7.1 Official clarification

billcallaway, I agree that on the surface they seem to be focusing too much energy on expansions and selling new sculpts then for getting the base game right. I think the original plan was to have these expansion sets and units come out a few months after the release of GW1936/1939 (as they have). The problem I believe is that the 1939 set-up got back up, and the rules needed an immediate update which threw the whole time table off.

I know how frustrating it is referring back-n-forth between the 63 page rule book, all the reference sheets, and the web site in an attempt to play the game as intended. I think they very well should have put out an official FAQ to high light the bulk of the changes while they were working on the rules update. Kinda like a transition reference sheet.

I however think that they are working diligently on a rules re-wright. As you know by going through the web site there is a lot of work to be done here. I guess I’m willing to be more patent so they get it right (surely don’t want multiple rules updates over the next couple years).

MY EXPECTATIONS are that the rules re-right will correspond with the very over due 1939 set-up release. It is also my understanding that the updated rules will work for both the 1936 and 1939 start dates.

I also hope that they put out a supplemental package of units and colored chips that don’t come with AAG40 so you can set-up GW1936/1939. Many people don’t have the units just laying around to even set it up.

It should be the same for Nat China. Szechwan falls, China can’t build no more whether they have 3 or more territories worth 3 icp’s or more.
If it’s liberated then they will get 6 icp’s and any non captured territories and can start building again.

If they have some money left and Szechwan is captured, they should have to give money to attacker. I would like to try this in a game.

The rule is as long as they have territories worth total of 3 icp’s or more, they can build and place in those territories.

If that is the case, I would like to confirm it.

i like the convoy zone optional rule, however i believe there should be a qualification that the axis still only gain the income on an actual roll of a 1.  this would represent the fact that subs can’t steal cargo, their sole goal was to destroy merchant ships not seize them.

We are playing again on Friday. Any chance it will be up Friday morning?

Board Game Geek. type in Global War 1939. Then go down to files where it says 6.1 setup and it will say revision.

Ben,

I sent you a message.

It’s really just a list of questions and suggestions. It’s more difficult to do this over an iPod than I expected.

Regardless, I hope it knocks down the despair a bit.

I do have a quick question for the creators brought up while discussing the minor axis powers in another thread:

If the Germans build a naval base on Romania can the Romanians (who don’t need an IC) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units in their capital (not ships next to it)? Using the same principle, are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.

I believe this next part is still under review, any word yet?

This leads me to a 2nd question, say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also fill the requirement to allow for ships to be built from Germany’s Romanian IC adjacent to it? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements for shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Say the Italians take Holland and build a NB (sz 16). Would the Italian NB allow the Germans to drop ships into sz 16 from their adjacent major IC in W Germany?