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
-
this FAQ is 132 pages long, and we also have a 25 page long rules question thread.
Krief, can you take all the best questions, put them with their answers in a single post of a new thread, then we delete this thread?
132+25 is a lot of pages to read, and just results in people ignoring the 130 pages in the middle and asking their duplicate question anyway
-
It would be awesome if Krieg has the time and willingness to do that, yes.
In the meantime, duplicate questions are not a problem. If you need the answer to something, I don’t expect that you would make sure it has never been asked first. Just ask it again. That’s just kind of how we’ve been rolling since G40 came out…
-
this FAQ is 132 pages long, and we also have a 25 page long rules question thread.
Krief, can you take all the best questions, put them with their answers in a single post of a new thread, then we delete this thread?
132+25 is a lot of pages to read, and just results in people ignoring the 130 pages in the middle and asking their duplicate question anyway
It’s been asked before. I once attempted to get a FAQ thread with just questions compiled by the respondants (ie just list all the questions they could think of) but I did not receive a lot of replies. (I got 1 reply, if I remember right.)
If I can get a list of FAQs (as in JUST the questions) I’ll go through the thread and peel out second responses and thirds and fourths, etc.
-
We’ve decided to make a slight adjustment to the Mongolia rules. Mongolian territories will never become pro-Axis unless the USSR attacks one or more of them while they’re still neutral.
Well this is good to see, the saintly neutrals getting a look. I am glad logic worked its way in here, but lets go one step further. Mongolia is no longer a ‘true neutral’ and is involved more wth the 2 countries on its borders than all those worthless neutral territories in Africa and SAmerica. Mongolia should only be concerned with Russia and Japan, making it easy to write rules about.
NEUTRAL blocks PLEASE! Why not! I dont understand why they wouldn’t be in blocks, as they are now why even have them on the board?
-
When ships are able to disrupt convoys, must they? Or is it the choice of the player who owns the ships, to refuse to disrupt convoys if they wish?
-
@Young:
When ships are able to disrupt convoys, must they? Or is it the choice of the player who owns the ships, to refuse to disrupt convoys if they wish?
I’m not up on the Alpha3 changes, but up until then if ships were in position to disrupt convoys, there was no choice. That is, yes, if ships are able to disrupt convoys, they “must”. But I haven’t even read the Alpha3 changes yet. If it’s just a change in methodology (people are talking about dice rolling!?), and if there is no statement saying that actually raiding convoys is an option of the attacking player, then I wouldn’t think the answer to your question would have changed.
-
@Young:
When ships are able to disrupt convoys, must they? Or is it the choice of the player who owns the ships, to refuse to disrupt convoys if they wish?
I’m not up on the Alpha3 changes, but up until then if ships were in position to disrupt convoys, there was no choice. That is, yes, if ships are able to disrupt convoys, they “must”. But I haven’t even read the Alpha3 changes yet. If it’s just a change in methodology (people are talking about dice rolling!?), and if there is no statement saying that actually raiding convoys is an option of the attacking player, then I wouldn’t think the answer to your question would have changed.
I always assumed it was the players discretion. I wouldn’t want to find myself declaring war on a nation simply because my ships are in his convoy space. I don’t see anything in the OOB that suggests they’re obligated to make those attacks. I don’t see anything that says they’re optional either though.
-
@Young:
When ships are able to disrupt convoys, must they? Or is it the choice of the player who owns the ships, to refuse to disrupt convoys if they wish?
I’m not up on the Alpha3 changes, but up until then if ships were in position to disrupt convoys, there was no choice. That is, yes, if ships are able to disrupt convoys, they “must”. But I haven’t even read the Alpha3 changes yet. If it’s just a change in methodology (people are talking about dice rolling!?), and if there is no statement saying that actually raiding convoys is an option of the attacking player, then I wouldn’t think the answer to your question would have changed.
I always assumed it was the players discretion. I wouldn’t want to find myself declaring war on a nation simply because my ships are in his convoy space. I don’t see anything in the OOB that suggests they’re obligated to make those attacks. I don’t see anything that says they’re optional either though.
