Devious GM Spring 1943

[EpicDim]

Hopefully the last question. This is the Fall rule, but it seems as if it's retroactively affecting the Spring result. Since it occurs between movement and retreats, but this one is occurring after retreats it seems like there is a problem. Would there have been a second retreat phase?

[Gooderian]

Shouldn't OSL have a North and South coast?

Denmark is a land territory, so I don´t think OSL will have more then one coast.

[asudevil]

Not that the map would've changed in any way but Kur should've focused on West Bank as well.

Thank you

Shouldn't OSL have a North and South coast?

No ... for the same reason SKA can't move to WBS

The victory condition for a solo remains one more than half of all remaining supply centers.

The victory condition was half or more of all remaining SCs. Are you changing that now, or should this rule stay the same?

That is still the rule. 1/2 the remaining SC

Also, D in Gda should be in Lit.

Fixed

A border change may never result in either the elimination of a player

How do you define this? If it would eliminate the player's last SC but they still have a unit it would be ok? If it would eliminate their last unit but they still had an SC and they couldn't build it would still be ok?

Eliminate last unit or SC.

On the merger of a sea and a land space, if a fleet and an army were present, the fleet remains on the space and the army may retreat if possible. If two fleets were present, both must retreat if possible. If a fleet becomes landlocked, it may retreat to an adjacent province with a coast if possible.

What about ducks?

Fuck the ducks always forget about them ... ducks will always retreat to either armies or fleets.

Possession is only defined for unoccupied territories or two SCs. I think you need some rules for possession when one or both of the territories are occupied and/or neither is an SC.

You also have a contradiction here:

If two unoccupied territories are merged, the resulting territory remains neutral, unless one was an owned but unoccupied SC, or both were owned by the same power. Then the owner of the SC(s) continues to own the new territory as an SC.

A territory formed by merging two SCs becomes neutral unless one was already neutral in which case the power with control of the other retains control.

If two unoccupied SCs owned by the same player are merged. Rule one states the owner keeps the combined one. The second rule states that it becomes neutral.

I won't lie...I don't see the contradiction...both say they will be neutral if both are unoccupied...UNLESS one was owned and unoccupied and the other neutral....in which case that country keeps control.

And who cares about possession of non-SC...doesn't matter. And the retreat hierarchy deals with the occupied issue...whoever stays "owns" it.

What happens if there are two units in one of the spaces being merged because one is dislodged and the other is the new occupier? For instance, if an army dislodges a fleet in an SC and that space is merged into a sea space, who gets to stay? Or if the same situation happens and the land space is merged into a sea space?

Vanishing borders will happen after retreats (same as all new rules)...so there will never be 2 units in a space...and the retreat hierarchy laid out deals with who gets to stay

What about mergers into nuked territories?

If the territory is ahead of it alphabetically it will become that territory...and be impassable...same as it is now

How are home SCs and capitals handled? Do they only remain with those designations if the name remains the same?

Same as every other SC...only remain with those designations if the name remains the same

Same question for the non SC build locations.

Same ... if they still maintain the name and the name was a "french" non-SC build site...still valid

Same question for religion SCs.

Same answer

What if a nation loses all of their home SCs? Are they just SOL for builds?

A nation will not lose all of their home SCs

Two zombies merge, what happens? Does one of them retreat, if so how does that work?

Zombies can not retreat...one will die.

Hopefully the last question. This is the Fall rule, but it seems as if it's retroactively affecting the Spring result. Since it occurs between movement and retreats, but this one is occurring after retreats it seems like there is a problem. Would there have been a second retreat phase?

SHIT...you are totally right...I shouldn't have put this rule into place until AFTER fall moves...The first vanishing border was supposed to be after fall. That's totally my bad. I will slide every vanishing border up one spot in my pre-determined order...Im sorry...but it makes more sense to push on ... than it does to "undo" this one.

Im sorry...there will still be only 7 of them.

[asudevil]

Holy hell that was a lot. I think I got them all. If I missed something or more clarification is needed...ask

[EpicDim]

Also, D in Gda should be in Lit....Fixed

Not fixed on the map here.

ducks will always retreat to either armies or fleets

So just to clarify, Ducks will always retreat to A or F, but A only retreats to F if a sea space merges with a land space, otherwise both retreat.

