Ah… :-) I saw it on the picture.
But still… There is missing a line then.
www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-pacific-1940-second-edition/
Ah… :-) I saw it on the picture.
But still… There is missing a line then.
www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-pacific-1940-second-edition/
A&A.org is only as accurate as its members - it’s not affiliated with the publisher, and will have typos.
I’ve been informed that the issue has been resolved.
The A&A Pacific 1940 2nd Ed. aircraft movement rules seem to indicate that we should count a sea zone and island group as one space when that is the destination. The previous edition said to count the sea zone and the island group as one space each. The new 1942 2nd Edition rules say the same thing. Is the rule in the 1940 2nd Ed an error? Or is it a new rule? Or have I misinterpreted it? Thanks.
The A&A Pacific 1940 2nd Ed. aircraft movement rules seem to indicate that we should count a sea zone and island group as one space when that is the destination. The previous edition said to count the sea zone and the island group as one space each. The new 1942 2nd Edition rules say the same thing. Is the rule in the 1940 2nd Ed an error? Or is it a new rule? Or have I misinterpreted it? Thanks.
You’ve misinterpretated something. The rule should not have changed. I don’t have the rule language in front of me, but there should have been no revision to the previous rule.
Hey guys. First time posting. Was having a discussion with a friend about Japan’s IC building. Is it true that Japan cannot build a Major IC in Kiangsu (the one with Shanghai) or Manchuria? I saw there was some discussion about this but I just wanted to clarify it.
Thanks for the response
Hi Sasamix and welcome. You are right.
They are Chinese territories, not Japanese, so Japan can only build Minor ICs there.
Korea can be a Major IC, but only for Japan.
Hey guys,
i just bought this board game and played two times, and i must say i enjoy it very much (the other players think its a bit too complex, but anyway).
I have a question regarding
National objectives and bonus income. Acording to the rulebook, USA gets 30 IPCs if Western US is uder USA control. Is this bonus one time only or does Usa gets this every round? If its every round, USA can get more than 45 IPCs for “nothing”…
Can one side collect more than 40 IPC or is number “full” on 40?
Thanks for answers!
Hey guys,
i just bought this board game and played two times, and i must say i enjoy it very much (the other players think its a bit too complex, but anyway).
I have a question regarding
National objectives and bonus income. Acording to the rulebook, USA gets 30 IPCs if Western US is uder USA control. Is this bonus one time only or does Usa gets this every round? If its every round, USA can get more than 45 IPCs for “nothing”…
Can one side collect more than 40 IPC or is number “full” on 40?
Thanks for answers!
National Objective money is every round, assuming the prerequisites are met. I’m not sure what you mean by the second question, but yes any power can make more than 40 if they have the right combination of territories and national objectives.
Hey,
you might not be sure what i mean in second question, but you answer was just what i wanted :-D
Isnt that a little imbalanced…? if Japan attacks USA, USA automaticly gain 45 IPCs, unless Japan doesnt take western US, Alaska/Mexico and Phillies. Thats 62 (national objectives + income from territories) IPCs together… Witht that income Japan should be on its knees in… three rounds? I say again, i have only bought this game, therefore i didnt discovered all of the strategic possibilityes yet, but…
Hey,
you might not be sure what i mean in second question, but you answer was just what i wanted :-D
Isnt that a little imbalanced…? if Japan attacks USA, USA automaticly gain 45 IPCs, unless Japan doesnt take western US, Alaska/Mexico and Phillies. Thats 62 (national objectives + income from territories) IPCs together… Witht that income Japan should be on its knees in… three rounds? I say again, i have only bought this game, therefore i didnt discovered all of the strategic possibilityes yet, but…
Japan starts out with such a large advantage in the Pacific that they can either take India out early or go for Dutch East Indies, or both- as such, Japan will make around 60 IPCs herself, and they start with 20-odd aircraft. An aggressive Japan is tough to beat in the 1940 games.
2b - Also, if Japan obeys all of the rules regarding its restrictions/obligations toward the Allies & the US during peacetime, and then the US elects to declare war against Japan on its 3rd turn, would that not be an unprovoked declaration of war? What would the implications of this be?
