Yes, ignore that, as this is related to the forum software change that occurred in 2018. Some characters haven’t been converted correctly.
AAG40 FAQ
-
That is what I was thinking, but I wanted to make sure with this new split economy for the UK. I suppose it would be true the other way around as well. Meaning Japan controls the Indian Complex. The UK Europe power could not get the IPCs from the Pacific Map UK territories. It would have to go there and actually take the territories.
The UK economies will never benefit from each others’ original territories. If India is Axis-controlled and one of its territories is recaptured from the Axis, the IPCs will be in limbo, just as with any power whose capital is in enemy hands.
Hey Krieghund; was there ever an answer to my question weeks ago about the appearance of having to go through Eastern US to go form Nova Scotia, Canada to Quebec, Canada by land, due to the St. Laurence touching a very pointy Maine?
I don’t have an official answer yet.
-
The UK economies will never benefit from each others’ original territories. If India is Axis-controlled and one of its territories is recaptured from the Axis, the IPCs will be in limbo, just as with any power whose capital is in enemy hands.
Ahhhhh, so in limbo as far as London is concerned. But the USA or ANZAC could collect income from Borneo (or Burma, Malaya, Kwangtung, etc) if they take it from the Axis after India falls, correct? But if the UK takes Borneo and India is under Axis control, then no money to London. Weird.
-
Which brings up an interesting question. Since UK units all move together, I would think that when India is under Axis control, and the UK [Europe] takes over a territory on the Pacific side of the board, the income would go to London, even if it was infantry that was produced originally out of India.
interesting concept, could UK Europe take over the DEI or French Indochina? Or Japanese territories? Or even ANZAC territories if ANZAC capital was Japan controlled?
-
UK Europe can never control territories on the Pacific board, and UK Pacific can never control territories on the Europe board. Think of it as an administrative issue. The territories are too far away from the opposite regional capitals to be managed and controlled properly.
-
Krieghund, can subs pass through the Bosporus Straight while Turkey is a strict neutral?
-
No.
-
In Global, does the 5 ipc’s Russia gets for being at war, controlling Archangel, Z125(is it actually 127?) being friendly, and no allies in Russia apply when Russia is just at war with japan?
-
Kreighund, some questions and suggestions
1. Is New Brunswick/Nova Scotia adjacent to Quebec??
2. For territories like Egypt and Novgorod that have a Naval Base- that naval base can be used for in either sea zone they touch right??? They each touch two different sea zones.
3. Suggestion- a Larry Endorsed House Rule hopefully- Bring back the “tech token” rules from AA50 to be used in Global Game for tech.
4. Why do you only need to control only Gibraltar for passage into Gibraltar Strait- why not control Both Gibraltar and Morrocco?? Same with Denmark- why not Denmark AND Norway controlled territories to pass through.
Thanks in advance :-)
-
I may be reading the rules incorrectly, but I don’t see any means for The Soviet Union to declare war on Japan.
-
I may be reading the rules incorrectly, but I don’t see any means for The Soviet Union to declare war on Japan.
Look under Japan and Russia on page 33. It says the Jap and Soviet players are supposed to work out the details of any nonagression pact with the Soviet Union. So it appears it is actually up to the players to make the rules on this front. I guess this explains Larry’s cryptic remarks on this subject.
Under the Soviet Union, it only addresses its ability to declare war on European Axis and says nothing about Japan (like you noted). It doesn’t say they can’t declare war on Japan before Japan declares war on the Soviet Union, however.
Remember how it goes in Risk! where you agree with another player you won’t attack them? It looks like it’s kind of like that. Mutual distrust - you never know when the other one’s gonna knife ya.
Krieg - can you confirm whether the USSR can indeed declare war on Japan at any time (including round 1) according to the rulebook? It doesn’t appear to say whether they can or can’t.
-
Look under Japan and Russia on page 33. It says the Jap and Soviet players are supposed to work out the details of any nonagression pact with the Soviet Union. So it appears it is actually up to the players to make the rules on this front.
I kind of assumed the italicized text was flavour text and not actual rules. If we are to treat these sections as actual rules then take a look at the italicized text in the United States section.
It reads “…only with the outrage felt by its people by a sudden and deliberate attack by an Axis power will the United States end its neutrality and go to war.”
Hmmm, so according to the rules if the Axis don’t make any sudden and deliberate attacks after turn 2 the US cannot enter the war. And how exactly do you decide whether an attack was sudden and deliberate?
Even though the rulebook says for the Japanese and Russian players to work out the details of the non-aggression pact it then goes on to provide rules for how and when Japan can attack Russia (as was mentioned there are no such rules provided for the Soviet player). Do the “rules” invented by the players overide the printed rules in the book. Example: Japan and Russia decide that they cannot attack one another for 3 turns. Does this now become a rule and overide the section below that states Japan can attack Russia on any turn?
