ok…i got it now…thanks KriegHund…aka the “WarMaster”
Rules Q&A
-
Is the United States considered nuetral until attacked or declares war?
Yes.
Can the U.S. move it’s land units and airpower to territories controlled by the U.K.? They can’t go to Dutch territories so I assume they can’t go to U.K. territories?
No, it can’t. Neutral countries can’t move units into other countries’ territories. This isn’t clear in the rules, but it will be in the FAQ.
-
Krieg, I can’t believe what I am reading …. :-o
The US can’t fly planes to Australia if she is not at war with Japan? Bloody hell, how was it possible this is not mentioned in the rulebook… :?
-
Krieg, I can’t believe what I am reading …. :-o
The US can’t fly planes to Australia if she is not at war with Japan? Bloody hell, how was it possible this is not mentioned in the rulebook… :?
If this is true then the allies are even weaker than I thought.
I can’t believe the terrible quality of the rulebook. I am a fiscal advisor. If I get one letter wrong this could have big consequences. Therefore we check, check and doublecheck all our work.
Either they are all incompetent or they try to save money on the wrong things. -
I assume that if more than one allied player has units in the same land territory defending , that they all defend together, while they cannot attack together is clear in the rules.
-
So the USA collects 50 from Western USA on it’s 3rd turn no matter what, right? So there no disadvantage to anyone declaring war after USA’s second turn, right?
It seems there are all sorts of rules coming out of the woodwork, but so far the only disadvantage would be that the U.S. can attack Japan on US3. Though I’m not sure if this would amount to any sort of threat that early in the game.
-
Now that the game has been released,
is it possible to download the rulebook?
I’ve ordered my copy,
but not sure I’ll get it before the end of the year…
:? -
In the rulebook in Phase 6: Collect Income it says " before you can actually recieve this income, you much check for any losses incurred by air and naval attacks against your shipping routes"
Then in the convoy section it doesnt mention anything about air units, only surface warships and subs. Obviously air units (on carriers for example) are not surface warships but do they count went totaling convoy disruptions or was it a mistake to mention them in the quote above?
-
If Japan captures West USA, does it collect 50 from it or 10? Is West USA a capital, i.e. does Japan get USA’s money in this case?
If Japan attacks, they are at war, so I’d say Japan takes a 50 IPCs territory. I guess it’s a capital and take the money, but anyway game is over if you manage such deed :-)
-
Air attacks simply refers to air units on carriers in the sea zone. The air units are included in the carrier’s convoy damage, as a carrier itself wouldn’t be able to damage much shipping. Rather than complicate the rules with things like “all surface warships except carriers cause one point of damage, and air units on carriers cause one each” or “only carriers with at least one air unit cause damage”, it was simplified to say that each surface warship causes a point regardless of type.
-
@Craig:
After a quick check of the AA40 Europe Rule Set (unofficial/playtest copy), I see that this situation was caught and edited to remove the “air” part of the statement.
Yes. This was done in order to avoid just this sort of confusion.
@Craig:
This goes back to Krieghund stating that there are a bit of typo/clarifications that will have to been put out concerning AA40 Pacific. Everyone needs to keep their panties from getting in a wad and wait patiently for Krieghund and Larry to get that info out.
Speaking of which, I’m working on the FAQ now. In in effort to facilitate that process, I’m going to stop answering rules questions and let you guys work them out for yourselves. I’ll only step in if you get to an impasse. That way, I’ll be better able to more quickly identify ambiguities in the rules.
I know there are some minor problems with the political rules, but this is the first A&A game that’s ever had them, so please bear with us. Due to the development schedule, some new issues came up with them while testing Europe after the Pacific rulebook had already been finalized. Many of the clarifications in the FAQ will deal with those issues. Of course, some of these are also just plain old mistakes. :oops:
@Craig:
Remember, they are just humans too! I know, it’s hard to believe, but trust me. I have proof of their mortalness. See my avatar.
They are nice guys (Larry most of the time! :wink: ) doing a great job of keeping us happy with new challenges.
Lies! All lies!! :wink:
-
Krieghund, Craig A Yope, I really appreciate your efforts in helping us clarify quite a lot of issues here. Thank you both. Can either of you confirm whether an offical FAQ is being put together as we speak?
-
Yeah, I’m working on it now. See my last post, above.
-
So the USA collects 50 from Western USA on it’s 3rd turn no matter what, right? So there no disadvantage to anyone declaring war after USA’s second turn, right?
It seems there are all sorts of rules coming out of the woodwork, but so far the only disadvantage would be that the U.S. can attack Japan on US3. Though I’m not sure if this would amount to any sort of threat that early in the game.
