The Axis and Allies rules state that you can never use your allies IC UNLESS your aliies capitol is captured. What they don’t say is if you can place unlimited units there if the IC was an original. For example if Germany captures Moscow, but the U.K. is in Karelia could the U.K. place unlimited units there or just three?. I figure unlimited because the U.K. is acting in Russia’s place and Karelia has an original IC. I have searched all over the place for an answer to this Q with no luck. Maybe there is none. If anyone knows the rule on this or has any thoughts it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I believe it falls under the rule of built ICs at that point. max up to land value.
But the entire situation is an exception to the normal rules, if the U.K. is using Russia’s IC they should have Rusia’s production capability. The idea is that there are taking Russia’s place for them, which makes it different from capturing an enemies IC. I looked at the rules and didn’t find anything clarifying this. But I will look again.
True this specific scenario is not explicitly stated in the rules, but I would have to concur with Jennifer and SUD on this one - production at an allied industrial complex is limited to the IPC value of the territory.
Jennifer and SUD are correct.
Since the ONLY way that an ally can use an ally’s IC is to TAKE IT FROM THE ENEMY after the ally that originally owned it has fallen, then the IC is NO LONGER AN ALLIED IC, it is a CAPTURED ENEMY IC, and remains so unless and until the former ally’s capital is liberated.
To reason it out… in both cases (enemy held, and ally held), the “local” production is being run by foreigners, and as such they are not as efficient due to a variety of reasons.
I’m sorry but unless the makers of the game say something specific about this scenario I think you guy’s are wrong. And it doesn’t say you have to capture the IC from Germany in order to use it. The rules just state that if your allies capitol is captured then you can use there other IC. The rules do not however address my Q. I understand your point SUD, and I understand all the other rules about complexes, capitol’s, IPC"S etc. But this situation is unique. This is not a built IC nor is it a captured IC. It is an allies IC which makes it different. To reason it out you could say that there were Russian factory workers there to help the Brits, which makes sense to me. I wonder if there someway of contacting the game makers.
I asked this question to see if anyone knew the OFFICIAL RULE on this situation, which clearly you do not. I also wanted some other thoughts just to compare. This has only helped me reaffirm my position. SUD repeating yourself over and over isn’t going to help your point at all. As I already said I understood you the first time, and no I don’t have a mental block. Even if you capture the IC in Karelia from Germany the fact remains that it is Russian. YOU are acting in Russia’s place, not for yorself( thats your mental block). Q.E.D. And no the rules do not state anything specific about this, as the mederator has already said. This is just my logic against yours, and as far as I’m concerned I’ll take mine.
Oh, and by the way you can’t capture an allies territory. If the Brits take Karelia from Gemany it is LIBERATED for Russia, AND YOU CAN USE THE IC FOR THEM. What if the U.K. Karelia from Germany and then Russian troops moved in, whose would it be? You never put your marker on an Allies territory, therefor it is not a captured territory, so the normal IC rules concerning captured IC should not apply.Thanks for your time anyway SUD( the submarine).
There are two distinct possibilities:
#1 Russia still controls Moscow.
In this case if UK or US liberate Karelia, then it reverts back to Russian control to use for unlimited placement.
#2 Moscow has fallen and Germany (or Japan) is in control of Karelia.
In this case if the UK or US liberate Karelia, they get credit for the 3 IPC of Karelia AND can use the IC but can only place 3 units there. It is subject to a placement limit b/c it is treated as a captured IC (just like if Germany takes Kar). If Germany takes Kar, it can only place 3 units there.
Rulebook P. 14 under exception:
If your ally’s capital has been captured and you liberate a complex belonging to this ally in another territory, your ally may not use the complex, YOU MAY USE IT UNTIL YOUR ALLY’S CAPITAL IS LIBERATED!
UK or US can only use the Karelia IC if they take it away from Germany or Japan AFTER Moscow has fallen, if they have troops present in Kar and then Moscow falls, the IC is still Russian and NO ONE can place units there.
