Isn’t the rule as clarified a bit against the spirit of the A&A rules? If it is as I have proposed it still isn’t against the rules, it just enforces some additional (house) rules.
BTW, Triple-A requires targets to be declared before rocket targets are if there are no potential interceptors.
It would be great if Triple A followed the actual official rules as closely as possible please
It would be great if Triple A followed the actual official rules as closely as possible please
A bit difficult to have rocket attacks and SBR in any desired order which appears to be rule.
In fact, the formerly noted “bug” about 2nd rockets being able to be targetted after the 1st rocket is rolled appears to be not a bug unless there is some previous answer making it a bug.
I suppose the order as expounded by P@nther is possible. Maybe have an option?
Can this point be clarified?
In fact, the formerly noted “bug” about 2nd rockets being able to be targetted after the 1st rocket is rolled appears to be not a bug unless there is some previous answer making it a bug.
You will need Krieghund’s answer on that because the rockets rule doesn’t specify.
I would guess that you have to declare all rocket targets before rolling any dice for any rockets, but you are right that there is room for interpretation if you just read the brief rules for rockets under “breakthrough chart 1”
Hi everyone, a question about dutch territories and ANZAC. I know there’s a sticky but maybe I’m dense but it wasn’t clear to me.
Question 1 - ANZAC can land on dutch territories and then claim their IPCs, but for their first landing on one of these territories does it need to be a land unit or is a plane sufficient? I assume a plane is ok because the dutch territories are “friendly”.
Question 2 - if Japan is not at war with anyone yet (but China of course) can they invade Dutch territories that are not yet claimed by ANZAC? or is this an unprovoked declaration of war on ANZAC-UK?
Sub-question 2 - I’m 99% sure that if ANZAC has landed on a Dutch territory but is not yet at war with Japan and ANZAC leaves the dutch territory unprotected and Japan lands on the now “ANZAC” territory this is an unprovoked declaration of war. Am I correct?
Evening and welcome
Yo the forum.
1. Has to be a non AA Ground unit to claim the territory amd claim its IPCs.
2. No, it cannot. Is a Declaration of War.
3. Yes.
Thanks wittmann that is real helpful. This FAQ thread is really great.
One other question for anyone and I think that would be it for today.
Russia and pro-allies neutral countries when Russia is not at war.
If Germany and Japan are delaying the attack against Russia, my understanding is that Russia may not go into a pro-ally neutral country (and of course this would apply to any other nation not at war yet). This is how I read the rule book, am I correct?
I ask because during the last game I played I wanted to stage some Russians in northwest Persia to help the UK in Persia when they (the Russians) finally are pulled into the war. After I read the rules closely I read “They can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power that is at war.”
Seems clear enough but I always like confirmation.
Think of it this way. Russia can’t move ground units anywhere that isn’t an originally controlled Russian territory until they are at war.
Right, you’re right, Russia can’t go into a pro-Allied neutral (NW Persia) until at war with Euro-Axis
Thanks guys!
New to the forum because my gaming buddy and I have a question:
If I attack a seazone and eliminate all hostile units in the seazone, can i move naval vessels that have not moved in combat through that sea zone in non-combat? My theory is that the sea zone in non-combat is now friendly and see units can move freely through…
Thanks in advance!
AW
Yes you can AtW.
To tie that answer into the preceding thread - you can make a non combat move through or into that sea zone as it is no longer hostile.
Thanks!
If another player asks me how much money I have in the bank do I have to tell that player?
@master4709:
If another player asks me how much money I have in the bank do I have to tell that player?
Yes, IPC’s on hand is supposed to be totally open
You have no obligation to give him your routing and account numbers, however :wink:
Noticed that triple-A only allows an opportunity to not kill an undefended transport if the attacker is a sub. Perhaps that behaviour is correct according to the rules? It only allows a submerge, not a retreat so could be kosher.
Has this point ever been clarified? Seems like a hard reading of the rules would show that the current behaviour is correct albeit a little counter intuitive.
Pretty sure if you make a combat move with a sub into a sea zone with an undefended enemy transport, that transport would be sunk according to the rules.
If you don’t want to attack and sink the transport, you move the sub in the noncombat movement phase
Never trust Triple A to follow the rulebook exactly. It wasn’t designed that way. That’s why they give you the big notice - players are expected to know the rulebook
I’m thinking like a programmer. There are a few other cases, mostly with the sub starting in that same SZ. Perhaps the TT moved there on that power’s NCM either suiciding or planning for an ally to sink the TT.
I guess under the defenseless transport rule, you shouldn’t get an option to submerge.
Be nice if we could get rid of as many unnecessary prompts as possible.
Ok, I’m satisfied that the defenseless transport applies even if the attacker is a sub and could normally submerge.
The reason for this post is a First Edition of 1940 question. I’ve noticed that in the XML for SBR fighters attack on a 1 but defend on a 2. Is that a mistake? I can’t find a copy of the rule book.
BTW, still looking for Kreighund’s answer for this question:
@simon33:
In fact, the formerly noted “bug” about 2nd rockets being able to be targetted after the 1st rocket is rolled appears to be not a bug unless there is some previous answer making it a bug.
