Are you aware of the dangers foxes pose to you and
Help, I'm being held prisoner in an overtext typing facility! I don't have much time, they could find out at any m
I'm that weirdo whose number of badges sold prior to yesterday Bail Organa is keeping track of
Some thoughts and extrapolations I came up with after playing the game a few times (getting several things wrong in the process) and then giving the rules a second comprehensive reading. It's funny that there are holes in some places given that the rules are painstakingly technical, explicit and redundant in others.
7.21: This would be more properly stated to apply only to American attacks, since the exception in 8.22 causes it to be contradicted by 8.26 and 8.52.
8.0: I have assumed that individual attacks including declaration and resolution are sequential; that is, you do not begin a combat phase by declaring which units are performing what attacks, and may therefore take into account all previous combat results when declaring the next attack.
8.5: There is no preferential order given in which to execute possible Japanese attacks. It is possible to apply the same "low to high" principle as is found in 8.52, i.e. you always declare the next attack on behalf of the Japanese force using the eligible unit occupying the lowest-numbered hex, targeting the eligible enemy unit occupying the highest-numbered hex.
8.54: It is not clear if a Japanese unit which is "immediately eliminated" while making a suicide attack lasts long enough to prevent an American retreat. However, see the following note.
8.54: It is arguably a glitch that a Japanese unit making a suicide attack achieves a Dr result instead of Ex only in the case of a 4-4 attacking a 4-12, i.e. the case most advantageous to the Japanese on the face of it (plus the unlikely cases of a 3-10 or 3-4 attacking a 4-12 out of supply, or a 4-4 attacking a 5-12 out of supply). The reason the CRT looks the way it does is presumably that it doesn't want an Ex result in the section typically used for American attacks, and hasn't accounted for suicide attack outlier results. It would be less complicated and make more sense if any suicide attack achieves an Ex result automatically.
8.7: I have assumed that retreating two hexes means the destination hex must be two hexes away from the vacated hex; that is, you cannot retreat one hex back and then one hex "sideways", even if that would be the only way to avoid elimination.
8.7: It is not stated how to handle retreating multiple units as the result of the same attack. I have assumed that such retreats are supposed to be treated as simultaneous; that in a two-hex retreat all retreating units count for the purposes of stacking limits in transit; that American units can be retreated through and/or to different hexes, as long as stacking limits and the priority rules in 8.72 are observed; and that Japanese units as a result of the priority rules in 8.71 retreat to the same hex if stacking limits allow it, thereby remaining stacked. It might also be possible to resolve retreats sequentially, slightly reducing the risk of elimination due to the stacking limit and also adhering to the principle of unstacking Japanese units whenever possible. However you choose to handle simultaneous retreats, no order of priority is given for different types of Japanese units; presumably whenever units must be eliminated due to the stacking limit or retreated to a less desirable position, stronger and faster units should always be favoured using the reverse of the order in 14.51.
8.71-2: I have assumed that when retreating two hexes, priority rules refer only to the destination hex and never to the transit hex; that is, you do not perform two separate steps of identifying and moving into the most desirable adjacent hex. The transit hex is only checked for the property of allowing movement within the stacking limit as a function of checking the validity of the destination hex.
8.71-2: It appears that rivers (and other features that would ordinarily affect movement costs) have no effect on retreats.
8.74: The second part of this rule could have been clarified to mean Japanese units only may be retreated or eliminated as the result of combat they didn't participate in, since the exception in 8.26 exempts American units completely from this "general" rule.
8.8: It would have been possible to declutter the CRT somewhat since Japanese units cannot attack at a differential greater than +6, and for any differential greater than +2 the die roll would be known to be 6. It is slightly peculiar that values are given for any American unit eliminations (several of which could never be legal results) while multiple instructions are given elsewhere to ignore those very values in favour of (in the vast majority of cases) the exact same values. Finally, the way that 2/2 and 3/3 results have been distributed is rather arbitrary and only complicates memorization.
8.9: The very important fact that attacks cannot be made at differentials below -2 really deserved to be stated in a rule and not buried in a collection of notes (all notes after the first either restate or refer to rules given elsewhere).
9.23: Items b) and c) could easily be combined into one because being able to choose an assaulted invasion zone or a non-assaulted invasion zone just means being able to choose any invasion zone.
10.0: I have assumed that after each successful amphibious assault, as the attacking units are moved into the attacked coastal hex, adjacent Japanese dummy units are immediately released from reserve status (cf. 14.21), and that the American player can consequently use any resulting information when deciding where to make subsequent assaults or advancements.
11.33: The "If attacked while" bit is oddly phrased since if an American unit has its Combat Strength doubled and is supplied (as would always be the case on a Supply Beachhead marker), it couldn't be attacked (cf. 8.9). It would be simpler to state that American units on Fortified Supply Beachhead markers cannot be attacked.
12.21: Here an American-controlled town or city hex is implied to be one without Japanese militia, but as seen in 13.2 they are not the same thing.
12.6: There are two issues with this rule. First, it's inconsistently worded: it's possible to move out of supply while still being able to trace a supply path into the destination hex, namely in the case where the presence of the moving unit itself maintains the supply path. Possibly the first part of the rule was also meant to say a unit cannot move into a hex where it becomes unsupplied. Second, the rule should presumably only apply to units that are in supply, as there is no other indication that unsupplied units should be effectively immobilized in this way.
14.21-2: "After the 4th Game-Turn" should read "3rd" in both places.
14.25: The "This process is repeated" bit is redundant since you couldn't fail to remove enough casualties from two invasion zones (cf. 10.51).
14.51: It is not clear whether and how being out of supply affects the order in which units are moved.
14.56: The "low to high" principle can optionally be applied here instead of "high to high" (cf. 8.52).
15.11: The first "regardless" bit is redundant, as there can never be more than one American unit involved when a Japanese unit is attacking (cf. 8.26 and 8.52).
19.1: It's not entirely true that the "major American effort will have to be made in the south" since as has been pointed out, a strictly northern invasion will likely draw the Japanese forces north of the Objective Line automatically, drastically reducing the amount of fighting necessary to achieve this result.