Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

As always, the help in this forum is awesome!!

@ Gamerman
I will do my best to roll 4’s, 5’s and 6’s    :wink:

The issue has been raised:

Are there any official rules stipulating that China may not have Armor, Fighter, Tactical Bomber or Strategic Bomber units bid for it.

I believe, per page 10:

China may only purchase infantry.

There exists an American plane representing volunteers that, for the purpose of movement and combat, is considered part of the Chinese army.

So there is a precedent that says, American units can volunteer for the Chinese army, so long as they do so prior to the start of the game, and that, said units, are considered part of the Chinese army for the purpose of movement and combat.

ATM, my league ruling is that these units may exist, and TripleA be d@mned for not allowing you to put them on the board.  Unless someone can explicitly show me where they cannot in the rules, as printed by WOTC.  (I knew these dang house rules for bidding would bite me in the butt one day, I just didn’t think it was going to take from Classic until now to do so! lol.)

I’m looking for rules that ban it, btw.  Something like the rule, on page 10 of the Pacific SE book, that says, to the effect “China may not have an industrial complex” but it saying something like “China may not have armor, tactical bombers, strategic bombers, etc under any circumstances.”

I think it’s within your authority to allow all air and ground units for Chinese bid in the league, Jenn.
You’re right - there is no statement in the rule book prohibiting this.  Or, to answer your question directly - no, there are no official rules stipulating that China may not have armor, fighter, tactical bomber, strategic bomber, or mechanized infantry.

“At the beginning of the game, China has a U.S. fighter unit located on the map.  This represents the …. Flying Tigers.  This fighter is considered part of the Chinese forces for purposes of movement and combat…”

As you point out, bidding is an “extra rule” already (is not mentioned in the rule book), so allowing Chinese units in the bid that would normally not be possible, is merely an extension/interpretation of the already extraneous bidding procedure.
In other words, since bidding adds some units to the setup, and you control the bidding rules, it is logical that you can authorize Chinese bombers and tacs (or a 2nd flying tiger unit - twin tigers), which follow the same restrictions as the flying tigers (can’t fly away from Chinese territories), or mechanized infantry or armor.

Those were my thoughts on it.

Of course, normal Chinese movement restrictions would apply.  So even a strategic bomber wouldn’t be able to fly into the Sea of Japan to attack, but a second fighter surely would be a great boon to China.

Then there are the off the wall bids where you say “Allies for 18 IPC” and the guy goes “okay” and you say “woot, I want 3 tanks in China, 1 here, 2 there” and he goes “oh crud, well, Japan’s boned” or whatever. lol.

It is my understanding that bids are for IPCs, and that those IPCs are used to purchase additional starting units.  The rules stipulate that China may purchase only infantry, unless the Burma Road is open, in which case it may also purchase artillery.  It seems pretty clear to me.

@Krieghund:

It is my understanding that bids are for IPCs, and that those IPCs are used to purchase additional starting units.  The rules stipulate that China may purchase only infantry, unless the Burma Road is open, in which case it may also purchase artillery.  It seems pretty clear to me.

I can see your rationale, I just don’t agree with it.

The reason is this:  I see bid units equivalent to the Flying Tiger’s unit.  It’s something China may not purchase during normal game play, but because it exists on the board prior to Germany’s diplomacy/purchase units phase, it is grandfathered in.

I am not saying my reasoning is correct, I’m willing to be talked out of it, I just cannot see a rule or reason to ban such units from the bidding process, at least in so far as the 13-G40 SE League goes.  The closest I can imagine is the difficulty of allowing said units while within the arbitrary confines of TripleA, but those could be fixed readily enough I would assume.

@Cmdr:

The closest I can imagine is the difficulty of allowing said units while within the arbitrary confines of TripleA, but those could be fixed readily enough I would assume.

Like I said in the other thread, it is doable in Triple A.  You would add an allied unit and use edit mode to move it.  In battle, you would need to roll the battle involving the bid unit(s) outside of Triple A and then just edit the results.

It is not much unlike other gymnastics that are often necessary to play a game in Triple A.

@Gamerman01:

@Cmdr:

The closest I can imagine is the difficulty of allowing said units while within the arbitrary confines of TripleA, but those could be fixed readily enough I would assume.

Like I said in the other thread, it is doable in Triple A.  You would add an allied unit and use edit mode to move it.  In battle, you would need to roll the battle involving the bid unit(s) outside of Triple A and then just edit the results.

It is not much unlike other gymnastics that are often necessary to play a game in Triple A.

yea, I said difficulty, not impossibility. lol.

Still, it is an interesting wrinkle, be fun to both use and debate and see what happens to some of these cookie cutter axis strategies.  Maybe there can be thought of a bid that helps China to the point that the bids get closer to the -6 to 6 range, which, IMNSHO would be great since it would declare the game a lot more balanced.  12-18 IPC bids, in my mind, clearly declare that the game is not balanced, but that could just be me, and my philosophy that a balanced game is won where the average bid is 0.

Sometimes you guys really floor me….

I’m sorry, but bidding any unit that a country is not entitled to use per the rulebook (and, per the pieces that come with the game?!) is contrary to the entire spirit of the game.  China is entitled to bid infantry, artillery (because at the beginning of the game the Burma road is open, otherwise not even that), and that’s it.  Period.  A bid is merely an extension of the forces of a country, and in this game, China is only entitled to infantry, artillery, and the Flying Tigers unit.

And, to change this midstream during league is quite a change, isn’t it?  Have you asked any of the top players what they would think of the rules change?

