Yes, it’s in the FAQ.
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA_Pacific_1940_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf
Rules Q&A
-
If after war has started and no one has claimed
BorneoSumatra, may the Brits land airplanes there?Yes, but it will not give them control of it. Taking control requires land units.
Interesting. Can they land planes on dutch-“controlled” terits before war has been declared?
-
Also, if the US then, has a functioning capital in AAP40 that is not really its capital, are Calcutta and Sydney capitals too?
All A&A games I can remember have a stated capital in the rulebook. Usually capitals are marked on board with some sort of symbol (hammer and sickle for soviets, rising sun for Japan, etc). I guess there is not a capital simbol in AAP40 because is going to combine with AAE40 and it’s better prevent 2 territories with capital simbols in global game
Edit: I checked. Japan has not a capital simbol in AAP40, but no country has a capital simbol in AA50, so I guess they dropped that thing in that game and is not going to reappear. So no capital simbol in WUSA doesn’t mean nothing. Just we’ll have to check in rulebook what territories will be the capitals, but you can guess it will be the same with a starting IC (WUSA, Japan, India and New South Wales). China has no capital by the way … pretty strange, Chiang Kai Shiek moved it from Nanking near the coast to Chongquing in inner mountains when japs conquered Nanking
As a note, is odd that Nanking is not a VC in any A&A game :?
Does anyone have a solid answer for this? is IPC handed over when a capital is captured, and what are the capitals?
-
Stoney229 and JamesG are correct. Japan would have the choice of either ignoring the US units and attacking only the ANZAC units, or attacking all the units, resulting in war with the US. This is the only case in which you may attack only some of the units in a space. This will be in the FAQ.
What if this is a land territory, say Kwangtung? If UK is at war with Japan, and there’s both UK and US pieces in Kwangtung, then Japan invades, choosing to ignore the US units. Now the US units are on a Japanese-occupied space with axis troops. This seems an odd situation.
-
Stoney229 and JamesG are correct. Japan would have the choice of either ignoring the US units and attacking only the ANZAC units, or attacking all the units, resulting in war with the US. This is the only case in which you may attack only some of the units in a space. This will be in the FAQ.
What if this is a land territory, say Kwangtung? If UK is at war with Japan, and there’s both UK and US pieces in Kwangtung, then Japan invades, choosing to ignore the US units. Now the US units are on a Japanese-occupied space with axis troops. This seems an odd situation.
The US cannot occupy any territory it doesn’t control until it is at war.
-
@Imperious:
Who was the guy who typed out the rules? Is he still employed? Were the rules typed out on a computer with spell checker?
Cal Moore, its on page 2 in the Rulebook. You still haven’t got your copies yet ? Slow mailservice in Germany ?
-
Is Korea adjacent to SZ5?
-
Cal Moore, its on page 2 in the Rulebook. You still haven’t got your copies yet ? Slow mailservice in Germany ?
I wasn’t sure it was the correct spelling figuring it was another typo.
-
@Imperious:
Who was the guy who typed out the rules? Is he still employed? Were the rules typed out on a computer with spell checker?
ooh, ooh, aah, aah… :wink: (scratch armpit)
-
Sir I’ll have you know that primates make excellent typists, haven’t you seen the Simpsons? :lol:
-
If after war has started and no one has claimed
BorneoSumatra, may the Brits land airplanes there?Yes, but it will not give them control of it. Taking control requires land units.
Interesting. Can they land planes on dutch-“controlled” terits before war has been declared?
No.
Can tanks or mech infantry move one space before loading onto a transport? Seems like in AA50 they could not, but I can’t seem to put my finger on it in this rule book.
I’d say it’s pretty safe to go with no if it’s not in the rulebook.
It is in the rulebook, on page 31, and the answer is no.
Unlike the UK or ANZAC, the US has no “special permission” to take over Dutch territories. It can no more do so than it could invade Borneo if India was held by Japan.
Are you saying that if USA conquers Sumatra from Japan it gets liberated to the Dutch, and nobody controls it? or does USA control it in this case.