Also, what happens if the Japanese and Russian players cannot agree to the terms of the non-agression pact? Do they start the game at war?
Under the Soviet Union, it only addresses its ability to declare war on European Axis and says nothing about Japan (like you noted). It doesn’t say they can’t declare war on Japan before Japan declares war on the Soviet Union, however.
Rules for boardgames generally need to be permissive in nature and not restrictive. That is the rulebook tells you what you are allowed to do and not what you are not allowed to do. For example: the rulebook doesn’t say that the UK cannot declare war on the US. You have to assume its illegal because it is not explicitly stated in the rules.
Once again, the rules tell you what you are allowed to do. And no where in the rules does it tell you how or when the Soviet Union may declare war on Japan.
This entire issue is a trainwreck and has a major impact on the flow of the game. I assume most people will game it that the Soviets can declare war on Japan at the beggining of any of their combat move phases (just like Japan can do to Russia).
-
This entire issue is a trainwreck and has a major impact on the flow of the game. I assume most people will game it that the Soviets can declare war on Japan at the beggining of any of their combat move phases (just like Japan can do to Russia).
Dude! Chill out! Just wait for Krieghund to answer your question.
I was only trying to help you. I wasn’t trying to defend the rulebook, or trying to tell you you’re stupid, or anything.
Apparently you don’t have much experience with A&A rulebooks, because if you did, you’d know they always leave a lot to be desired. There are ambiguities and misunderstandings in every A&A rulebook, and you’re just going to have to ask Krieghund and/or wait for the official FAQ/errata to be printed before every detailed question like this can be completely answered to your satisfaction. The ironic thing is, the Europe 1940 rulebook appears to me to be one of the most well written and complete rulebooks of the series to date.
So, take a chill pill and wait for Krieg’s response, which will very likely be here within hours.
-
Question:
if Japan is under attack from sea zone 6 and I don’t have a fleet, can I scramble a single fighter to prevent bombardment?
-
1. Is New Brunswick/Nova Scotia adjacent to Quebec??
The jury’s still out on that.
2. For territories like Egypt and Novgorod that have a Naval Base- that naval base can be used for in either sea zone they touch right??? They each touch two different sea zones.
Correct.
3. Suggestion- a Larry Endorsed House Rule hopefully- Bring back the “tech token” rules from AA50 to be used in Global Game for tech.
Feel free to play it that way.
4. Why do you only need to control only Gibraltar for passage into Gibraltar Strait- why not control Both Gibraltar and Morrocco?? Same with Denmark- why not Denmark AND Norway controlled territories to pass through.
To keep it simple.
Krieg - can you confirm whether the USSR can indeed declare war on Japan at any time (including round 1) according to the rulebook? It doesn’t appear to say whether they can or can’t.
The USSR and Japan can declare war on each other any time they like. Any non-aggression treaty worked out between the players doesn’t carry any force other than their own words of honor and mutual benefit.
if Japan is under attack from sea zone 6 and I don’t have a fleet, can I scramble a single fighter to prevent bombardment?
Yes.
-
Regarding the New Brunswick - Quebec question -
It appears quite clear on my board that they do not border each other. Do they border IRL or something? Why is there a question?
-
If you look at a map, Maine does not boarder the St. Lawrence. It’s northern boundary is made up of Quebec to the north west and New Brunswick to the north east.
The most northernly major port at this time was in Portsmouth New Hamphire and it is clearly now where near the St. Lawrence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Quebec_(English).png
I will be using the actual situation of New Brunswick and Quebec touching each other and Maine not touching the St. Lawrence.
-
Eastern United States does not border sea zone 106. That much is certain.
-
Eastern United States does not border sea zone 106. That much is certain.
then logically, Nova and Quebec border each other
-
then logically, Nova and Quebec border each other
That doesn’t necessarily follow. The four spaces appear to meet at a point, which indicates that Eastern United States doesn’t border sea zone 106 and Quebec doesn’t border New Brunswick/Nova Scotia. The question is whether the St. Lawrence Seaway is meant to be an extension of sea zone 106, dividing the latter two territories, or just a passable border between them.
-
Well, I guess we will wait for you to tell uswhat the actual situation is Krieg. This seems like a silly thing to debate. The only advantage of this “smudge” would be that the U.S.A. could launch into SZ 106. You have cleared that up. In all the other edtions of Axis & Allies east and West Canadian territories are contigious. Why change that now?
I would hope that the intent, where possible, is to use comon sense and simplicity. In my opinion they do touch.
Suggested Topics
