You still can’t place 4 Chinese in Hong Kong. You need to place them somewhere else. Could affect Germany’s turn, so I guess I have to wait.
Source?
If you’re correct I’ll probably want to redo the Anzac turn.
You still can’t place 4 Chinese in Hong Kong. You need to place them somewhere else. Could affect Germany’s turn, so I guess I have to wait.
Source?
If you’re correct I’ll probably want to redo the Anzac turn.
china can occupy hong kong but cannot place units there. it’s in the rulebook.
Just look at the China rules in the Pacific rulebook, Zhuk. Page 8 or 10 or something. It’s crystal clear. Has to be originally Chinese
I guess I’ll let you re-do your ANZAC turn, but you should have known the rule.
NM, just realized I haven’t made a move since France/ANZAC, so certainly, you can amend their turn
Did you not read what I wrote before, though? I said you couldn’t place Chinese in Hong Kong and needed to re-place them, yet you didn’t. I had most of my German combat move done when I noticed you hadn’t done anything to fix China.
Just look at the China rules in the Pacific rulebook, Zhuk. Page 8 or 10 or something. It’s crystal clear. Has to be originally Chinese
According to the 2nd edition rulebook, on pg 10, it says “New Chinese Units can be mobilized on any territory controlled by China, including those captured on the same turn”. Also on pg 10 it says “China can temporarily control” Kwangtung. Seems pretty clear. Is there passage later in the rulebook that contradicts this?
http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-Pacific-1940-Second-Edition.pdf
Yep, Zhukov has it right! Just read it entirely for myself. But now I’m wondering if that also means China gains income off of it?! Since it is temporarily under Chinese control, same as if another ally took control of it.
Thats from this link:
New Chinese units can be mobilized on any Chinese territory that is controlled by China,…
However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can
occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control.
Under those conditions, they control and hence can mobilize?
Well now I’ve found a passage from Krieghund that support’s Gamer’s position. Yet another example of unclear rules and TripleA misinterpreting them, followed by “gotcha” moments after my turn has been played. Had I known I can’t place them there, then I would have played the UK turn differently.
Now the rulebook online is saying “Chinese” territory, so perhaps Krieg’s reasoning is that Kwangtung isn’t Chinese? This is quite confusing–if China isn’t allowed to mobilize units there, then the rulebook ought to explicitly say that.
You know what I’m confused about? Why does the rulebook clearly make a distinction between occupying and controlling, if there isn’t any functional difference between them?
“These are
the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can
occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only
if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis
control.”
Like what advantage does controlling these territories have over just occupying them, if China can’t place new units there or gain any income from them? See what I mean? I’m thinking the designers meant there to be a difference, or why bother making the distinction?
hm, one thing is for sure, I always thought you cant mobilize there. But the wording in the rulebook at least suggest otherwise. Then again, Krieghund has superior authority, I guess.
To me, what they’re saying here is much like how an ally can occupy another ally’s territory, but when the ally is conquered, then its territories can also be controlled by their allies–and we know that controlling has advantages of being able to build new units there and also gaining income. So why should the idea of occupying vs controlling be any different for the Chinese with respect to these two territories?
You know what I’m confused about? Why does the rulebook clearly make a distinction between occupying and controlling, if there isn’t any functional difference between them?
“These are
the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can
occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only
if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis
control.”Like what advantage does controlling these territories have over just occupying them, if China can’t place new units there or gain any income from them? See what I mean? I’m thinking the designers meant there to be a difference, or why bother making the distinction?
I suppose controlling means they get a Chinese marker and China gets income from them.
Ok, after looking it over I’m going to just place the 4 in Anhwe, and leave my UK deployment as it was (assuming you’re ok with that). I would, however, like to take that battle in 33 as it seems to be my best odds of avoiding defeat. Going to edit and redo Anzac now.
OK, I see your (plural) point
Here is the explanation:
“New Chinese units can be mobilized on any Chinese territory that is controlled by China, including those captured in the current turn”
Hong Kong is not a Chinese territory. “Chinese territory” means one that is marked with the Chinese symbol. See first paragraph on page 10 that says “Chinese territories on the game board have a Nationalist Chinese symbol on them”
Krieghund would say it’s obvious, and clearly written, but I agree with you Zhukov - the rulebook could be much better in many cases, not that it matters. It is clear enough here.
What in the world would you have done differently? One more infantry from Kwangsi in Hong Kong??
I’m not sure what you mean about UK deployment - it was just some boats on the Europe side - but yes, certainly edit the Chinese men to another territory and re-do ANZAC turn
the rulebook could be much better in many cases, not that it matters.
It does matter, I just meant…. I don’t know
followed by “gotcha” moments after my turn has been played. Had I known I can’t place them there, then I would have played the UK turn differently.
You may change your UK move with respect to China
I still believe everyone is responsible for knowing the rules and has to pay for it when they don’t, but I’m willing to give you the break.
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.9
Game History
Round: 10
Purchase Units - ANZAC
ANZAC buy 1 submarine; Remaining resources: 4 PUs;
Combat Move - ANZAC
1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Queensland to 33 Sea Zone
Combat - ANZAC
Battle in 33 Sea Zone
ANZAC attack with 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber
Japanese defend with 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 submarine and 2 transports
1 submarine owned by the Japanese Submerged
retreated to 33 Sea Zone
Japanese win with 1 battleship, 1 carrier and 2 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is -10
Casualties for ANZAC: 1 fighter
Non Combat Move - ANZAC
1 tactical_bomber moved from 33 Sea Zone to New Britain
1 fighter moved from New South Wales to Queensland
1 infantry moved from Queensland to New South Wales
Place Units - ANZAC
1 submarine placed in 62 Sea Zone
Turn Complete - ANZAC
ANZAC collect 8 PUs; end with 12 PUs total
