G40 Halifax Rules

@CWO:

A question: Do original thread creators have the ability to modify the title of their thread, without the need for moderator intervention?  If so, I’d propose that currently active house rule threads which (for whatever reason) didn’t get created in the House Rules section could have their titles edited to be given a prefix like " *HR: " to identify them more easily.  So for example, the present thread would become:

*HR: G40 Halifax Rules

The asterix serves as an eye-catcher, the HR stands for house rules, and the colon indicates that what follows next is the title of the thread.

This might be a good compromise, since on the one hand it would allow a certain amount of flexibility (which was Black Elk’s point about not wanting things over-moderated) while at the same time addressing the legitimate concern that it confuses matters when house rules are posted in places other than the House Rules section.

Done!

Newfoundland and Eire have been added to Option #2.

Instructional YouTube video and customized National Objective card deck accessory coming soon.

YYYYYEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHH!!!

Core Halifax rule set is complete, thank you to everyone who contributed to this awesome project… I’m moving on to other adventures that will include customizations, and accessories for G40 Halifax.

I have posted a thread in the house rules forum, along with my own expansion rules and I encourage others to share their Halifax expansion set there as well.

Here is the final product… hopefully we can get an endorsement from Krieghund  :mrgreen:

G40 HALIFAX RULES

A special thanks to Young Grasshopper, knp7765, afrothunder12, Black_Elk, Wild Bill, and CWO Marc for their contributions to the development of these rules.

Production Unit Profiles

Industrial Complex:
Produces up to 10 units
Maximum damage 20
Unoperational at 10 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once captured

Major Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased, or upgraded to an Industrial Complex
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once captured

Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
May only build units that cost 10 IPCs or less
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs*

There are only two conditions in which a nation may upgrade a production unit:

*1. The original owner of a territory containing a minor factory may upgrade it to a major factory for 10 IPCs, but only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex due to capture.

2. Once they are at war, the United States may immediately upgrade all their major factories to industrial complexes free of charge.

The United Kingdom

The British economy is no longer split between London and Calcutta, instead, the United Kingdom collects only one income for all territories owned on the map with London as it’s capital. The UK must relinquish all IPCs each time an Axis power captures London, however, the UK may retain all IPC’s if Calcutta is captured, as it is no longer a capital city.

The Commonwealth

At the beginning of the game, one of the following two options must be chosen by the player, or players controlling the Allied powers.

Commonwealth Option #1

All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them will now be know as the Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zone #106). This power’s starting income will be 17 IPCs, and the United Kingdom’s will be 38 IPCs.

Commonwealth Option #2

All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them, as well as South Africa, South West Africa, Newfoundland, and Eire will now be know as the Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian and South African territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zones #106 and #71). This power’s starting income will be 20 IPCs, and the United Kingdom’s will be 35 IPCs.

Political Situation

The Commonwealth nation is at war with Germany and Italy, and neutral with Japan to start the game, they may not collect national objectives until they are at war with all the Axis powers. The Commonwealth nation does not have a capital, and as long as the Commonwealth controls Ottawa and/or Sydney, they may collect an income and build units. However, if both Ottawa and Sydney are under enemy control, the Commonwealth must immediately relinquish all IPCs to the bank, and remove their roundel from the income tracker until at least 1 of these two original victory cities are liberated.

Map Board Adjustments

_If you are using a G40 2nd Edition map and playing option #1, you must put a commonwealth roundel on Western Canada.

If you are using a G40 2nd Edition map and playing option #2, you must put a commonwealth roundel on Western Canada, as well as South Africa, South West Africa, Newfoundland, and Eire._

National Objectives

All national objectives for the United Kingdom and ANZAC have been removed, and are now replaced with the following:

United Kingdom:

5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers
5 IPCs if the Allies control Gibraltar, Egypt, India, and Malaya
5 IPCs if there are no Axis Submarines in the Atlantic (any sea zone west of Denmark and Gibraltar straits including #128 and #127)

Commonwealth:

5 IPCs if the Commonwealth controls all their original territories
5 IPCs if the Allies control Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes
5 IPCs if the Commonwealth has at least 1 land unit on an original German territory

Setup Modifications

• All minor industrial complexes now become major factories
• The major industrial complex in India now becomes a major factory

Sorry, didn’t mean to lock the thread… it’s open now.

WE JUST HIT +10… WOW!

@wittmann:

F**k me!
Fantastic achievment.

Awesome eh?

+11 now…

:-o

+16

…are you freaking kidding me? I won’t be changing a single word on the Halifax rule document in post #1 …ever!

well… I may have added this for clarification purposes:

“Minor factories that have been purchased and placed on the board my never be upgraded”.

OK, starting…… NOW!

Krieghund, how many votes will it take for you to endorse this?

@Baron:

It is actually +17. WOW!

There is maybe something that should be watch carefully during playtests.
I was thinking about the multi-nations assaults on Germany.
Halifax rules adds Canada in the equation, it means UK, USA and Canada can attack in sequence before Germany get a chance to react.
Maybe it is an Achilles heels, so it becomes the most viable KGF strategy.
How is this advantage have an impact over the longer game?
Does Australia and South Africa draining too much IPCs to be really relevant?
Or letting Canada draining all IPCs makes it for a quicker, unstoppable Allies Victory?