You can only disrupt a convoy if you’re already at war with the enemy power. And you can only declare war on your turn, so unless they declared war on you during that turn or unless you started at war with that power there would be no way to disrupt their convoy.
So, there’s no condition where you could find yourself declaring war on a nation simply because your ships were in his convoy space.
Once at war, there’s no way that you would not disrupt convoys if you’re in their convoy box, but, once at war, there’s no reason you wouldn’t.
-
if you were right on their door and ready to take their capital youd want them to have as much money as possible. just like a player might not want to SB moscow if they are going to take it next round.
-
if you were right on their door and ready to take their capital youd want them to have as much money as possible. just like a player might not want to SB moscow if they are going to take it next round.
Good point, but yeah, it’s not optional. The rules say all players are supposed to be checking for convoy disruption during the collect income phase. So it might be the player who’s about to lose a capital that catches it, but disrupting convoys is not optional, AFAIK
-
if you were right on their door and ready to take their capital youd want them to have as much money as possible. just like a player might not want to SB moscow if they are going to take it next round.
Good point, but yeah, it’s not optional. The rules say all players are supposed to be checking for convoy disruption during the collect income phase. So it might be the player who’s about to lose a capital that catches it, but disrupting convoys is not optional, AFAIK
Yes, it does say in the rules, that all players are obligated to look for, and point out convoy disruption possibilities on the board, but I don’t understand how that translates into mandatory disruptions when in a convoy sea zone.
-
@Young:
Yes, it does say in the rules, that all players are obligated to look for, and point out convoy disruption possibilities on the board, but I don’t understand how that translates into mandatory disruptions when in a convoy sea zone.
I didn’t mean to imply that that rule translated into mandatory disruptions. Pretty sure Krieghund has already answered this question, that convoy disruptions are not optional. Wait for him to repeat it if you want to.
-
@Young:
Yes, it does say in the rules, that all players are obligated to look for, and point out convoy disruption possibilities on the board, but I don’t understand how that translates into mandatory disruptions when in a convoy sea zone.
I didn’t mean to imply that that rule translated into mandatory disruptions. Pretty sure Krieghund has already answered this question, that convoy disruptions are not optional. Wait for him to repeat it if you want to.
No need, your rulings are good with us.
-
I have a simple question… I’m playing with the Alpha 2 rules, and in both that ruleset and the original rulebook I noticed that kamikaze attacks never actualy specify having to use an actual fighter plane. Are the kamikaze attacks simply used with the kamikaze tokens and no other units? Do you not have to sacrifice a fighter plane to actually perform a kamikaze attack?
-
I have a simple question… I’m playing with the Alpha 2 rules, and in both that ruleset and the original rulebook I noticed that kamikaze attacks never actualy specify having to use an actual fighter plane. Are the kamikaze attacks simply used with the kamikaze tokens and no other units? Do you not have to sacrifice a fighter plane to actually perform a kamikaze attack?
Nope. They are “free” attacks on allied destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers and battleships. Once you use them, they’re gone and you cannot get anymore.
-
I have a simple question… I’m playing with the Alpha 2 rules, and in both that ruleset and the original rulebook I noticed that kamikaze attacks never actualy specify having to use an actual fighter plane. Are the kamikaze attacks simply used with the kamikaze tokens and no other units? Do you not have to sacrifice a fighter plane to actually perform a kamikaze attack?
I put 6 French Tac Bombers in my Japan tray and use them as my Kamakaze tokens, and remember, you don’t have to use all of them in one battle.
-
You have 6 French tac bombers?? I thought there were only like 1-3…
-
You have 6 French tac bombers?? I thought there were only like 1-3…
Depends on how many sets you buy, or if you plunder units from older games. :evil:
I still say it’s cool using the jets from Fortress America for America’s Heavy Bombers technology.
-
You have 6 French tac bombers?? I thought there were only like 1-3…
Sorry, forgot I have 2 sets mixed together. Get a second set and use 6 French tac bombers.
-
Can European UK buy a Naval Base and place it in West India which in on the European map but gives it’s IPC value to Pacific UK?
Suggested Topics
