by ironhide1
Player grabs his reinforcements and begins placing them. In order to help in placement, he will occasionally go ahead and place his troops in unoccupied territories that he would be expanding into. It helps him keep track of his plans.He begins placing, and does this expansion type placement, but still has troops in hand. He decides he wants to trade his cards in for reinforcements. A player tells him no because he has already expanded.
He had begun placing, and he HAD technically expanded, but for him that's more of a placeholder and I am fairly certain we have allowed the trade-in in the past as long as you still have troops in hand. It was extremely disadvantagious to the dissenting player for those cards to be traded in, and that's the only reason for the dissent. The dissenting player went on to win because of this call.
So others may not play it this way, but would you have allowed the cards to be traded in?