AAG40 FAQ

[kcdzim]

@Cmdr:

In my opinion, since the transports are legal enemy targets, you can retreat from them.  Thought justifying this statement: You are allowed to automatically remove any unhit transports left when you attack them, but legally, you still have to roll the dice and score hits against them, just as you would when attacking any other ship.  The only real difference is that transports cannot defend themselves, so throwing dice is an excersice in futility and transports must can only be chosen as casualties after all other valid units are already destroyed.

Per the side bar - It would seem that once the transports are defenseless per my example, they are immediately removed.  This implies that you CANNOT retreat from transports, so they do lock you to that seazone.

HOWEVER, the wording is “you don’t have to continue rolling dice until all the transports receive hits.  This will speed up combats.”

The wording suggests “you don’t HAVE to” but you MAY, in which case, I guess my question is still unanswered.  If you’re a pencil whipping pain to play against, who likes to know about rule loopholes…  Can you choose to roll, can you choose to snipe, and can you choose to retreat after being a little @#$%!

[kcdzim]

Using a slightly different unit configuration…

A thought experiment:
Britain attacks w/ a cruiser, 3 subs, and 1 fighter and 3 empty transports or a carrier.
Germany defends with a carrier, 2 planes and 5 transports.

Britain scores hits 3 sub hits and 1 other hit.  Germany immediately removes the CV, a tt, and a selects a plane to take the non sub hit (only legal target).

Germany rolls 2 defense hits from its planes.  The UK loses the cruiser and a plane.

At the end of the first round of combat:
UK has 3 subs remaining and 3 transports remaining.
Germany has a plane and 4 transports.  Germany has a DD in range to counterattack that seazone on their turn.

At this point, the UK COULD choose to stay or retreat, and the transports are NOT immediately removed, because the attacker retains the option to retreat and the german plane could AT MOST hit one transport each round of combat.

So the UK could snipe with the subs, wittling the transport stack down, using the UK transports as fodder (transport fodder, woooo!) to stay in the fight, and THEN choose to retreat.

So if it’s the case that you can snipe in this manner (using transports to take the only legal hits, or a carrier), then it seems as though the rules SHOULD allow transport sniping and retreating.

I do realize this won’t come up often, and I do realize this might suggest an underhanded style of play, but it does seem intuitive that you can choose to attack a stack and retreat whether it’s one transport or 10, and it seems as though if you want to instead roll on the transports, gambling them lower so you can retreat…  well, why would that not be allowed?  That’s how other combats work, is it not?  It seems like the kill-all-transport rule was created so that if you wanted to kill them ALL, you could do so without rolling, but I’ve never seen a response that suggested how a tactical retreat works with them, when you just want to kill as many as possible and beat a hasty retreat to a home port.

Also, I apologise if I just broke the game ;)

[Krieghund]

You can’t retreat when there’s nothing to retreat from.  As soon as the only valid targets are transports that cannot retreat, combat is over and the transports are removed.

[ghr2]

If a transport carried 2 ally units, can those unit off load on different territories both adjacent to the sea zone the transport is in on their nations’ turns? (like if france and uk both had an infantry on an american tranny and america moves them to sz 112, can the uk infantry go to norway on his turn, and the french one go to denmark on his)

[gamerman01]

@ghr2:

If a transport carried 2 ally units, can those unit off load on different territories both adjacent to the sea zone the transport is in on their nations’ turns? (like if france and uk both had an infantry on an american tranny and america moves them to sz 112, can the uk infantry go to norway on his turn, and the french one go to denmark on his)

Yes, because they’re on different turns.  There is no rule prohibiting the French to unload to a different territory on their turn.

[kcdzim]

@Krieghund:

You can’t retreat when there’s nothing to retreat from.  As soon as the only valid targets are transports that cannot retreat, combat is over and the transports are removed.

Great, that definatively addresses the first scenario (subs against transports and planes).  How about the other two scenarios?
We know that attacking transports are allowed to retreat (if able).  We also know that carriers are allowed to retreat (if able).  So when the attacker only has subs and transports, and the defender only has planes and transports, combat must proceed as normal, correct?  Both players are rolling against transports on both sides until either attacker retreats transports from planes or attacker no longer has transports and then defending player immediately removes their transports?

Based on how spare hits end up being allotted to transports in standard combat, it seems as though this kind of battle would be resolved this way, and there are still valid targets on both sides: subs can only hit transports, but the attacking transports CAN retreat, so combat is not over until the attacker retreats.

The carrier condition:

Subs and carriers vs planes and transports.

Surely, combat proceeds as normal, subs rolling against transports while planes rolling against carriers?  If the carrier was replaced by a battleship, it’s obvious that that is how the battle would progress, all subs hitting the transports with the BB and planes duking it out until attacker retreated or defender lost the planes.

That must mean that if the carrier is replaced by transports (example 1), attacker and defender are both rolling on transports and it’s a race in hits to see if the attacker can retreat from the planes before losing all transports?  There are valid targets for both, and the attacker is retreating from something - planes hitting transports (or carriers).

