Thanks knp… and everyone should remember that you can call these units what ever you like around your own game table according to your own preference. You can even copy and paste them into a word document and change the titles as you wish.
The important thing now is to get the word out about these Halifax rules, to play test them, and promote them whenever we can. Krieghund has already called these rules “intresting” and that’s huge. If we can show him that Halifax works, and it has the support of the whole G40 community, we might just be able to get his endorsement some day.
We are all begging for a fun modification to the rules so that G40 can feel more balanced without using the boring bid system. Lets all use our voting power and hit the +1 arrow in the first post of this thread, lets get it sticky, and lets get it official.
*May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs
There are only two conditions in which production unit upgrades are allowed:
*1. An original owner of a territory containing a minor factory may upgrade it to a major factory for 10 IPCs, but only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex due to capture.
Talking about names: “upgrade” sounds like an improvement.
But the rule states it is a kind of restoration or recovering from a devastated IC or Major Factory…
@Young:
Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
Incapable of building capital ships and/or strategic bombers
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs (must be the original owner of the territory)
In my mind, a capital ship is a 2 hits warship: either a Fleet Carrier or a Battleship.
So it is allowed to buy a 12 IPCs Cruiser but not a 12 IPCs Strategic Bomber?
Maybe if you don’t want to allow Cruiser, maybe you should lower the cost of Minor Factory to 11 IPCs.
The line will be drawned by both the cost of the unit and the cost of the Factory.
Tactical Bomber (11 IPCs) would be allowed because it would cost the same as the purchasing price of the Factory.
So no costlier units (12 IPCs and above) could be built.
@Baron:
@Young:
Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
Incapable of building capital ships and/or strategic bombers
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs (must be the original owner of the territory)In my mind, a capital ship is a 2 hits warship: either a Fleet Carrier or a Battleship.
So it is allowed to buy a 12 IPCs Cruiser but not a 12 IPCs Strategic Bomber?Maybe if you don’t want to allow Cruiser, maybe you should lower the cost of Minor Factory to 11 IPCs.
The line will be drawned by both the cost of the unit and the cost of the Factory.
Tactical Bomber (11 IPCs) would be allowed because it would cost the same as the purchasing price of the Factory.
So no costlier units (12 IPCs and above) could be built.
Or the line is that a Factory cannot built any units which is at the same price or higher than its purchasing cost (12 IPCs).
All that has since been edited, it now reads… Minor Factories may only produce units that cost 10 IPCs or less.
@Young:
All that has since been edited, it now reads… Minor Factories may only produce units that cost 10 IPCs or less.
Sorry, I didn’t notice that the opening post was edited more recently than the one quoted.
@Baron:
@Young:
All that has since been edited, it now reads… Minor Factories may only produce units that cost 10 IPCs or less.
Sorry, I didn’t notice that the opening post was edited more recently than the one quoted.
No problem, the 10 IPC or less idea was provided by Kieghund.
Is South Africa still part of the UK then?
Is South Africa still part of the UK then?
Yes, all territories with a UK roundel printed on them will contribute to the UK’s income.
Q: Does this include British Columbia? Or should well allow roundel replacement here?
Second edition Pacific 1940 shows a UK roundel in British Columbia rather than a Canadian one. Sadly
I believe this was a misprint. I suggest placing an Anzac roundel here.
Q: Does this include British Columbia? Or should well allow roundel replacement here?
Second edition Pacific 1940 shows a UK roundel in British Columbia rather than a Canadian one. Sadly
I believe this was a misprint. I suggest placing an Anzac roundel here.
That’s what I did. I used ANZAC roundels on all the Canadian territories.
I really do like this idea and the ability to direct production should prove interesting. The only change I would like to make to my own version is to keep Canada and ANZAC separate nations but having a shared bank. Its a preference I would like to see Canadian roundels in the game with Canadian pieces as well. It shouldn’t change much because ANZAC and Canada are on different sides of the board. You could get the roundels and a UK expansion set for Canada if you chose to this instead of replacing Canada with ANZAC pieces and roundels.
Cyanight, I’m going that route also. Have Canadian roundels now and will paint or buy troops for Canada. Be nice to see Canadians attacking in Normandy or Europe.
Q: Does this include British Columbia? Or should well allow roundel replacement here?
Second edition Pacific 1940 shows a UK roundel in British Columbia rather than a Canadian one. Sadly
I believe this was a misprint. I suggest placing an Anzac roundel here.
It is indeed a misprint, as has officially been stated here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AAPacific1940_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf
Axis & Allies Pacific 1940, 2nd Edition, FAQ
July 14, 2014
Errata
The Map: Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It is originally controlled by the United
Kingdom.
I really do like this idea and the ability to direct production should prove interesting. The only change I would like to make to my own version is to keep Canada and ANZAC separate nations but having a shared bank. Its a preference I would like to see Canadian roundels in the game with Canadian pieces as well. It shouldn’t change much because ANZAC and Canada are on different sides of the board. You could get the roundels and a UK expansion set for Canada if you chose to this instead of replacing Canada with ANZAC pieces and roundels.
Canadian roundels can be obtained from HBG:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Custom-Roundels–Canada_p_1378.html
For Canadian units, I use the butternut-grey British-pattern ANZAC units from Pacific 1940 1st edition, augmented by a few ANZAC anti-aircraft artillery units from the 2nd edition (since this unit type was lacking in the 1st ed). Under this arrangement, the butternut grey colour = the Commonwealth Dominions (except Eire, which was neutral). The Canadian units can be extended to cover Newfoundland. South Africa can be represented either by the Canadian or 2nd-ed ANZAC units, depending on one’s preference.
Thanks for that link CWO Marc, I was unaware as I’m working off my 1st edition map, I will mention in post 1. Players are encouraged to house rule what they like, especially if they want to take advantage of their custom pieces. Halifax Rules are meant to allow any player to use them oob even if they still need nickels, dimes, and quarters.
CWO, thanks for the reminder, I do have those British pieces from Pacific. I used to use them for Italians in my other G39 game.
@Young:
I’m working off my 1st edition map
A related point is that Canada’s West Coast underwent a jurisdictional change between the 1st ed and 2nd ed maps, with BC and Yukon Territory being fused into “Western Canada”.
All British baige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces <<
Minor typo: should be “beige”. I think “baige” would be the Australian pronunciation. :-D
@CWO:
All British baige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces <<
Minor typo: should be “beige”. I think “baige” would be the Australian pronunciation.  :-D
Thanks… I will edit.
