AAG40 FAQ

[Kingpinda]

Hi guys, awsome thread! Been reading this the last couple days and finally finished last night. Glad to see the russia rule resolved where it may only reinforce ‘allies’, annex neutrals etc in the theater it has an ongoing war in.

I’ve been playing since i was 18 maybe some 15 odd years ago but don’t have to many games and or sessions under my belt. Just the AA1942 and the odd game of the unofficial 1939 ‘expansion’. For some reason I have a hard time adjusting between the 1939 revised rules and the aa1940 rules. For example I really feel that the rule stating that russia may NEVER share a tt with an ‘ally’ was sweet. Furthermore it never liberated a tt it just annexes. Glad though that russia’s involvement has been crippled somewhat. Makes alot more sense. And maybe when we fire this game up with the lads a house rule will be implemented that Russia or any other country may only share tt when they are in war with the same opponent. When another opponent attacks a enemy controlled tt with enemies and undecided, the undecided may not defend. hmm what happens when the tt gets conquered though i’m not too sure… maybe thats the catch :p

But those things set aside heres the ‘big’ question:
We are planning a global session in a week or so. What do you guys recommend we use since it will be our first global session. We havent even played pacific or europe. Should we play OOB or should we use the alpha or alpha +1 setup and rulings? I was thinking to start off OOB with the errata spread around here but balance wise i’m not too sure.

thanks in advance,

Kingpinda

[Krieghund]

Welcome, Kingpinda!

If you don’t mind a little chaos, I definitely recommend the latest Alpha rules.  They make for an exciting game.  However, if your group doesn’t like things changing too much, go with the box rules.  Either should be fine for your first game.

Let us know how it goes.

[Kingpinda]

Hehe a friend of mine and I bought this together. We have both read this topic. So the rest of the lads… Well they don’t know what we won’t tell 'em :P I’ll just say when i hand them the official rule book plus all printed errata and modified setups: The game was broken from the start and if we don’t play it like this we will kill each other off before the moon is out :p

They will sympathize because they have all experienced what unrevised rulings in former games can do to a mans state of mind :)

Thanks! :) and will let you guys know!

[captainjack]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, I haven’t read through this entire 58 page topic…
regarding Industrial Complexes:
if I place a minor IC in a territory valued at “2”, can I place only 2 troops, or 3 troops there?
Thanks.

[Detuite]

Quick Question. Its illegal for a fighter to travel 4 spaces to conduct combat on an enemy tt because it still needs 1 space to land in a freindly tt right Thank you

[captainjack]

@Detuite:

Quick Question. Its illegal for a fighter to travel 4 spaces to conduct combat on an enemy tt because it still needs 1 space to land in a freindly tt right Thank you

correct.

[gamerman01]

@Detuite:

Quick Question. Its illegal for a fighter to travel 4 spaces to conduct combat on an enemy tt because it still needs 1 space to land in a freindly tt right Thank you

It’s legal if a carrier can pick it up in that zone.

[Krieghund]

@captainjack:

if I place a minor IC in a territory valued at “2”, can I place only 2 troops, or 3 troops there?

Minor ICs can always mobilize up to three units, regardless of the IPC value of the territory.

[Kingpinda]

Hi there,

Me and a friend are juggling some rulings from errata here and alpha +1 together and translating it to dutch for some friends whom we are going to play with in a week.

But I thought I read something about conquering tt with a major complex on it, that it will revert to a minor complex if you capture it if that tt isn’t yours originally. But I can’t remember where i read it or that is was correct. A mate and I were debating if this was supposed to be like this. For instance russia will be screwed if germany keeps attacking and taking over his major factory thus reverting it to a minor one and when russia retakes it it will have to upgrade it again and again.

The ruling we have so far is this:

2. Major industrial complexes can no longer be built on foreign territories (this includes upgrading minor ones). When a major industrial complex is captured on a foreign territory it automatically reverts to a small industrial complex. The original owner of the territory may upgrade it if the territory is recaptured.

Is this correct or should that second sentence be removed?

I cant for the life of me remember where i read that…

[calvinhobbesliker]

That rule about captured majors becoming minors is correct.

The rule of not building ICs on foreign soil is only in the Alpha rules; not OOB rules.

[Kingpinda]

Thanks for the swift reply. Yeah we plan to jump in and use all the freaking rulings :p To make it less chaotic for the rest of the group we are gathering all errata from this thread and alpha plus 1 rules into one document. With the alpha plus 1 overruling any OOB and errata rulings offcourse.

so we will end up with 1 errata on top of the europe rule book. Its a pest to translate in dutch because if you are not carefull different interpretations sneak in. Bah :p But nearly done.

[jsp4563]

I’m still digesting all the changes, are tanks still 6IPC, I thought I saw something saying it was reduced to 5?

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Emperor:

I’m still digesting all the changes, are tanks still 6IPC, I thought I saw something saying it was reduced to 5?

They’re still 6.

[Entek]

@Emperor:

I’m still digesting all the changes, are tanks still 6IPC, I thought I saw something saying it was reduced to 5?

I think what you’re remembering was the AA guns being reduced to 5 IPC’s.

[jsp4563]

@Entek:

@Emperor:

I’m still digesting all the changes, are tanks still 6IPC, I thought I saw something saying it was reduced to 5?

I think what you’re remembering was the AA guns being reduced to 5 IPC’s.

Thanks!  It was AA guns.

[gamerman01]

Can’t remember for sure - can you blitz through an empty enemy territory and then claim a friendly neutral all in one move?  (Italian tank from Egypt to TrJ to Iraq)  Or do I have to take TrJ in combat move with a different unit, then move mech or tank from Egypt to Iraq in noncom?

[calvinhobbesliker]

Since activation of friendly neutrals is in noncombat, you cannot blitz into one

[Kingpinda]

Hi i don’t have the rulebook with me and can’t remember the ruling for the following situation:

If a defending carrier is taken out. Say for instance by a submarine squad and there is no friendly destroyer present. Will the remaing airplanes, which couldnt participate in the battle but are still up in the air, be able to land on a island located in that very sea? Which will technically be a move of 1.

I can remember defending planes having an additional move of one when their point of origin is being captured. But this is offcourse clarified in the scrambling rules so it would possibly not apply here.

Please if you could elaborate :)

[calvinhobbesliker]

Yes, they can land on an island in that same sea zone.

[gamerman01]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yes, they can land on an island in that same sea zone.

Yes, they have a movement of 1, so they could land on an island in that zone, a coastal territory in that zone, or a carrier in an adjacent zone.  (The latter caused grief between Omega and myself - he didn’t know I could do that and would have attacked a lone transport instead had he known that -  :evil: I proceeded to take over America……  :-D)

One more thing - the carrier doesn’t have to be “taken out”.  If it takes a single hit from the sub before sinking the sub, the planes can’t land back on that carrier…

IIRC the planes are not stuck on the carrier because they’re defending in the air.  But that means they could be lost (worse than being stuck on a carrier) if they have no other landing place…