Stupid clarifications of map borders

[errington_shroud]

Howdy...
I have a friend who I recently began playing axis & allies with. He insists on a rule which I know is SOOO wrong and I was hoping I could get an "official" rules clarification.

My friend insists that sea zone borders and land borders don't "meet". For instance, he says that Germany can launch an amphibious assualt from the sea zone of southern europe in anglo-egypt sudan, WITHOUT moving. Another example, a transport is the sea zone surrounding japan could land troops in the soviet far east without moving. This seems so ridiculous to me, but I don't really want to play w/ him unless I can convince him that the land borders that meet sea borders aren't adjacent to both territories. Someone from Avalon hill please help!

[Darksideknight]

Shroud, you're absolutly right. Your freind is wrong, show him the rule book pg#16.

If there is a black line blocking your transport from bridging you will have to move your transport a space or two to unload, and they cannot move for the rest of your turn after unloading.

So for example if his trasnsport is in the Japan sea zone and he wants two infantry in Soviet Far East then his transport must move to the sea zone that is ajacent to that specific land territory. Not sure why he was thinking they didn't have to move to unload in territorys not adjacent to the sea zone. Good luck getting him to understand.- Jason

[errington_shroud]

I know I figured that he was wrong about the map. Part of the problem is specifically the southern europe sea zone to anglo-sudan egypt. He says that the line from the sea zone does not line up exactly with the land border. I think it's the same... besides, it's a very well made game... they wouldn't make the map so you need a microscope to define borders (imho). Oh well, I still hope I can convince him, it really detracts from the game to have to argue about rules and borders and such... especially since I've been playing A&A for like 14 years and never had anyone argue about border lines like this. Oh well.

[errington_shroud]

Darksideknight... just to clarify... he's not arguing that a transport can move after unloading... that rule is clear. He's saying the sea zone is adjacent to the land territories I mentioned... he says the sea zone borders that go to land borders do not exactly "line up". What makes it worse is he says it's only in certain territories (specifically s. europe as I mentioned above). So the japan example (which he might say DOES line up) would be "bridging" into eastern soviet union.

I basically just want a note that says all sea zone borders that meet land borders "meet" exactly... there are no borders the are off by like 1mm or something.

Isn't that a little annoying? I think so.

shroud

[Darksideknight]

Shroud, I am aware that he wasn't arguing about transport movement. Just thought I'd mention it. All the sea zones that you mentioned are not ajacent to the land territorys. The may be off a milimeter or two but the transport still has to move there to unload. That is what any expert would tell you.

-Jason

P.s. Just to clarify I'm no expert but I can tell you that you are right about those perticular sea zones not being adjacent to the specific land areas you mentioned.

_