USA.
Also, I assume USA can occupy a Dutch terit (controlled by UK or ANZAC) if it is at war?
Yes.
Does anyone have a solid answer for this? is IPC handed over when a capital is captured, and what are the capitals?
The rulebook has an answer, on page 18.
Is Korea adjacent to SZ5?
Yes.
-
@Imperious:
Who was the guy who typed out the rules? Is he still employed? Were the rules typed out on a computer with spell checker?
Why didn’t these questions get answered?
-
@Brain:
@Imperious:
Who was the guy who typed out the rules? Is he still employed? Were the rules typed out on a computer with spell checker?
Why didn’t these questions get answered?
Because they don’t add any value to this topic, and should better be posted in IL’s own “complain to WOTC” topic.
-
If after war has started and no one has claimed
BorneoSumatra, may the Brits land airplanes there?Yes, but it will not give them control of it. Taking control requires land units.
So, after war has started,
the Brits can land airplanes on Dutch territories
if they are Dutch controlled.
Following that,
I suppose the Brits can land airplanes on Dutch territories
on the same turn they get control of them with land troops, right?My question is:
do the same rules apply also to Japan and FIC?
I mean:
may Japan land airplanes on FIC
on the same turn it get control of them with land troops?Questions like these can be answered by applying a simple principle. If the situation isn’t specifically dealt with in the rules, treat the Dutch and French territories in exactly the same way as Allied territories whose capital is held by the enemy.
According to what’s written here,
I suppose the answer to my question is yes… isn’t it? -
@Jake:
I suppose the Brits can land airplanes on Dutch territories
on the same turn they get control of them with land troops, right?Yes, as the territory was controlled by a friendly power at the beginning of its turn.
@Jake:
do the same rules apply also to Japan and FIC?
I mean:
may Japan land airplanes on FIC
on the same turn it get control of them with land troops?No. In Japan’s case, it is invading an Allied territory, so the territory was not controlled by a friendly power at the beginning of its turn.
-
@Jake:
do the same rules apply also to Japan and FIC?
I mean:
may Japan land airplanes on FIC
on the same turn it get control of them with land troops?No. In Japan’s case, it is invading an Allied territory, so the territory was not controlled by a friendly power at the beginning of its turn.
FIC, like Syria, Morocco, Algeria and many more
were part of the Vichy France
(and fought against Allies)
and Vichy France was allied with Axis.
Anyway, if your answer is the rule for the game,
thanks for clarification.
:-) -
When this game (Pacific) opens I guess it is assumed that Paris is still in French control, or at least in the negotiation phase. Vichy at this point has not yet been established. I know that it all happens at about the same time. The fact that Japan can just walk in and take FIC with out a fight reflects the situation at the time I think. As for the other French colonies that will be in the Euro side, you will know exactly when Paris falls. I hope some of those colonies stay free french, but I hope others become pro-axis neutrals. Some of the French colonies might even start off as pro-axis neuts to make the political situation easier. This would reflect the Vichy forces, and the fact that the allies had to fight their way into Vichy tt. It seems like there will be more political rules for AA40E, regarding France/US. There are also pro-axis/pro-ally neutral rules to deal with that we don’t know much about. Pacific only deals with Mongolia that isn’t leaning either way (for game purpose anyway). Attacking these neutrals may have consequences.
-
Is SZ1 adjacent to SZ2?
-
@Jake:
Is SZ1 adjacent to SZ2?
Yes it is indeed. Next question would be; are Manchuria adjacent to seazone 6 ?
-
From the rules : Any sea zone that contains only enemy sub. does not stop the movement of a sea unit. … . There is an exception … A submarine can attack any transport that moves into or through its sea zone unaccompanied by surface warship (note : submarines are NOT surface warship) … Each submarine fire once (att. 2) at the transports … any undestroyed transports can continue their planned movement.
Note : sea unit ending their combat movement in a zone containing only enemy sub may choose to attack or not.
