2013 - AAG 40 League

[mryogen]

I withdraw my claim.  The victory will be just that much sweeter despite not picking my OOL and the luck factor…

[Cow]

If someone kills my carriers off and keeps my cruisers without asking and continues the battle to the end and the end result is me losing anyway… I am OK with that.

[gamerman01]

I don’t know why you’d have a problem with a guy giving you indisputable maximum defense.  Since you have no units surviving and got maximum defense, I don’t think you have a complaint.

If I give a guy maximum defense and don’t ask for casualty choices, then I always give him the right to pick his survivors after the fact.  You had no survivors and you got maximum defense.  What’s the problem?

[Cow]

He withdrew his claim so there is no problem!

[Karl7]

Everything is cool.

[Jennifer]

Please check your OOLs with your opponents before rolling, if you think there is any question.  However, if you are okay with leaving the best possible defenders and then having your opponent change his casualties after the battle because you did not ask him, feel free to go that route.

For instance, had mryogen been left with a couple damaged battleships and a cruiser, I would have allowed him to replace the cruiser with an aircraft carrier as he was not asked before hand.  (This is not the situation, the defender lost everything, I believe, and Karl did have 73% odds of victory.)

[Jennifer]

You know, the more I read the China rules, the more I am inclined to say that China can bid any units it wants too, for next year as well.

For instance, I said this before, the fighter that China gets is really an American fighter that can never get replaced when destroyed.  However, it’s used by China as if it was a Chinese unit, and it is restricted to the same territories that China is.
Also, any Artillery that China is allowed to “buy” are also American Artillery units, but they are used by China and are restricted like Chinese units…

Every time I look at these rules, it implies to me that there should be no restriction on what units China may or may not get in the bidding process.  I know it’s unpopular, and I know that some even say it’s a tactical blunder to do so, but I’m just not seeing any reason NOT to let someone bid for tanks and more planes for China.  Especially if we institute a policy of 1 unit max per territory, or even 1 unit max per nation.

[gamerman01]

FWIW I agree, and keep in mind it’s not necessarily unpopular.  You’ve probably heard from all the dissenters.  Do you really know how many people are fine with it or like it?

Good point on the artillery.  I had forgotten before that even the artillery units are borrowed from the USA box, so the argument that there aren’t Chinese tanks or bombers in the box really holds no water whatsoever.

[lexgreat]

The rules allow for one and only one fighter, and for any number of artillery as long as a certain condition is met. Any decision is yours anyway, but on what rule or logic do you build a case for any unit other than inf and art? If the rules would say the fighter is replacable, Id see the case for a fig bid, but as it is I think only inf and art are what the rules allow. Again, any new rule for league play is up to league management, but I think it has a reason China is restricted the way it is.

[Cow]

The artillery is not borrowed from the USA box in global. Neither is the fighter.

The box came with 1 china fighter. It did not come with many artillery, but it had an infantry to cover each space at least.

[Cow]

You are thinking of AA50 where China did not get its own box.

I would have thrown a hissy fit if China didn’t get purple pieces for the price of the global board.

[Jennifer]

@Cow:

The artillery is not borrowed from the USA box in global. Neither is the fighter.

The rules are quite clear that all Artillery units for China and the Chinese fighter are American units.  That these American units are attached to the Chinese army and may be used as if they were owned by China.  The color of the unit does not have significant impact on how the rules are written.

If I may:  > These artillery units will be supplied by the United States player (because China does not have any of its own), but are considered to be Chinese units in all respects.   Page 10 of the Pacific rule book.

[Jennifer]

@alexgreat:

The rules allow for one and only one fighter, and for any number of artillery as long as a certain condition is met. Any decision is yours anyway, but on what rule or logic do you build a case for any unit other than inf and art? If the rules would say the fighter is replacable, Id see the case for a fig bid, but as it is I think only inf and art are what the rules allow. Again, any new rule for league play is up to league management, but I think it has a reason China is restricted the way it is.

