Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured

[a44bigdog]

I would say it still goes back to the UK because in this case the territory belongs to the UK

[trihero]

Pg 17 of the pdf of LHTR 2.0

Liberating a Territory
If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you
“liberate” the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the
territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the
original controller of the territory.

In response to your earlier post Jen, please read the rules before posting. I am right.

You quoted “CAPTURING” a territory. There is a difference between capturing and LIBERATING. The original post asked about LIBERATING. Clearly, I am right, and you are wrong.

[Jennifer]

Page 24 comes after Page 17 and thus supercedes Page 17.

[trihero]

I just edited my post.

There is a difference between capturing and liberating. You need to understand this. You can capture an AA gun, but if you liberate it it goes back to the original owner. Read more please.

[trihero]

In case you don’t understand what I’m talking about, Jennifer quoted correctly that you gain control of an AA gun if you CAPTURE the territory; i.e. the original owner of the territory is of the opposing side. That’s beyond obvious, say Germany captures Caucasus on G1 and there’s a Russian AA there, it becomes Germany’s.

What she doesn’t understand is that the original poster asked about liberating a territory, and that there is a difference between liberation and capture. LHTR clearly makes this distinction. If you capture a territory, you get the AA gun, but if you liberate it, it goes to the original owner.

This makes me question (again) why Jen bothers to post about rules she clearly has not read, and is reminiscent of the time she confidently declared that 400 aa guns could fire rockets out of 1 territory if there were 400 targets to hit.

[Jennifer]

You are still capturing the territory and then you give it over to the original nation if you liberate it.  So whomever the land belongs to, so too, does the Industrial Complex and the Anti-Aircraft Gun.

[trihero]

You are still capturing the territory and then you give it over to the original nation if you liberate it.

No, you’re not. LHTR makes a clear distinction between liberation and capture. They are not interchangeable.

Liberating a Territory
If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you
“liberate” the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the original controller of the territory.

If the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory, you capture the territory, collect income from the newly captured territory and can use any industrial complex there until the original controller’s capital is liberated. You also take ownership of any antiaircraft gun in that territory.

So you see, you either liberate or you capture a territory. You do not do both. What evidence do you have to support your myth?

[Jennifer]

@Bean:

You are still capturing the territory and then you give it over to the original nation if you liberate it.

No, you’re not. LHTR makes a clear distinction between liberation and capture. They are not interchangeable.

Liberating a Territory
If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you
“liberate” the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the original controller of the territory.

If the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory, you capture the territory, collect income from the newly captured territory and can use any industrial complex there until the original controller’s capital is liberated. You also take ownership of any antiaircraft gun in that territory.

So you see, you either liberate or you capture a territory. You do not do both. What evidence do you have to support your myth?

So you see, the guns DO go to the owner of the territory, regardless of liberation or capture.

[Pervavita]

i don’t see how this has gone like it has, but reading exactly what you both have quoted tells me that the AA guns in the situation hear would be the UK’s as the USSR would never have had control of them to move. as soon as USSR walked in and deffeted the Japs the teritory would become UK’s and never be the USSR’s for any length of time.

[Jennifer]

Correct, unless for some reason England was Captured and Russia attacked and took possession of India, in which case the Gun and the Complex would become Russian (assuming there is a complex in India and/or a Gun for that matter.)  However, once England was liberated all AA Guns would then return to their original owner’s, except in the case of captured enemy guns which would be kept by England.

It is the ONLY time in the rules in which a gun can change alliegance to someone other then whoever takes posession of the land at that time.

This rule IS used frequently, when Russia falls and is liberated.  Many times, you’ll have a british and or american gun in Moscow when it falls and then you have to give them back to England or America when you liberate the capitol.  But capitols have always been special in this game.

[trihero]

So you see, the guns DO go to the owner of the territory, regardless of liberation or capture.

Thanks, you finally agree that I am right. The original owner of the territory (India) was UK, so both it and the AA gun go back to it. I am awaiting an apology.

[Jennifer]

That’s what I said the WHOLE time, you were arguing against me!

I said that the ownership of the gun originally had no bearing as to who owned the gun after the territory was liberated.

So, I’m waiting for your apology. :P

[trihero]

I am thoroughly confused. I answered the original poster’s question correctly. The AA gun reverts to UK control, not to Russian control. I have no idea what you are arguing about thereafter, talking about different pages superceding each other and capturing being the same as liberating.

[Jennifer]

Mazer said that the gun reverted to RUSSIAN control, not British control and then said you were correct.  Working from the assumption he had actually read and understood your argument, and that the rules clearly stated that the Gun went to whomever owned the territory, I said you were wrong because he was wrong.

I guess he was wrong twice over.  Wrong on the ownership of the gun AND wrong about your argument refuting mine.

[Jennifer]

There’s a karma point for the misunderstanding.

So, just to clarify, we are in argeement:

Previous Ownership of the AA Gun is irrellevant.  Whomever owns the LAND the AA Gun is on at the end of the Combat Movement Phase, IF ownership changed hands after combat, is the owner of the AA GUN (and the Industrial Complex if it is present).

That means that if Russia walks an AA Gun from Caucasus to India, it’s captured by Japan and liberated by America it becomes a BRITISH AA Gun.

[trihero]

I am not going to argue this any further. Neither Mazer nor I ever implied that the original UK gun in India becomes Russian when the Russians liberate it. Whichever way you spin it, the answer to the original poster’s question is the UK gets it.

I think the misunderstanding comes from whether you were trying to answer the original poster’s question or put a hypothetical about a Russian AA being in India. I was only trying to answer the poster’s question, not a hypothetical about a Russian AA being in India. That is where the misunderstanding is, I think. But I would agree with your interpretation about the hypothetical.

Also you are incorrect about the whole situation about capitals being captured and whatnot, if you read LHTR it says only AA guns in the liberated capital go to the owner of the capital, but everywhere else it stays pre-liberation control, not reverting to the original owner. Anyways bah! -_-

[Jennifer]

Actually, yes, he was, in fact, stating that if the AA Gun in India was ORIGINALLY Russian that when it was liberated it became Russian Again.

[Amon-Sul]

Switch, you are late, where are you…. :lol:

or maybe Craig Yope :?

[Amon-Sul]

@Bean:

Pg 17 of the pdf of LHTR 2.0

Liberating a Territory
If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you
“liberate” the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the
territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the
original controller of the territory.

In response to your earlier post Jen, please read the rules before posting. I am right.

You quoted “CAPTURING” a territory. There is a difference between capturing and LIBERATING. The original post asked about LIBERATING. Clearly, I am right, and you are wrong.

well, you are only partialy right,

you see
for example
i have USSR-Moscow falls
and i have an AA in Karelia, you ˝liberate˝ the territory with UK forces, but the AA gun doesnt go ot USSR side   but to UK side which as its writen up there to quote…

˝If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you
“liberate” the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the
territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the
original controller of the territory˝

here afcorse the original owner cant retain the territory but neither can he retain the AA
so, thats it

[Pervavita]

i thought if a capital falls then any teritory liberated by there allies untell the capital is allso liberated goes to the liberating nation.
for example if UK losses England and India, then USSR liberates India, the USSR gains India as it’s own.