Excellent point… which reveals that it would actually behoove UK or ANZAC to attack Japan on their second turn, because it allows USA the opportunity to attack if it so chooses, and has no drawbacks whatsoever, am I wrong?
-
Moving a naval fleet into a seazone occupied only by an enemies transport, does this act put the naval forces into naval battle? or can the Naval fleet bombard the amphibious invasion since the transport does not have a defense value?
-
If Japan captures West USA, does it collect 50 from it or 10? Is West USA a capital, i.e. does Japan get USA’s money in this case (or is that even a rule in this game?)?
If Japan attacks, they are at war, so I’d say Japan takes a 50 IPCs territory. I guess it’s a capital and take the money, but anyway game is over if you manage such deed :-)
Do the rules not offer a clear answer?
It’s not necessarily a moot point: If Japan gets USA’s IPC in hand PLUS 50 IPC for capturing West USA, then sure, the game is as good as over. but if neither of those are the case, then the game is not necessarily over.
-
Air attacks simply refers to air units on carriers in the sea zone. The air units are included in the carrier’s convoy damage, as a carrier itself wouldn’t be able to damage much shipping. Rather than complicate the rules with things like “all surface warships except carriers cause one point of damage, and air units on carriers cause one each” or “only carriers with at least one air unit cause damage”, it was simplified to say that each surface warship causes a point regardless of type.
So I’m not clear if that means the aircraft cargo inflict additional ‘damage’, or if they don’t. I’m guessing they don’t.
-
Moving a naval fleet into a seazone occupied only by an enemies transport, does this act put the naval forces into naval battle? or can the Naval fleet bombard the amphibious invasion since the transport does not have a defense value?
Per AA50 rules I believe the attacker may choose not to attack transports (or subs) when they are not accompanied by surface warships, and I’m guessing (s)he must choose so in order to use bombardment in an amphibious assault.
-
Do the rules not offer a clear answer?
It’s not necessarily a moot point: If Japan gets USA’s IPC in hand PLUS 50 IPC for capturing West USA, then sure, the game is as good as over. but if neither of those are the case, then the game is not necessarily over.
I think rules are pretty clear: if you are at war with USA, WUSA becomes a 50 IPCs territory. So, if you attack WUSA, you are automatically at war with WUSA (at combat moves phase I guess). If you conquer it, you get money for being a capital and also colect WUSA territory income (50) because we are at another phase (combat phase). That that I understand from the rules we know (I have not the game yet)
Now: any case, colect or not the money, if Japan takes USA, is game over unless ANZAC (or some rogue USA troop that survived the attack in Canada) can retake WUSA and hold it, and even then is a uphill battle even in case of a 10 IPCs WUSA because Japan will have 10 from capital, 10 from WUSA and USA will lose all her money (a total money sink of at least 30)
-
Is the United States considered nuetral until attacked or declares war?
Yes.
Can the U.S. move it’s land units and airpower to territories controlled by the U.K.? They can’t go to Dutch territories so I assume they can’t go to U.K. territories?
No, it can’t. Neutral countries can’t move units into other countries’ territories. This isn’t clear in the rules, but it will be in the FAQ.
But UK and ANZAC can occupy each others territories before a declaration of war, because they are not neutral, correct?
-
Do the rules not offer a clear answer?
It’s not necessarily a moot point: If Japan gets USA’s IPC in hand PLUS 50 IPC for capturing West USA, then sure, the game is as good as over. but if neither of those are the case, then the game is not necessarily over.
I think rules are pretty clear: if you are at war with USA, WUSA becomes a 50 IPCs territory. So, if you attack WUSA, you are automatically at war with WUSA (at combat moves phase I guess). If you conquer it, you get money for being a capital and also colect WUSA territory income (50) because we are at another phase (combat phase). That that I understand from the rules we know (I have not the game yet)
Now: any case, colect or not the money, if Japan takes USA, is game over unless ANZAC (or some rogue USA troop that survived the attack in Canada) can retake WUSA and hold it, and even then is a uphill battle even in case of a 10 IPCs WUSA because Japan will have 10 from capital, 10 from WUSA and USA will lose all her money (a total money sink of at least 30)
yes I understand, but if San Fran is a capital it seems peculiar that it is not distinguished as one on the map (no “star”, for example… just a red dot just like Honolulu or Manila). So if San Fran really is a capital, and capturing it really does invoke a transfer of money, then both those things must be explicitly articulated in the rules, they cannot be assumed. Also, if the US then, has a functioning capital in AAP40 that is not really its capital, are Calcutta and Sydney capitals too?
Suggested Topics
