Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Antw: [wifdiscussion] Re: HQ - Planes - Overstack

Expand Messages
  • Herbert Gratz
    1) HQ only imo. If you want to make another exception for eng: a) houserule or b) ask Harry specifically about eng and voluntary overstacking. The FAQ doesn t
    Message 1 of 32 , Apr 1 12:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      1) HQ only imo. If you want to make another exception for eng: a) houserule or b) ask Harry specifically about eng and voluntary overstacking. The FAQ doesn't help as it applies to HQs only.
      2) You can pick up/land units in an iced-in port to your hearts content I believe. What you can't do is ship them straight in.

      >>> "kenzclark" <kenzclark@...> 01.04.2009 00:02 >>>
      I am asking you whether your interpretation of the FAQ is restricted to HQs or HQs and ENG units. I don't think that's an unfair question, as you were so emphatic with your response below. If you want to read the FAQ as an exception to the rule regarding voluntarily overstacking you either have to say it's a one-off rule exception or you have to go deeper into the logic, which we have already gone through ad nauseam. If the former, you have to read it as only allowing HQs and not ENG units. How do you read it?

      As for the iced-in ports I think the rule as it read said you don't need ports at all to pick up units (without the amphib option) so whether it's iced in or not iced in I think if you are not using the anphib rules you can pick up any unit on the coast whether it's a port or not, so I think my objection to that rule was mistaken. I don't think there are many people who don't play with the anphib option mind you.

      --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "paulderynck" <pderynck@...> wrote:
      >
      > Why don't you ask Harry?
      >
      > BTW, how are you coming along on the research of the rule about TRSs and iced-in ports?
      >
      >
      > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "kenzclark" <kenzclark@> wrote:
      > >
      > > So an engineer couldn't move, but an HQ could?
      > >
      > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "paulderynck" <pderynck@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Exactly.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Herbert Gratz" <herbert.gratz@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Well the FAQ wouldn't allow you to do that either. It allows an HQ to move thus overstacking A/C and killing one off.
      > > > > Nothing more.
      > > > >
      > > > > >>> "lavisj" <lavisj@> 30.03.2009 21:34 >>>
      > > > > John,
      > > > >
      > > > > > None of those things are legal according to the FAQ or the RAW.
      > > > > > It is, of course, helpful if one actually reads the rules in
      > > > > > question first.
      > > > >
      > > > > Thanks... I missed it, even though I did read the rule.
      > > > > That seriously limit the amount of times in which it would be interesting.
      > > > >
      > > > > Although there was one case in our last game where I would have liked to be able to overstack. Pearl was under attack by the Japanese. And there was a black print unit on it. It got flipped by Ground Strike. I would have liked to bring a White Print unit instead (it would have flipped debarking into the jungle), but it would have made the defense of the hex much better.
      > > > >
      > > > > Jerome
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Patrice Forno
      Do you need the exact quote from Harry ? Anyway, the question is currently under pending reword so that it is clear that this is not only HQ. Unless I am
      Message 32 of 32 , Apr 2 4:54 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Do you need the exact quote from Harry ?

        Anyway, the question is currently under pending reword so that it is clear
        that this is not only HQ.
        Unless I am winning my case arguying that the answer should be changed, and
        the rule modified so that there is no more contradiction in the text.

        Patrice

        2009/4/2 Herbert Gratz <herbert.gratz@...>

        > The answer is to a specific question. You can't just widen the application
        > because you feel like it/think that it should be that way. That indeed would
        > be a farther reaching rules change WHICH SHOULD BE FORMULATED AS SUCH. (I.e
        > not 'Yes' or 'NO' but: 'Yes, applies to all overstacking situations.' (or
        > some or... whatever). Since this wasn't how the Q&A was handled it can only
        > apply to HQ - another Q and A pending, of course. :-)
        >
        > >>> Patrice Forno <froonp@...> 01.04.2009 23:41 >>>
        > I'm repeating myself, but the answer to Q2.3-1 is not specificaly targeted
        > at HQ. It is a general stacking issue. The Q has it with an HQ for the
        > example.
        >
        > Patrice
        >
        > 2009/4/1 kenzclark <kenzclark@...>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.