Good point, it’s the old “do I split the income, or divide the income” question. This has not been an issue with our play test games so far, however, as the Allies strategize further to try and gain an advantage using Halifax rules, I could see a triple can opener being a threat. I believe the Allied presence in the Pacific theater would be less than strong, and Germany would need to really defend Denmark eliminating their Moscow crush option. From what I’ve seen so far, the Allies have been unable to generate sizable multi-national forces to do much, it’s almost as if some monies and territories were shuffled around having little effect on the strong opening strategies of the Axis.

However, if the Allies could get their act together to build and move cohesively, they might be able to turn these rules into something positive for themselves. I’ve been holding off on giving the Allies extra stuff, or taking away Japanese planes for the hope that the Allies can break the Axis status quo attacks. Therefore, I would be OK with this type of problem… because just like the Axis standard moves for success, the player needs to execute properly in order for it to work, and so many things can happen when trying to organize something as large as operation overlord. I think like all of us, I would be worried about the prospect of the “just do this, and this and you’ll win” strategy… but we need more play testing from more experienced players.

Thanks guys… and I think it’s time to ask the balance question. I assume that we can all agree that Halifax rules don’t hurt the Allies, but how much does it help them?

On a scale of 1-10 (with 5 being an average bid) how much do Halifax rules benifet the Allies as far as balance?

@Azathoth:

Hello everyone. I am new to global, and really like these rules. Am starting my first game and so I want it to be out of the box rules for just this one time, but in the future I plan on making at least this set of rules changes permanent.

What I am wondering is, do you think the additional UK income from recombining the empire will make sealion unlikely, or even imposible?

Also, how about the more powerful Canzac with extra money now, will that upset any sort of balance in the pacific?

Thanks! :-)

Hello Azathoth, and welcome to the forums.

If you have never played 1940 Global oob, than it is best to play by the book not just once, but a handful of times before trying any house rules. There are a few reasons for this, of course you should first play the game as it was intended by the creators who published the rules, as well, most house rules are designed to counter certain end strategies that have prevented the game from reinventing itself. For example, after playing a few times, you and your friends might feel that the Allies are winning easily, therefore making it illogical to improve the Allies current situation.

All that said, it is obvious that Halifax rules benefits the Allies more than the Axis, and the question as to how much has yet to be answered fully. However, from the Halifax games that we have played, the advantage is not at par with the advantage of an average bid… (Yet). If you consider the responsible oob UK purchase of 6 infantry and a fighter (all on London), and 3 infantry and 2 artillery oob purchase on India, and compare that with the Halifax purchase of 6 Infantry and a fighter on London, and 1 infantry and 1 artillery in India, than one could argue that sealion is even more likely to happen with Halifax rules.

What about the new bigger, and stronger Commonwealth which replaces ANZAC? well… if you step back and look at the map, Ottawa, South Africa, Sydney, and Honolulu form a bowl like shape. The forces generated from those outer points need to penetrate the middle where are the action is (Persia, Moscow, Calcutta, Philippines). So even though the Allies have more freedom to spent where they like on the board, and to place even more units due to major factories… the Axis continue to be successful by keeping all the Commonwealth money to the outside. Of course, we continue to use these rules and experiment with different strategies, but it has not been proven that Halifax rules improve the Allies equal to or more than an average bid.

@Azathoth:

Thanks for the reply!

However my only real concern was sealion. I like that germany has that option, but with the extra money available to london I was wondering: if UK saw germany buying all those transports they could just drop 10 troops in the capitol (at the expense of any buys in calcutta for a turn) to make it too difficult for an invasion attempt, so germany should just go for russia every time.

Assuming england isn’t caught by surprise, is sealion still a viable option?

I know exactly what you mean, I remember being upset when Alpha +2 came out because it was very anti-sealion. I played classic a thousand times and the German strategy was always the same… charge toward Russia and fight a war of attrition, so when Global came out I was very excited to have an option. However, even though the odds are against it in 2nd Edition Global, sealion still happens in our games from time to time, not the old way of spending $70 worth of transports turn 2, but more like catching the UK off guard in later rounds. In this sense, sealion is still feasible using Halifax rules because defending London still requires a responsible defensive war effort from the UK, and an aggressive player might not spend appropriately.

Although sealion is easily defended in Halifax rules with the right approach and execution, the real threat in today’s 2nd edition Global is an early Japanese attack on the Pacific Allies, and Halifax does little to curb this. If Japan stays true and relentless with their proven strategies, it might draw the UK money toward Calcutta, and that’s where spending gets really tricky for the UK when it comes to leaving London vulnerable. I know the quick thought is that the UK can put 10 infantry on London making sealion impossible, but that’s not looking at the big picture. If Germany builds a couple of transports each turn (valuable units to have no mater what their plans are) than you force the UK to defend London at the expense of India. If the UK is defending India due to Japan threatening the mainland and spreading fast, chances are an opportunity for sealion will present itself.

Gone are the days when everyone could see that Germany was strategizing to land in London on turn 3, but that was Alpha +2’s doing with their 4 AA guns (5 with Scotland’s), and the removal of the German National Objective for control of London. However, I’ve seen sealion accomplished with surprise attacks, gutsy plays, and British negligence during later rounds… the same gambits exist when playing with Halifax rules, the perception should be that as long as Germany has and continues to buy transports, sealion is always on the table. If sealion was the standard strategy in 1st edition that no longer seems sound, then a turn 1/2 attack by Japan is the new standard for Axis supremacy. Therefore, the UK can defend London with all their money if they wish, but it is arguable that operation Godzila is more of a game breaker than sealion ever was.