@skierbrian2
Every information given in the old 2014 FAQ sheet is said to be included into the current version of the rulebooks, available here:
https://renegadegamestudios.com/axis-allies-resources
AAP40 FAQ
-
No, it isn’t. The change didn’t make it in on time. It will be added at the next update.
-
(bump)
And hey KH, any insight into when we can expect a pdf of the Rules online somewhere?Be nice to have them on hand for quick reference when reading some of these more detailed posts!
#447
-
I wish I knew.
-
It will be added at the next update.
You plan on annual updates ?
I love you guys, we are all part of a game developement in progress.
-
It’s hardly unusual for new questions to arise as people gain more experience with the game. The only FAQ that hasn’t been updated so far is AA42, and it’s not very old.
-
Topic set as sticky for obvious reasons.
-
Still not clear on this ‘declaration of war’ & ‘unprovoked attack’, even after reading the redone format in the FAQ. Played it different ways a few times, and just want to grasp the way it is intended so we know what becomes the house rules…
The US cannot declare war on Japan unless they are attacked by Japan or an unprovoked attack by Japan on UK or ANZAC.
So, if the UK/ANZAC attack Japan first, can Japan counter without bringing the US into the war? This would not be an ‘unprovoked attack’ by Japan, but would require the declaration of war by Japan on the subsequent turn to UK/ANZAC. Japan could certainly defend itself in the UK/ANZAC attacks, but if they go offensive their next turn it changes the status of combatants. It seems that this is indeed what it is meant, however the wording still seems ambiguously vague.
Declarations of war must occur at the beginning of a Combat Move phase before movement (ie, no moving past ANZAC or US ships through one SZ to conduct combat in another SZ surrounding an island on the other side of ships)
So if the US blockcades the SZs around Hawaii then Japan would have to fight in those SZ’s a space away from Hawaii on one turn before next turn moving to the Hawaii SZ?
-
Still not clear on this ‘declaration of war’ & ‘unprovoked attack’, even after reading the redone format in the FAQ. Played it different ways a few times, and just want to grasp the way it is intended so we know what becomes the house rules…
The US cannot declare war on Japan unless they are attacked by Japan or an unprovoked attack by Japan on UK or ANZAC.
The phrase “unprovoked attack” no longer appears in the political rules. Attacks may not be done without a declaration of war. The US may not declare war on Japan before the Collect Income phase of its third turn unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against UK/ANZAC.
So, if the UK/ANZAC attack Japan first, can Japan counter without bringing the US into the war?
Yes.
This would not be an ‘unprovoked attack’ by Japan, but would require the declaration of war by Japan on the subsequent turn to UK/ANZAC. Japan could certainly defend itself in the UK/ANZAC attacks, but if they go offensive their next turn it changes the status of combatants. It seems that this is indeed what it is meant, however the wording still seems ambiguously vague.
Again, the phrase “unprovoked attack” no longer appears in the political rules, and attacks may not be done without a declaration of war. It seems to me that declaring war upon someone that has already declared war upon you is not “unprovoked”. Forgive me, but I’m not seeing any ambiguity.
Declarations of war must occur at the beginning of a Combat Move phase before movement (ie, no moving past ANZAC or US ships through one SZ to conduct combat in another SZ surrounding an island on the other side of ships)
Correct.
So if the US blockcades the SZs around Hawaii then Japan would have to fight in those SZ’s a space away from Hawaii on one turn before next turn moving to the Hawaii SZ?
True, unless the Japanese ships begin the turn in one of those sea zones.
-
So if the US blockades the SZs around Hawaii then Japan would have to fight in those SZ’s a space away from Hawaii on one turn before next turn moving to the Hawaii SZ?
True, unless the Japanese ships begin the turn in one of those sea zones.
Sorry to ask for a clarification but this situation has come up more than once:
During the non-combat phase, an opposing power moves into a SZ occupied by the ships from a neutral country. The next turn, the opposing power declares war on the neutral country with the intent to attack it’s mainland during the combat phase. Do they have to attack the ships in the co-occupied SZ or can they go right to the land battle w/bombardment?
It would appear from your answer above that the attacker would be able to go straight to its objective, thereby avoiding the sea battle.
-
After declaring war, the ships would follow the normal rules for ships starting in a hostile sea zone, with the exception that transports may be loaded in the starting sea zone. The situation I was referring to was if the US had blocking ships in sea zone 25 and Japan noncombat moved into that sea zone. The Japanese ships would be in sea zone 25 with US ships when Japan declared war on its next turn. The Japanese ships would then be able to move into sea zone 26 and attack Hawaii without fighting the US ships in sea zone 25, thus avoiding the block. Any US ships in sea zone 26 would still have to be fought. If the Japanese ships were in sea zone 26 when war was declared, they would still have to fight any US ships there before landing troops in Hawaii.
-
Thanks, Krieghund, that clears up that issue.
-
So, if the UK/ANZAC attack Japan first, can Japan counter without bringing the US into the war?
Yes.
This would not be an ‘unprovoked attack’ by Japan, but would require the declaration of war by Japan on the subsequent turn to UK/ANZAC. Japan could certainly defend itself in the UK/ANZAC attacks, but if they go offensive their next turn it changes the status of combatants. It seems that this is indeed what it is meant, however the wording still seems ambiguously vague.
Again, the phrase “unprovoked attack” no longer appears in the political rules, and attacks may not be done without a declaration of war. It seems to me that declaring war upon someone that has already declared war upon you is not “unprovoked”. Forgive me, but I’m not seeing any ambiguity.