[Krieghund]

In both scenarios, there are valid targets other than defenseless transports.  In the first, combat would continue until the attacker either ran out of transports or retreated.  In the second, combat would continue until the attacker either ran out of carriers or retreated.  In either scenario, if the attacker ran out of surface ships before retreating, combat would end and any remaining defending transports would be removed.

[JimmyHat]

Are you kidding me?  72 pages on this thread!?  I’m sure someone has asked this question before, but I’m not drowning in that just to find out the answer.  Could someone please inform me as to what the Alpha+2 rules are?  Also where do they come from, are they being put out by WotC or by one of the online gaming groups?  Thank you!

***don’t want to double post, Thanks a bunch Gamerman!!!

[gamerman01]

@JimmyHat:

Are you kidding me?  72 pages on this thread!?  I’m sure someone has asked this question before, but I’m not drowning in that just to find out the answer.  Could someone please inform me as to what the Alpha+2 rules are?  Also where do they come from, are they being put out by WotC or by one of the online gaming groups?  Thank you!

Unfortunately, I don’t think the search within this thread option is working on the site, or a lot of people could search and find the answers to their questions without posting.

Yes, the Alpha2 rules are always kept current at Harris’ website - all the action on the development of 1940 is there.
www.harrisgamedesign.com - go to forums, then global, and you will see Alpha2 toward the top.  Complete setup and rules are right there on the first post.

[Krieghund]

The Alpha rules are being developed by Larry and me, with some help from the community.  Once they are completed, they will be adopted as official alternative rules by WotC.

[cond1024]

@gamerman01:

@ghr2:

If a transport carried 2 ally units, can those unit off load on different territories both adjacent to the sea zone the transport is in on their nations’ turns? (like if france and uk both had an infantry on an american tranny and america moves them to sz 112, can the uk infantry go to norway on his turn, and the french one go to denmark on his)

Yes, because they’re on different turns.  There is no rule prohibiting the French to unload to a different territory on their turn.

That is how I see it too gamer, but another player didn’t see it that way, because the rule states that units from one transport must unload into the same territory.  Just so there can be no further confusion I want an official ruling from Krieg.

Thanks

[gamerman01]

@cond1024:

@gamerman01:

@ghr2:

If a transport carried 2 ally units, can those unit off load on different territories both adjacent to the sea zone the transport is in on their nations’ turns? (like if france and uk both had an infantry on an american tranny and america moves them to sz 112, can the uk infantry go to norway on his turn, and the french one go to denmark on his)

Yes, because they’re on different turns.  There is no rule prohibiting the French to unload to a different territory on their turn.

That is how I see it too gamer, but another player didn’t see it that way, because the rule states that units from one transport must unload into the same territory.  Just so there can be no further confusion I want an official ruling from Krieg.

Thanks

Sure, I understand.  I’d put $100 on it, but I do understand - I didn’t write the rulebook.  yw

[Krieghund]

Gamerman01 is correct.  The rules state that “A transport can’t offload in two territories during a single turn” (italics are mine).

[cond1024]

@Krieghund:

Gamerman01 is correct.  The rules state that “A transport can’t offload in two territories during a single turn” (italics are mine).

Thanks Krieg!!!

[Napoleon]

I try to find it but cant. Can japan build major ic on china territories? The rules says (in Alpha 2)  Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled territories. But these territories are Chinese but originally controlled by Japan. Someone?

[Krieghund]

No.  Original control of territories is determined by the roundels printed on them.

[Sime]

I have a question relating to the convoy zones.

If german subs are in seazone 98 (adjacent one French territory worth 1 IPC and two UK territories worth 1 IPC and 2 IPCs), he can use one sub to blockade Egypt (2IPCs), but does he need two more subs to blockade Syria (1IPC) and Trans Jordan (1IPC), or can a single sub blockade both 1IPC territories?

I’m assuming a single sub can’t blockade two separate territories (similar to transports not being able to drop infantry off in two separate territories) but just want to be sure.

[gamerman01]

@Sime:

I have a question relating to the convoy zones.

If german subs are in seazone 98 (adjacent one French territory worth 1 IPC and two UK territories worth 1 IPC and 2 IPCs), he can use one sub to blockade Egypt (2IPCs), but does he need two more subs to blockade Syria (1IPC) and Trans Jordan (1IPC), or can a single sub blockade both 1IPC territories?

I’m assuming a single sub can’t blockade two separate territories (similar to transports not being able to drop infantry off in two separate territories) but just want to be sure.

Actually, the warships disrupt maximum amount each power’s turn.  So yes, if 2 or 3 different powers control territories bordering the convoy zone, they are all disrupted to the maximum by the same warship(s).  The conduct convoy disruption is a part of Phase 6:Collect income and is done each power’s turn. See page 22 in the Europe manual.

[Sime]

Thanks for the clarification, Gamerman

[gamerman01]

@Sime:

Thanks for the clarification, Gamerman

I had the same question, learning this 1940 game.

Anytime.