If your ally’s capital has been captured and you liberate a complex belonging to this ally in another territory, your ally may not use the complex, YOU MAY USE IT UNTIL YOUR ALLY’S CAPITAL IS LIBERATED!
No where does it say you get credit for the IPC value of the territory, and it says liberate not capture. Yes your right you have to liberate it in oder to use it, but thats all it says. I think were just going to agree to dissagree. I will try to contact the game makers though. And you didn’t answer the question about Russian troops moving back into Karelia if the Brits have liberated it and are still there, who owns it then.
@Votz:
I’m sorry but unless the makers of the game say something specific about this scenario I think you guy’s are wrong. And it doesn’t say you have to capture the IC from Germany in order to use it.
Then perhaps you need to re-read the Milton Braldey rules again, Page 20. most notably the exception that begins at the bottom of the first column.
PLEASE NOTE that this section of hte rules relates to resolution of COMBAT, and thus only applies to the combat resolution phase. It has NOTHING to do with sitting in an ally’s territory.
@Votz:
No where does it say you get credit for the IPC value of the territory, and it says liberate not capture. Yes your right you have to liberate it in oder to use it, but thats all it says. I think were just going to agree to dissagree. I will try to contact the game makers though. And you didn’t answer the question about Russian troops moving back into Karelia if the Brits have liberated it and are still there, who owns it then.
Yes it does.
Again, Page 20 o fthe Milton Bradley 2nd Edition rule book. The entire exception that begins at the bottom of colum 1 and continues at the top of column 2…
EXCEPTION: If the original owner’s capital is in enemy hands at the time of such a liberation, the liberator collects the income value of the newly captured territory and can use an industrial complex there until the original owner’s capital is liberated (at which time, the production levels would be readjusted)!
@Votz:
And you didn’t answer the question about Russian troops moving back into Karelia if the Brits have liberated it and are still there, who owns it then.
Don’t worry about the troops. The Capital is the only important factor.
Think of it like this:
UK and Rus troops are in Nor.
Germany owns Kar and Japan just took Mos.
Now if UK takes Kar, they get to use the factory, even if the Russian troops move in to help defend. BUT if those Russia troops (say tanks) take Mos from Japan, then both Kar and Mos revert back to Russian control.
It is not the troops that matter, it is only the status of the Capital and who controls the various IC’s when the capital is taken.
Hope this helps. 
Also in terms of rules questions and clarifications, SUD is very knowledgeable. He’s the resident A&A guru. 
@Votz:
YOU are acting in Russia’s place, not for yorself( thats your mental block).
Volz,
I disagree with this above statement. And I think your logic hinges on it. The UK/USA is not acting in Russia’s place. They are still only acting as the UK/USA. And using a non-original industrial complex. Thus limited in production by the IPC value of the territory. That is my interpretation of the rule.
Sometimes if the rules aren’t clear, my play group will try to analyze the intention of the rules and the “spirit of the game”. In this case, the UK/USA are retrofitting a USSR industrial complex to produce allied troops there. They are not producing Russian troops there. They are thus subject to the same limitations as they would be if they were using an enemy IC to produce troops at. Because they are retrofitting it to produce troops there that the complex was not originally designed to do. IMO.
Thanks moderators and rjclayton.
So anyone ever meet this Jennifer? Close up?
She hot or what? Worth going to Cinninati to meet?
Officers & gentlemen!
I nearly get confused with this discussion between experienced players about such a basic rule. :?
I’m not playing online tournaments but I’m pretty convinced that according to 2nd or 3rd edition rules, No capture of former ORIGINAL allied territory will in any way give the invader any authority over such territory. You simply liberate that territory for possible use by your allied partner, regardless of whether your partner’s capitol is captured by the enemies or not.
You will NOT be allowed to use the IC which is still owned by your allied partner, and you will NOT recieve any IPC’s from that territory. This goes for the AA gun as well, Its works alright for you when liberated, but it is NOT yours and therefore you won’t be allowed to move it away.