The ambiguity was indeed worse in the previous incarnation of the FAQ and the official rules, albeit this one is much better, though can still be evidenced in the first question’s answer above. Partly this is because you have to explain game mechanics through the eyes of how real life works, what with Jap ships sneaking past ships and declaring war with bombs rather than words, alas…
If UK attacks Japan, you are telling me that a state of war occurs between UK/ANZAC and Japan, as well as the Dutch, but not between them and the US. So if UK attacks Japan on UK1, then Japan can freely attack UK/Anzac or the Dutch without bringing the US into the war until turn 3, unless they also attack the US before that because it was an unprovoked declaration of war by the UK on Japan.
However, if Japan attacks the Dutch on J1, then they are at war with the Dutch, UK/anzac and the US immediately and really no declaration of war is needed because of an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan.
A declaration of war can be made and acted upon some of the powers by others, and in some cases that will create a state of war between them and in some cases not. I just wanted the clarification on what was intended to be meant so we know where ‘house rules’ would start.
thanks- appreciate the help.
-
However, if Japan attacks the Dutch on J1, then they are at war with the Dutch, UK/anzac and the US immediately and really no declaration of war is needed because of an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan.
Not exactly. If Japan declares war on UK/ANZAC on J1, war with the US does not immediately result. It does, however, give the US the ability to declare war on Japan on any subsequent turn.
-
Still not clear on this ‘declaration of war’ & ‘unprovoked attack’, even after reading the redone format in the FAQ. Played it different ways a few times, and just want to grasp the way it is intended so we know what becomes the house rules…
The US cannot declare war on Japan unless they are attacked by Japan or an unprovoked attack by Japan on UK or ANZAC.
The phrase “unprovoked attack” no longer appears in the political rules. Attacks may not be done without a declaration of war. The US may not declare war on Japan before the Collect Income phase of its third turn unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against UK/ANZAC.
So, if the UK/ANZAC attack Japan first, can Japan counter without bringing the US into the war?
Yes.
This seems to apply only if the UK declares war first, but considering that if the UK enters China, then Japan declares war on the UK, would an attack on UK troops be unprovoked since they declared war first?
-
No, it would not. Allied powers may not move units into China without first declaring war on Japan.
-
However, if Japan attacks the Dutch on J1, then they are at war with the Dutch, UK/anzac and the US immediately and really no declaration of war is needed because of an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan.
Not exactly. If Japan declares war on UK/ANZAC on J1, war with the US does not immediately result. It does, however, give the US the ability to declare war on Japan on any subsequent turn.
Interesting. This is new to me. Are all declarations of war non-reciprocal? So if, for example, Japan is the first to declare war in a game, they are still not subject to convoy raids during the turn in which they declared war, correct?
-
However, if Japan attacks the Dutch on J1, then they are at war with the Dutch, UK/anzac and the US immediately and really no declaration of war is needed because of an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan.
Not exactly. If Japan declares war on UK/ANZAC on J1, war with the US does not immediately result. It does, however, give the US the ability to declare war on Japan on any subsequent turn.
Interesting. This is new to me. Are all declarations of war non-reciprocal? So if, for example, Japan is the first to declare war in a game, they are still not subject to convoy raids during the turn in which they declared war, correct?
The condition for convoy disruption:
Isn’t - At least one warship belonging to a power that has declared war on the power collecting income must be in the sea zone.
It’s - At least one warship belonging to a power with which you are at war must be in the sea zone.
The ships of any power that Japan has declared war on, during a turn, would meet this requirement during the collect income phase of that same turn.
The US not being at war with Japan, after Japan declares on the UK, isn’t a non-reciprocal situation. My understanding is that declarations of war are reciprocal. There is one line in the Errata that gives the impression they aren’t.
The line: “The United States may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC.” - The green part is probably not necessary because later in the Errata there’s the following line:
“If a power is not yet at war with another power, and there are no restrictions currently keeping them from being at war (see The Political Situation on pg. 8 ), it may declare war on that power.”
If Japan has declared war on the US, then the US is NOT “not yet at war”. The US is at war with Japan, because Japan declared war on the US. A declaration by the US is unnecessary.
-
thanks moompix, but Krieg’s comment which you quoted me quoting indicates that declarations of war are NOT automatically reciprocal… and the parts of the FAQ which you quoted do not contradict that… unless I am missing something.
And thank you for pointing out the specifics of the convoy rules. My question now is what is an “enemy” power? I would think that any power with you you are at war OR who is at war with you would be considered an enemy, but if that’s the case then I don’t understand the point of declarations of war being non-reciprocal. does it make a difference?
-
A declaration of war is required by the rules to enter into a state of war with another power, but that’s all it really does. It’s a state of war between powers that dictates their relations, and a state of war is reciprocal. If Japan declares war on the US, a state of war exists between those two powers. The US has not yet declared war, but that’s just a formality.
The quoted answer of mine does not contradict this, as it refers to an unprovoked Japanese declaration of war against UK/ANZAC not resulting in an immediate state of war between Japan and the US. The US may create a state of war between it and Japan by declaring war on Japan in its next turn.
By the way, the requirement for a convoy raid is actually “At least one warship belonging to a power with which you are at war must be in the sea zone.” If Japan declares war on another power, it is subject to convoy raids by that power in the same turn.
-
Yes, always check the errata for updated versions of the rules you quote. I sometimes forget this.
Suggested Topics