And who cares about possession of non-SC...doesn't matter. And the retreat hierarchy deals with the occupied issue...whoever stays "owns" it.

LOTSS cares about possession of non-SCs and it definitely DOES matter.

Unit placement does not deal with possession. If after a Spring move A merges into B and A is owned by England, B is owned by Russia but contains a French Fleet, are you saying that France automatically gains control of the space? And is your answer the same if England owned both A & B?

And if that is true, then America owns Osl because they "stayed".

Vanishing borders will happen after retreats

After each movement phase but before the retreat phase a randomly chosen border is erased. The victory condition for a solo remains one more than half of all remaining supply centers.

So is that an official change to the rule? Will that mean a second retreat phase after the border vanishes?

And some new questions:

Merging a space with a unit (or zombie) into a Black Hole will do what to the unit/zombie?

Same question for a radioactive space.

So if a religious space merges out of existence, will the neutral army remain?

And if a neutral army is required to retreat from a zombie or other unit, how does that work?

[marsman57]

A nation will not lose all of their home SCs

Theoretically this could happen with a very bad chain reaction of black hole expansion, but I rate it statistically unlikely.

[EpicDim]

A nation will not lose all of their home SCs

Theoretically this could happen with a very bad chain reaction of black hole expansion, but I rate it statistically unlikely.

It could also happen by merging a home SC into anther Home SC with a lower alphabetic, like Ath or Cai into Ank.

I read this response to mean that if this happens it would bounce similar to eliminating a player.

[EpicDim]

And yet another one.

If a radioactive (neutral) space merges into an owned SC, does the radioactive space become owned but impassable? And then when it returns in '46 does it become neutral again. Reading both sets of rules together creates some weird behavior.

[asudevil]

I'll answer all this when I get home.

[asudevil]

Also, D in Gda should be in Lit....Fixed

Not fixed on the map here.

BAH, saved it...forgot to upload it

ducks will always retreat to either armies or fleets

So just to clarify, Ducks will always retreat to A or F, but A only retreats to F if a sea space merges with a land space, otherwise both retreat.

Agreed

And who cares about possession of non-SC...doesn't matter. And the retreat hierarchy deals with the occupied issue...whoever stays "owns" it.

LOTSS cares about possession of non-SCs and it definitely DOES matter.

Unit placement does not deal with possession. If after a Spring move A merges into B and A is owned by England, B is owned by Russia but contains a French Fleet, are you saying that France automatically gains control of the space? And is your answer the same if England owned both A & B?

And if that is true, then America owns Osl because they "stayed".

I honestly just don't get the confusion here...if both are owned by different people...it becomes neutral ... if both are owned by the same player...it stays that players...if both are owned by different players and a THIRD player's unit is there...it would become neutral and then would become the third players for winter (if its still there...same as any other movement)...if both are owned by the same player and a different player's unit is there then it would stay the first players owned...and change to the others for winter if applicable (same as any other SC changing hands because another unit is there). As for sea spaces for LOTSS same rules will apply...since they change ownership in the same way.

Vanishing borders will happen after retreats

After each movement phase but before the retreat phase a randomly chosen border is erased. The victory condition for a solo remains one more than half of all remaining supply centers.

So is that an official change to the rule? Will that mean a second retreat phase after the border vanishes?

That's me not reading the rules right...it will happen the way the rule was written which means it is possible that someone will conquer a territory...and then get merged...to another territory that has a unit...forcing 3 units to retreat from the same territory....Hope that helps

And some new questions:

Merging a space with a unit (or zombie) into a Black Hole will do what to the unit/zombie?

Dead...same as when the Black hole came into play

Same question for a radioactive space.

Same answer

Dead...and radioactive spaces will count as "regular land spaces" for transition hierarchies

So if a religious space merges out of existence, will the neutral army remain?

No...they are tied to that space

And if a neutral army is required to retreat from a zombie or other unit, how does that work?

GM will randomly retreat it.