3 - ‘Declaring War’ on page 11 is a little unclear. If a power declares war on an opposing power, then is it true that that opposing power does not also have to declare war back on its next turn? This seems obvious but the wording in the rulebook is a little vague to me.
1. Japan must declare war on UK/ANZAC to attack a dutch territory, OR, Japan may declare war on UK/ANZAC if the commonwealth has already declared war on Japan. Not really contradictory but maybe could have used an edit for language - it’s worded that way so that it should be clear that a state of war must exist between them but doesn’t get into the particulars of who attacked whom first.
No. DOW’s are instantly reciprocal. If the UK/ANZ has declared war on Japan, then they are at war with Japan and Japan is at war with them. There is no need for a Japanese declaration back.
2b. Makes no difference. Once the US is in the war, it doesn’t matter who provoked it. There are no implications nor special rules based on provocation & the US. The only nations where provocation has a rule implication are UK/ANZAC and the Dutch territories.
It is not unprovoked! The Japanese are considered to have attacked Pearl Harbor by this time, regardless of the in-game situation. The USA declaration of war on the Japanese on US3 is considered provoked by the dastardly attack on Pearl Harbor. Same thing for the global game.
Hey guys. First time posting. I am a Taiwanese. My English is poor, sorry for the rude, or my poor grammar.
I like this series very much. But I have bought the wrong edition, A&A Pacific 1940. Not the second edition.
Meanwhile, I have bought the Europe 1940 2nd edition. :oops:
I know the rules between first edition & second edition is different.
I can search it on internet.
But the problem is, is the map different between first edition & second edition?
Is the territories IPC same?
I didn’t find it on internet.
Thanks for answers!
Welcome, Yu-Wei!
You should easily be able to play second edition using the 1st edition maps. There were only changes made in the Pacific map. The first was to combine the two territories in Canada into one, which has absolutely no effect on game play. The second was to correct an error. Sea zone 5 should not be adjacent to Korea. The border between sea zones 5 and 6 should meet at the border between Amur and Korea, leaving Amur still touching only sea zone 5 but Korea touching only sea zone 6.
All you need to do is get the 2nd edition Pacific Rulebook and setup. The setup can be found here.
hello to all, just joining up. Should have a while ago, i have been playing this game for some time now.
Any how, my question is this. I’m in the midst of a pacific standalone game second edition rules.
Now, per say my country is about to be invaded via amphibious assault. I have no naval vessels whatsoever to defend, but I do have an fighter, and airbase. My enemy has only transports, with no other vessels present. Can I scramble my fighter to repel this anphibious assault? And if so, the transports just sink, with cargo onboard? And the units aboard the transports, never even make there assault on land?
thanks in advance
also inthis situation, would the attacker have the ability to retreat, without taking the sinking? Would I be better served to have a transport in my defending SZ to at least ensure that an attack has begun, Oh wait a transport would only make it a non hostile SZ, forget that last comment. lol
Evening 420empire.
You would be able to scramble your Ft and get one shot(at 4) against his Transport(s).If his Transport survives, he can then retreat as the attacker can always retreat at the end of a round.
If you hit with your one Ft, his cargo sinks too. What was on board cannot make an assault, as you thought.
But only on one Transport. Not all of them, if more than one participated.
You must hit each attacking Transport to sink them.
It is on defence, that a Transport(s) sinks regardless of the die roll, because eventually the attacker will hit and defending units do not have the option to retreat.
Attacking transports are only be automatically destroyed if they have no retreat route for some reason.
It will be impossible for your opponent to land any units because he has nothing to attack your fighter.
So what should happen is you get 1 roll for your fighter on a 4. If it hits, your opponent selects one transport and any cargo on board to sink, and then he should retreat remaining transports and cargo because he has nothing to gain.
Most players would probably point this out before the combat movement phase is over so that the futile attack is not made. A player making an amphibious assault where an enemy fighter could scramble and render it useless, would not make such a movement unless he did not understand the rules.
Ok, excellent. Thanks for the help, I have a good understanding of this. Actually I want to catch my opponent on a rules technicality. As he did this to me earlier in the match, which actually swung the war his way. I could use a some good luck back my way lol. I think he may fall into this trap.
