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
-
G. Yes.
H. No, and yes.
-
Question Re: Scramble
When an enemy conducts amphibious assault into your province that neighbors another of your provinces with an airbase you can scramble against the invasion fleet.
Can the attacker dedicate air units or other sea units like aircraft carriers and destroyers to the sea zone of the amphibious invasion to ward off the scramble even though their movement would not result in a combat situation? I think the movement rules are explicitly clear on this:
“However, units can’t end their movement in friendly spaces during combat… except units that will be participating in an amphibious assault…â€
Air units, destroyers, and aircraft carriers not in the amphibious assault would violate that rule I think.
Ruling?
I ask because I got on the wrong side of this as Germany trying to invade Leningrad by sea and all I have were transports, a destroyer and a carrier. The russian player said he’d just scrambe and that my cv’s, dd and any air units could not be moved into the sea zoen in anticipation of a scramble.
-
You can move whatever you want into a sea zone in anticipation of a scramble, in the combat movement phase.
You don’t know for sure that there will be combat, but because the possibility exists you can in fact move in any carriers, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, fighters, tac bombers or strategic bombers that you want, to attack against any scrambled fighters.
-
I see what you are saying, but it still goes against the explicit letter of the rules. Â
The moving player’s units must be in a combat situtation, and moving in anticipation of a scramble is not listed as an exception to that dictum. Â I would tend to agree with you but for the fact exceptions were listed and this one was not stated.
Has there been a clarifcation by Krieghund on this?
Â
-
Yes he has confirmed this before on this thread.
That is why I answered with confidence.
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22054.0
Here’s one such example where someone else asked a similar question. You will find Krieghund’s reply there.
-
This situation is addressed in the Official Rules Clarifications.
-
Got it!
Sorry I doubted you Gamerman01! :-D
-
-
Alpha 2 rules question.
Scenario: Japan has a sub in z6 (sea of Japan), USA wants to amphibious assault Korea. USA sends 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport to z6 no air units are available to scramble. Under a2, we need a warship or the sub prevents the Amphibious assault. If I read it correctly:
“11. Submarines no longer fire a special �sneak attack� shot at unescorted transports. Transports are not allowed to unload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing an enemy sub(s) belonging to a power with which they are at war unless at least one of his warships was also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”
The warship must be there at the end of the combat move phase.
Kamikaze attacks occur at the beginning of the Combat Phase.
I believe it was mentioned that Kamikaze does not trigger a combat, but it does prevent bombardment. So the Sub will not be activated by a naval battle
Does this mean that if Japan uses a Kamikaze to destroy the CA, that the amphibious assault goes off without a hitch even if the transport is now alone and an enemy sub is present? -
Yes.
-
Is it true that you can load units to a transport and unload them as a amphibious assault in the same turn?
-
Can you send an aircraft carrier into combat to take hits?
We’ve always played the game that aircraft carriers can’t move during combat movement phase because they have no attack value. But now that we’ve reread the rules, it doesn’t state anywhere that they can’t attack (or take hits).
-
Yes to previous 2
-
Alpha 2 rules question.
I believe it was mentioned that Kamikaze does not trigger a combat, but it does prevent bombardment. So the Sub will not be activated by a naval battle
Does this mean that if Japan uses a Kamikaze to destroy the CA, that the amphibious assault goes off without a hitch even if the transport is now alone and an enemy sub is present?Sorry, my english fails me… Krieghund answered “Yes”.
But, is it yes the amphibious assault occurs or yes the Japan’s sub, now alone with Transport, cancel the offload? -
Alpha 2 rules question.
I believe it was mentioned that Kamikaze does not trigger a combat, but it does prevent bombardment. So the Sub will not be activated by a naval battle
Does this mean that if Japan uses a Kamikaze to destroy the CA, that the amphibious assault goes off without a hitch even if the transport is now alone and an enemy sub is present?Sorry, my english fails me… Krieghund answered “Yes”.
But, is it yes the amphibious assault occurs or yes the Japan’s sub, now alone with Transport, cancel the offload?He means yes, the transport can conduct the amphibious assault.
-
Question 1
It is Turn 5.
Russia and Japan have not declared war against each other.Are other allied pieces allowed to move into russian territories of both the Europe and Pacific maps?
Example:
America landing planes in Russia in Pacific theatre?
Question 2
It is Turn 13
Russia and Japan have not declared war against each other.Are other axis pieces allowed to move into Russian territories in the Pacific theatre?
If someone knowledgeable could give a ruling and site the source, that would be swell. Thanks!
-
I’ve posted this in our game as well, but here’s a quote from Larry’s site -
Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see Powers Not at War with One Another above) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the USSR on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.
Here’s a link-
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149
The section is titled “Political Situation - Soviet Union”
This applies to Alpha 2 and Alpha 3.
-
I’ve posted this in our game as well, but here’s a quote from Larry’s site -
Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see Powers Not at War with One Another above) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the USSR on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.
Here’s a link-
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149
The section is titled “Political Situation - Soviet Union”
This applies to Alpha 2 and Alpha 3.
However, Russia is not Neutral. It is in fact an allied power across the 2 boards, it has a non-aggression pact with Japan - I would not refer to this as “neutral.” For example, China at war with Japan may land a plane in Burma while India is neutral yet Britain is at war on the Atlantic side if I recall.
Also, the United States may drop men off in Karelia, walk them until the hit the Pacific Board? Then all of a sudden stop, saying…well, we reached the pacific theatre…we can’t kill those German units on the other side?
Or for example Russia lands planes on the carrier in Z80 on the European board then moves to India’s waters to help defend their waters against Japan? So the planes would not defend?
Or for example I strafe 6 japanese troops with american bombers from Russia, I actually can’t because the territories on the pacific map are considered Neutral?
This rule needs revamping if indeed Russia is considered Neutral by the allies on the Pacific Board.
-
Yes, in those extreme and unlikely examples it seems strange.
But in the much more likely scenario that US is allowed to attack Japan’s home territories without fear of repercussion, the rule makes a lot of sense.
The rule prevents a lot more abuse than anything else.Actually it’s also historical -
US bombers that had to emergency land in siberian territory were actually confiscated by the Russians. They were neutral in the conflict between Japan and US, and so couldn’t just give back the equipment.
Suggested Topics