To blow off what Krieg said is also a bit weird – after all, he is also speaking for the “spirit” of the rules.

To give China other units – well, when you can show me an actual Chinese strat bomber out of your box, I’ll reconsider.  Otherwise, please keep the rules as they are for league.  It’s hard enough for us new people to keep up with the actual rules, let alone the whimsical ones… ;)

Dizz, your whole argument falls apart right there

There isn’t a Chinese fighter in the box.

I AM one of the top players in the league with a record of 14-1, thank you very much

I already said, it’s not even an optimal move to bid anything other than infantry, artillery, or another fighter, so why are you so excited?

If your opponent actually bids a Chinese bomber, you can just laugh and be glad he didn’t put 4 infantry in Yunnan, which would be MUCH more problematic  :roll:

Why am I excited?  Because the rules are fine as they are.  The only bidding rule that should be changed is one unit per territory max.  Or maybe that is the rule.  I’m not even sure of that.

To bid any unit to a country that they are not entitled to changes the entire game mechanics, that’s why.  Let’s let trannies hit at a 1 while we’re at it….

And, no offense, but I was thinking of asking all of the top tier – I wasn’t inferring you weren’t one of them.  ;)

Cmdr Jennifer has a perfectly sensible argument that bid placement can conceptualized as a revised setup (aka “grandfathered in”). Like any house rule, bids merely require the consent of the players.

That being said, as Gamerman suggests, using a bid for Chinese tanks or bombers is foolish anyways.

Dizz, believe me, I am totally with you about changing the rules of the game for the league - HANDS OFF.
Like you, I don’t want the game mechanics of league play to be any different than the rule book.  After all, if someone goes and plays somewhere else, or a friend at home, they won’t be following the league rules, which shouldn’t be any different than the rule book.

I want you to show me any game that you find someone actually taking a bid to China that is beyond infantry, artillery, or a fighter.  Then I want you to show me the impact that it had on the game.  Keep in mind that even aircraft are contained to China.  There is no way that this is like letting transports defend on a one.

I will join you in resisting Jenn’s interesting ideas to changing the game for the league (like the D-Day rule), and I would be liable to boycott the league if she decreed that transports would defend on a 1, but I have no problem whatsoever to allowing an open Chinese bid, and I want you to tell me when you have found a tier 1 player who is opposed.

One more thing - if you ever allow a bid of 11 or 12 (required to get a tac or a bomber) you are crazy.  :-)
So you’re effectively just protesting the ability to place a Chinese mech or 2, or 1 armor, and I think you are over-reacting, with all due respect from a fellow gamer  :-)

By the way, Dizz, I don’t remember you even protesting the D-Day rule or agreeing with me when I did……

Can you explain that?  :-)

omg….what D-Day rule??  Did I miss that one in-between turns, or perhaps it was tax season??

And people ask me why I still play in chess tournaments…… let’s just say nary a rule change (from a game mechanics perspective) since the Renaissance… ;)

@DizzKneeLand33:

omg….what D-Day rule??  Did I miss that one in-between turns, or perhaps it was tax season??

Well that explains your silence
That’s right, Jenn was kicking around the idea of allowing the Allies to attack together in NW Europe in next year’s league.  Believe me, I was all over that.

If you have any more league discussion, please use the league thread - thanks

@DizzKneeLand33:

And people ask me why I still play in chess tournaments…… let’s just say nary a rule change (from a game mechanics perspective) since the Renaissance… ;)

I always have at least a few chess games going….

Gotta love the fact that when you go to capture their queen with a pawn, you don’t have to roll a die to see if it succeeds  :-P
Flying over AA can be heart-stopping!  :lol:

The way I see it is this:

A. If the rules do not specifically ban it, then it’s legal.  
Bidding is a house rule, it’s not to be found in the rule books, or I have yet to see it as even an optional rule.  For perspective, TECH is optional and is mentioned in the rule book, so it’s not a house rule even if implemented in a game.
B. The rules already put non-Chinese units on the board for China and allow China to use them as if they owned them.  Allowing them to do the same for other pieces does not feel like much of a stretch, just annoying because now Veqyrn may have to go back into TripleA and edit it so these pieces can be added. lol. (Sorry, it’s literally the most annoying thing I can think of, and even that is tenuous because how many people are going to bid Strategic Bombers or Tanks for China?)
C.  The spirit of the bidding rule is to allow the player to make up for the fact that s/he feels his/her side cannot win with what it starts with.  If they think a tactical bomber for China (and 11 IPC might not be too much of a stretch to see in a bid) is what they need to contain Japan long enough for America to come in, then let them.  If you don’t want to see that happen, counter bid 9 IPC and bar the option from even being on the table.  Likewise, 1 armored unit is probably not optimal for China, it’s too hard to both use and protect at the same time, though it might come in handy at times as a piece that can stay in newly conquered territories, then again, the planes can retreat from forward positions to safe areas so they both have some merits.  Personally, I think Artillery is better, but that’s me.
D.  China’s units are still restricted to Chinese controllable territories which means no matter what the bid is, you’re not going to see Chinese Aircraft Carriers - I don’t care if you give them 100 IPC worth of units to put on the table! Â

As for a D-Day rule, it should have been floated in House Rules instead of a league discussion thread.  The idea, in a nutshell, was once, per game, the British and Americans in the European theater could have a joint attack on: Normandy and Holland or either one if they didn’t want to hit both.  That would mean shared transports, shore bombardments and air cover.  I still think it’s a good rule, but it’s a house rule for the oblivion of other house rules. lol.  IF we ever end up with a G40 Enhanced then we may see it come back.