Any liberation of original allied territory is exactly just that - a liberation. The idea of the british having control over former russian IC is not part of the classic rules - the territory will be liberated for the russians giving no authority to the british whatsoever. The british got the right to liberate it, to stay and to die for it - and thats it. This is what the classic boardgame rules says, and they are actually very well enforced on the cdr-game as well (witch features both 2nd and 3rd edition rules). After british liberation the territory of Karelia becomes red brown - not khaki.
It happens that I actually forget this rule when playing the PC game. It can be a huge drag when fx. Japan succedes in liberating Italy after a total german defeat. You will get nothing: no IPC’s, no AA, no IC.
And, yes, I know that the cd-r game actually break many rules (tanks can move 2 squares - even over sea to a tranny - great thing!! -And trannies can disembark infantry unto two different territories simultaneously - even greater!!)
But that said, I still haven’t seen anything in Mr. Bradleys clarifications that effectively contradicts the above interpretation of 2nd or 3rd edition rules.
Well, maybe somebody will solve the dispute once and for all by consulting Mr. Bradley personally? - or even better: game designer Mr. Harris himself? 
Salute!
That is incorrect Cool.
The rules are EXPLICIT on Page 20 of the manual regarding this.
Hmm. Even after playing with friends for years, this is completely new to me. Im sure its against the rule in the original book included with the boardgame.
can you perhaps make a precise quotation?
Or is this rule book online?
Cheers!
Ok - i found Milton Bradleys AAORG.DOC
I will read it carefully and then turn back 
Right, here it is:
–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blockquote:
   Please Note: if the captured territory was originally owned by a member of your .alliance, you are not considered the victor even though you attacked successfully. You are the liberator only! Your ally, who originally owned the now liberated territory, is once again the owner and earns the income value of the ter¬ritory on the National Production Chart. EXCEPTION: If the original owner’s capital is in enemy hands at the time of such a liberation, the liberator collects the income value of the newly captured territory and can use an industrial complex there until the original owner’s capital is liberated (at which time, the production levels would be readjusted)!
Source:Â
page 20 - Second Edition Rules - 1986 by Milton Bradley Co. All Rights Reserved. 4423-X1
http://www.aamc.net/bunker/doc.htm
–-----------------------------------------------------------------
I Admit that the strange EXCEPTION above it’s pretty clear - I wonder why this exception was not published with the original rules included in the boardgame - and not least: why it is not mentioned as differing from 1rst edition rules in the introduction of Mr. Bradleys rule book.
Is it supposed to be a 1rst edition rule as well, now?
And one more thing: What about the AA gun, then? I can see no exception for that, so how does online gamers interpret the rules for the Karelia AA gun?
Hmmm, I wonder what will really be the motivation for liberating moscow if it means UK will loose a factory. I feel a little indignation on behalf of the russians hereÂ
All right, maybe I could be wrong with the boardgame - I will check again. The 2nd edition boardgame is at my friend’s place were we play every sunday. But again, for sure this way of playing is in NO WAY possible in the cdr-game’s 2nd or 3rd edition rules. No british weapon can ever be produced in Karelia.
pretty weird…
well …aye aye…Â Â :mrgreen:
it’s odd the discourtious way that SUD was treated after the effort in his attempts to assist a fellow gamer. Why go out of your way to help someone to be treated like this?
So anyone ever meet this Jennifer? Close up?
She hot or what? Worth going to Cinninati to meet?
The real question is how hot is “Erica”?
So anyone ever meet this Jennifer? Close up?
She hot or what? Worth going to Cinninati to meet?
Never met her in person, but I hear she’s a hot star fighter pilot:Â http://swe.starwarsclub.org/darkjedi/gm_files/[O]4DC-4DA-3DSJennifer Christman.htm
SS
Let’s not forget about the 2nd ed. rules clarification manual. On the last page, under the heading of “miscellaneous”, it states " A captured enemy territory with an industrial complex will give you limited unit placement on your next turn. It will be equal to the territory’s IPC value. This rule applies even if the complex was an original one….that is, one the enemy started the game with."
END OF STORY