The rules specifically say that the fighter cannot be rebuilt.  They do not say that China cannot get another if the United States bids another one for China.  In fact, the rules say nothing about bidding at all.

The rules do, specifically, state that no Chinese unit can leave Chinese soil (except Kwangtung/Burma) nor can it go in or over the ocean.  So that precludes bidding for any naval units.

Since even the artillery the Chinese get are, per the rules on page 10, American and not Chinese (color not withstanding,) and there is precedent for America putting non-infantry units into China before the game is begun, then I see no reason to disallow the players from using precedent and practice to put jeeps or tanks or any other non-base or non-naval unit in China for purposes of bidding.

Remember, the rules just specify these special units cannot be rebuilt after being destroyed.

[Cow]

I got a purple fighter. They represent private military contractors from America.

[Cow]

The artillery are not American. The Burma road is required to produce them. They get the supplies from India, which was a British occupied territory, how is that American? It is made in china.

[Jennifer]

@Cow:

The artillery are not American. The Burma road is required to produce them. They get the supplies from India, which was a British occupied territory, how is that American? It is made in china.

Read the rules again, Cow.  I even quoted them for you.  The Artillery are American as is the Fighter.

[Jennifer]

China can purchase and
mobilize artillery, but only if the road is open during China’s
Purchase and Repair Units phase. These artillery units will
be supplied by the United States player (because China does
not have any of its own), but are considered to be Chinese
units in all respects.

To clarify, the artillery units will be supplied by the United States because China does not have any of its own.  They may have pieces in the box, but those are not Chinese units, they are America units with paint on them to look Chinese.  They are not made in China, else they would not need the Burma road to be open and could produce them where they produce rifles for their infantry.

Since all non-infantry units in China are American, and there is precedent for America to give to China units it cannot otherwise attain, and because America is not limited as to what units it may produce, then the only restrictions on China are that the units cannot leave Chinese soil, Kwangtung or Burma.  Likewise, China is specifically barred from owning industrial complexes so those too are banned from bidding.  I’d say bases are banned as well, but honestly, if you are giving the allies enough IPC to use on bids that they can afford to put air and naval bases in China, then I think you deserve to both laugh at your opponent for doing so, and lose the game because you gave them WAY too much money.  But that’s just me.

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

they are America units with paint on them to look Chinese.  They are not made in China, else they would not need the Burma road to be open and could produce them where they produce rifles for their infantry.

I thought EVERYTHING was made in China!  :lol:

I’d say bases are banned as well, but honestly, if you are giving the allies enough IPC to use on bids that they can afford to put air and naval bases in China, then I think you deserve to both laugh at your opponent for doing so, and lose the game because you gave them WAY too much money.  But that’s just me.

The whole China bid controversy is hilarious.  If you bid anything but infantry or artillery (for China), it’s sub-optimal anyway.  Even with a 1 unit per territory limit.

Bidding is a league rule that is entirely at the discretion of the moderator.
Jennifer is the moderator.
Therefore, Jennifer can make whatever bid rules she wants.

She established the rule (for the first time in recent years) that you could bid a unit to a territory that had no units.  There wasn’t much complaint about that.

Anyway - you all are allowing the Allies to have bids that are too high.  If you allow a bid of 9, your opponent can put 3 infantry in Yunnan, and this has been legal ALL YEAR.  If you allow a bid higher than 9, you deserve whatever you get.  If you allow a bid of 4-6 and your opponent elects to place a mech or a tank in China - big whoop.  2 infantry in London is better than a tank in China, and 2 infantry in London is not an optimal bid.

[gamerman01]

Hey Cow, did 2nd edition actually include a purple fighter and some purple artillery, or are you just making that up?
In the original game, which I own, there are only light green Chinese infantry.  Purple is the color used in Triple A  :roll:

[Cow]

I remember a China box in both editions.

Aren’t they a lighter shade of green.