6.1 RULE CLARIFICATIONS DATABASE

Hello all,

So my copy of 1939 got in yesterday and I had my first game today.  Well, by game I mean my buddies and I spent damn near 3 hours just to get through one round of turns.  We’re all seasoned G40 players but this is a whole new beast.

While we were playing, a few interesting questions came up, and to my knowledge they don’t seem to have clear answers in the 7.2 rulebook.  As far as I can tell, these rules are very comprehensive and clear to someone who has been following them from their inception, but alas I am a novice plunging straight into new rules and I feel like I’m missing some stuff.  Any answers/links to clarifications/things that will help are greatly appreciated!

Anyway…

1 - If Germany decides to make a Vichy French government and for a ship rolls a 1-2 (replace french ship with German ship), can that ship move on German noncombat move that very turn it was converted?

2 - When the rulebook says that the minor axis powers of Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania are only worth certain sums of money to Germany, does that mean that Germany collects this money once they activate them, while the countries themselves also collect and spend their small incomes?

3 - If a ship, say a Norwegian Battleship, lives past the German capture of Oslo and flees to join the nearest British fleet/Port, does Britain gain control of said ship, or does the ship simply stay in the SZ/Port that it went to indefinitely?

4 - If an allied power in the pacific walks into Dutch New Guinea, do they gain control of the Dutch fleet in the adjacent SZ along with the ground troops and IPC value of the territory? (Holland has fallen at this point)

(EDIT) 5 - If Germany attacks Riems from both Holland AND Western Germany, is the Fortress bonus ignored outright, does it apply to the German units attacking from West Germany, or some weird mix of these?

6 - Biggest one: If no clear ruling on any other rule exists in the 7.2 rulebook, is it safe to assume that said rule (generally governing unit movements/actions, weird idiosyncrasies with transports, etc…) is covered by Alpha 3+ rules of G40? Since (as far as my personal research has uncovered) Global War 1939 began as a mod of those rules, it seems that any holes would be covered by the old Alpha 3+ base rules, saying that no 7.2 rule supersedes it.

If any others crop up I’ll post em.  Again, your input is greatly appreciated  :-D

thanks for the link to the rules, they will come in handy this weekend  :-P

To the designers - how many games of 7.1 have you played?

Out of 6 games we have played Axis won once but that was mainly due to good rolls in first turn.

Axis have never taken all of Russia’s cities. In 5 games they never held a single Russian cities for more than 1 round. I wouldn’t even say Russia is too strong. The Baltic States/Poland issue definitely buys Russia an extra round (even though it only addresses the center).

It’s the 1st turn that is the issue now it seems. Germany and especially Italy can’t seem to get enough of the UK navy, planes, and infantry out of the way. I think 6.1 was 60/40 Axis favor but I’m thinking now it’s 80/20 Allies favor.

It seems there could be possible rule misinterpretations from various people on the board. What is the percentage breakdown for the designers win/loss in 7.1?

Crus, if your looking for these rules of Tigermans game they are at Board Game Geek.

Hi have you got the setups for download cause I would really like to try this on map I’ve been working on
I took modern world map enlarge European contents(spelled wrong I know) then then broke every country into their administration division that I could.

@Gargantua:

Can that same SNLF artillery supported troop also Bonzai?

This is a double “NO”. First, SNLF are not allowed to Banzai attack. Rules are explicit on this. Also, under the Banzai rules, it is explicit about Banzai infantry NOT being supported by artillery.

Thanks for the feedback man, it’s much appreciated!  I’ll be discussing this with the guys I play with.  Alot of the things you pointed out make sense, so I’ll definitely be rethinking them.

There’s a few points I disagree with though.

I figured the port in Santa Cruz for the Allies would actually be quite useless to them, in exception to the Commonwealth fleet fleeing the pacific, but that’s about it.  It’s faster to go through the Panama canal the vast majority of the time anyway.

Splitting sea zone 28 in half was done to make it realistic, because it’s just not practical in real terms.  I guess it just depends how you wanna balance gameplay and realism…  I’m pretty excited for that '36 map, we’ll see what they do with it :).

As for building in friendly territory, I can see your point with the Soviets.  I don’t see a problem however with places like Iran and Free French territories, vice versa for the Axis with their eligible territories.  Compromises can be made.  I’m aware that Germany can do this already with the minors.  At least it’s not like G40 where you can build anywhere (where there’s enough value in the territory).

I think the logistical issues with the way China produces is pretty much related to how the population itself fought with the military against the Japanese.  The population is scattered, yes, but why would a militia form up in force in western China when there’s no direct threat there, and then march their way over after?  Better to form up where you’re needed most, isn’t it, especially with the kind of transportation they had at the time?  The fight is in Eastern China, and that’s where the majority of the population is anyway, so more people can volunteer to fight close to the front lines, where it’s relevant.  Just send the supplies to where they’re needed.  Also in regards to C. China, the Russians are just too busy in my games to go there.  The C. Chinese collect little in the first place, so I figured it wouldn’t make that big of a deal.  F.E.C. doesn’t factor much into this for me, because they’re usually toppled within three turns when I play with my regulars.  I know it’s tough for the F.E.C., ANZAC and Americans later on otherwise in other peoples’ games though.  It just depends on what Japan does.  Giving them a major factory actually seems to balance out everything with the changes in that theatre I proposed.

I downgraded the factories in Karelia and Fukuoka and raised the value of Helsinki because the factories there in the official setup stand in contradiction to the rules.  For actual game mechanics in terms of how units work and what they’re allowed to do, I don’t agree with this sort of thing.  Raising/swapping the values in the territories can be done too, it doesn’t matter much, just as long as nothing contradicts the rules in that fashion.

That’s perfect Tigerman!  Exactly what I wanted to know.