Can a sub fire on lone transport if the 2 powers are not at war? if it can, is it a declaration of war? If so, would this still be true of a USA sub and Jap transport? Although the USA cannot attack until it is at war, it seems in this situation it is more of a defensive “attack” than an offensive one.
If a power makes a combat move against a power with which is not yet at war, a state of war between those powers (and possibly others) will immediately result. All territories and sea zones containing units belonging to the newly hostile power or powers instantly become hostile, and the normal restrictions of moving into or through hostile spaces apply.
I am guessing these “state of war” rules are not only immediate, but retroactive within the current combat move phase. Meaning Japan, not yet at war with USA, cannot combat move from SZ5 to attack US ships in SZ3 if there are US ships in SZ4. It would also mean that lone Japan transports making a combat move through a sz with US subs are still subject to fire from the subs even if subs can only fire upon passing transports with which they are at war (see above question). Am I wrong?
Important exception – During the combat movement phase that results in a state of war, transports already in sea zones that have just become hostile may be loaded in those sea zones (but not in other hostile sea zones). This may occur only during the combat movement phase which results in a state of war. Once that initial combat movement phase is over, normal transport loading restrictions apply.
normally, sea units that find themselves in a hostile SZ at the beginning of their combat move (I think in older games this would only happen when the enemy units were just purchased) are forced to make a combat move out of the SZ or conduct combat, correct?
Does this rule apply also when this situation occurs by new declarations of war?
Does the rule apply to transports, who can be ignored by enemy ships?
also, transports are normally only allowed to load in a combat move if it intends to unload in the same combat move, correct?
so, may the transport which finds itself in a newly hostile sea zone load units in its combat move, to move out of the hostile seazone with unloading the units?
Powers that begin the game neutral, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, are initially not considered part of the Allies nor the Axis.
It seems to me that this should be reworded, at it confuses other rules, such as this one:
@Krieghund:This wartime economy takes effect during the first U.S. turn that follows an unprovoked Japanese attack on any Allied-controlled ship or territory (not including China) or disruption of an Allied convoy, or on the U.S.’s third turn, whichever comes first.
Thanks to Krieg and Co for all your work! you really put in a lot of effort to make this a great game and it pays off for us! Thanks!
-
Can a sub fire on lone transport if the 2 powers are not at war? if it can, is it a declaration of war? If so, would this still be true of a USA sub and Jap transport? Although the USA cannot attack until it is at war, it seems in this situation it is more of a defensive “attack” than an offensive one.
A power other than the US would be able to do this under any circumstances. The US would not be able to do it, however a combat movement by Japan that resulted in a state war with the US would free the US to respond in this manner.
I am guessing these “state of war” rules are not only immediate, but retroactive within the current combat move phase. Meaning Japan, not yet at war with USA, cannot combat move from SZ5 to attack US ships in SZ3 if there are US ships in SZ4. It would also mean that lone Japan transports making a combat move through a sz with US subs are still subject to fire from the subs even if subs can only fire upon passing transports with which they are at war (see above question). Am I wrong?
You’re not wrong.
normally, sea units that find themselves in a hostile SZ at the beginning of their combat move (I think in older games this would only happen when the enemy units were just purchased) are forced to make a combat move out of the SZ or conduct combat, correct?
Yes.
Does this rule apply also when this situation occurs by new declarations of war?
Yes.
Does the rule apply to transports, who can be ignored by enemy ships?
Yes. Warships may ignore transports, but transports may not ignore warships.
also, transports are normally only allowed to load in a combat move if it intends to unload in the same combat move, correct?
Yes.
so, may the transport which finds itself in a newly hostile sea zone load units in its combat move, to move out of the hostile seazone with unloading the units?
I assume you mean with_out_ unloading the units. No.
It seems to me that this should be reworded, at it confuses other rules, such as this one:
Good point. I’ll see what I can do.
Thanks to Krieg and Co for all your work! you really put in a lot of effort to make this a great game and it pays off for us! Thanks!
You’re welcome!
Suggested Topics
