Its all common sense.....during combat movement the canal is enemy controlled.....during noncombat.....everything is friendly....GET IT?

You misunderstood the intent of the rule.

LHTR has it laid out completely for AAR:

Canals
There are two canals on the game board, artificial waterways that connect two larger bodies of
water. The Panama Canal connects the Pacific Ocean (sea zone 20) to the Atlantic Ocean (sea
zone 19), while the Suez Canal connects the Mediterranean Sea (sea zone 15) to the Indian Ocean
(sea zone 34). A canal is not considered a space, so it doesn’t block land movement: Land units
can move freely between Trans-Jordan and Anglo-Egypt. Panama is one territory: no land
movement points are required to cross the canal within Panama.
If you want to move sea units through a canal, your side (but not necessarily your power) must
control it at the start of your turn (that is, you can’t use it the turn you capture it). The side that
controls Panama controls the Panama Canal. The side that controls both Anglo-Egypt and Trans-
Jordan controls the Suez Canal. If one side controls Anglo-Egypt and the other controls Trans-
Jordan, the Suez is closed to sea units.

So AAR is explicit.

Page 9 column 1 of the 2nd edition rulebook also makes it equally specific that you must control Panama at the beginning of the turn in order to move through the Panama Canal on that turn. The paragraph following makes it explicit that you must control both sides of the Suez to be allowed to move through at all. Did the authors screw up by not making it explicit a second time that you had to control both sides at the beginning of the turn in order to move through? I don't think it's needed. Even the most argumentative of people will realize that the explicit rule for WHEN you must control the real estate around a canal only needs to be stated once.

Let's move on guys - this has been settled decades ago.

BW


Edited by BlackWatch - 13 Jul 2009 at 9:33pm

I long to become SCARWATCH

I'm a house painter arguing for the letter of the law (rule). Let's continue & have some fun!!

That don't make it right just because people voted on it . The rules are clearly being broken. I want to be the rule csar...or scar

Please explain your logic Scarface instead of just ranting. The JCS looked at the rule as printed, and issued a clarification that came CLOSEST to what a reasonable person might infer by reading the rule book as it pertains to canals.

If the Panama clause did not exist, I would actually agree with you Scarface. It has also always appeared a bit quirky to me that you couldn't capture the ground, then move through, but the Panama clause is there and must be reckoned with.

Both paragraphs are together, and should be read as an entirety - I simply can't believe that there's any logic to requiring prior ownership of Panama to move through the Panama canal, without similarly requiring prior ownership of both sides of the Suez in order to move through the Suez canal.

I will concede that the wording in the 2nd edition rulebook could be more explicit than it is, but it's close enough to warrant the interpretation given by me and my predecessors (along with all the other clubs out there too).

BW

OK, here's the logic. The panama & suez canals are 2 very different canals. One canal (panama) is controlled by 1 country.  The other (suez) actually has 2 countries involved. In the case of panama, our forefathers correctly assumed that an attack on panama would cause civil unrest causing canal delays. The suez on the other hand has no such problem. Their is no civil unrest. Are you buying that BS?

Are you inebriated blackwatch?

Ah.
Paint fumes.

Much is explained...