere in the world. I just looked and there is no FAQ entry on this rule, probably because it is so simplistically simple:
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
Perhaps the question has been asked, because Plain Ian is correct in that it is easy to see a bit of confusion in that a resource can leave an enemy ZoC and enter an enemy ZoC in the next hex as long as friendly units are present in each hex (and only when leaving Hex A, or hex Zero, in it's path to hex One), as per the first sentence, but then, of course:
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
Probably whenever this question has been asked, the answer has been accepted and play continues, instead of a never ending repeated response of "prove it", "but what if", and the old chestnut "why is the sky blue?"
I and probably the other people trying to answer rules questions in this thread have been playing World in Flames since the 1990s (1989, 3rd Edition, for me). We don't make up answers or try to mislead anyone. The rules are the rules, and that is how the game works.
"It's move must stop when it enters an enemy ZoC."
I have no interest in answering questions which are then met with this response each and every time repeatedly over and over again in an identical manner the same way constantly and continually.
Reportedly from an interview with Sid Vicious, deceased bass player in the Sex Pistols:
Q: Why do you bang your head against the wall?
A: Because it feels so good when I stop.
Now, let's stop with the head banging rules questions. If you want to continue, start a new head banging rules questions thread, of which there are already several I believe, and we can all post Quiet Riot videos in it.
Let's go back to Strategy and its repercussions in the Balkans, but let's move beyond needlessly early advancing the historical Axis strategy in the Balkans into the late fall of 1939. Historically, the Axis lost the war of course, though we will never be privy to how many objective cities the Axis bid. I am fairly sure Hitler bid for everything from the Rhine to the Urals, or about +10, and he got Zero, so he lost big time. Or maybe he got 2, as his perhaps by then only notional unit forces still held Prague and Kiel on May 1st, 1945, but then of course he was already dead, so he definitely lost. I think FDR walked away with it all courtesy of a negative bid as no one else wanted to sit around and do next-to-nothing for the first half-dozen game sessions.
So, what do you think of this Axis strategy in the Balkans, one that keeps the political initiative very firmly in Axis hands, and leaves Russian decision-making in the lurch:
S/O 39, Impulse 1: Germany DoW on Poland.
Impulse 2: CW & France DoW on Germany.
Impulse 3: Germany DoW Yugoslavia, align Rumania.
|
Printable Version
RE: strategy and its repercussions in the Balkans - 
, did make me laugh..."Who is Terry?"Lol 
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