AAP40 FAQ

@Krieghund:

@LuckyDay:

Still not clear on this ‘declaration of war’ & ‘unprovoked attack’, even after reading the redone format in the FAQ.  Played it different ways a few times, and just want to grasp the way it is intended so we know what becomes the house rules…

The US cannot declare war on Japan unless they are attacked by Japan or an unprovoked attack by Japan on UK or ANZAC.

The phrase “unprovoked attack” no longer appears in the political rules.  Attacks may not be done without a declaration of war.  The US may not declare war on Japan before the Collect Income phase of its third turn unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against UK/ANZAC.

@LuckyDay:

So, if the UK/ANZAC attack Japan first, can Japan counter without bringing the US into the war?

Yes.

This seems to apply only if the UK declares war first, but considering that if the UK enters China, then Japan declares war on the UK, would an attack on UK troops be unprovoked since they declared war first?

@Krieghund:

@LuckyDay:

However, if Japan attacks the Dutch on J1, then they are at war with the Dutch, UK/anzac and the US immediately and really no declaration of war is needed because of an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan.

Not exactly.  If Japan declares war on UK/ANZAC on J1, war with the US does not immediately result.  It does, however, give the US the ability to declare war on Japan on any subsequent turn.

Interesting.  This is new to me.  Are all declarations of war non-reciprocal?  So if, for example, Japan is the first to declare war in a game, they are still not subject to convoy raids during the turn in which they declared war, correct?

@Stoney229:

@Krieghund:

@LuckyDay:

However, if Japan attacks the Dutch on J1, then they are at war with the Dutch, UK/anzac and the US immediately and really no declaration of war is needed because of an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan.

Not exactly.  If Japan declares war on UK/ANZAC on J1, war with the US does not immediately result.  It does, however, give the US the ability to declare war on Japan on any subsequent turn.

Interesting.  This is new to me.  Are all declarations of war non-reciprocal?  So if, for example, Japan is the first to declare war in a game, they are still not subject to convoy raids during the turn in which they declared war, correct?

The condition for convoy disruption:

Isn’t - At least one warship belonging to a power that has declared war on the power collecting income must be in the sea zone.

It’s - At least one warship belonging to a power with which you are at war must be in the sea zone.

The ships of any power that Japan has declared war on, during a turn, would meet this requirement during the collect income phase of that same turn.

The US not being at war with Japan, after Japan declares on the UK, isn’t a non-reciprocal situation. My understanding is that declarations of war are reciprocal. There is one line in the Errata that gives the impression they aren’t.

The line: “The United States may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC.” - The green part is probably not necessary because later in the Errata there’s the following line:

“If a power is not yet at war with another power, and there are no restrictions currently keeping them from being at war (see The Political Situation on pg. 8 ), it may declare war on that power.”

If Japan has declared war on the US, then the US is NOT “not yet at war”. The US is at war with Japan, because Japan declared war on the US. A declaration by the US is unnecessary.

thanks moompix, but Krieg’s comment which you quoted me quoting indicates that declarations of war are NOT automatically reciprocal… and the parts of the FAQ which you quoted do not contradict that… unless I am missing something.

And thank you for pointing out the specifics of the convoy rules.  My question now is what is an “enemy” power?  I would think that any power with you you are at war OR who is at war with you would be considered an enemy, but if that’s the case then I don’t understand the point of declarations of war being non-reciprocal.  does it make a difference?

Yes, always check the errata for updated versions of the rules you quote. I sometimes forget this.

@Krieghund:

A declaration of war is required by the rules to enter into a state of war with another power, but that’s all it really does.  It’s a state of war between powers that dictates their relations, and a state of war is reciprocal.  If Japan declares war on the US, a state of war exists between those two powers.  The US has not yet declared war, but that’s just a formality.

The quoted answer of mine does not contradict this, as it refers to an unprovoked Japanese declaration of war against UK/ANZAC not resulting in an immediate state of war between Japan and the US.  The US may create a state of war between it and Japan by declaring war on Japan in its next turn.

By the way, the requirement for a convoy raid is actually “At least one warship belonging to a power with which you are at war must be in the sea zone.”  If Japan declares war on another power, it is subject to convoy raids by that power in the same turn.

Great, thank you.  So even if Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war against UK/ANZAC while it is not yet at war the US, then it is not subject to convoy raid by the US at the end of that turn.

I have a question about subs and submerging. Can a sub
make a surprise attack and then submerge or is it locked into that round of combat?

Here’s the situation:

Calcutta has been captured by the Japanese, but the US liberates Hong Kong.  Can the US use the industrial complex while the British have been knocked out of the war?

Here is the current problem that my game is facing.

Dutch territories are allied with UK / ANZAC
Can you reinforce the territory with land units as either power without taking control?
When can you land fighters in those territories?  Same round as switches to UK / ANZAC as the island was already allied with them or do you have to wait for the next turn.

IE  J1 attacked UK and took several territories from me.  I wanted to land in Java (dutch) with 4 inf.  UK1 combat. move all UK fighters to Java same turn.

Thanks, would have called the chimps but I am low on bananas  :-D

So I want to make sure I understand this, because it came up in our game.  Japan attacks Dutch East Indies on J1 and takes control, but does not attack any UK/ANZAC territories or units.  According to FAQ UK/ANZAC consider this an act of war.  Therefore UK/ANZAC are at war with Japan, but who is doing the declaration of war is it Japan since they invaded DEI or is it UK/ANZAC on there turn?  What about America, do they see this as an attack on the allies, thereby allowing them to declare war?

Also if UK player declares war on Japan, does ANZAC player need to as well or is it a mute point since they are politically tied together?

Question about kamikaze.

When does it become available?
Thing is, US moves in with entire fleet and transport and land 1 inf on Iwo, all this happens at the same time, and the kamikaze option becomes available. Can the Jap declare an kamikaze attack on those warships that entered the zone along with the transport that first took Iwo, or do you have to wait til the next time an allied ship enteres a kamikaze zone?

My interpretation is that as everything happens simultaniously the Jap would be allowed to declare a kamikaze strike on that fleet, but after hearing both sides in a F2F game im not sure ;)

Regarding Scrambling Fighters:

(This came up in a recent game)

There is 1 US fighter on Gaum

Japan moved two aircraft to the island to attack the fighter and an aircraft carrier to the surrounding sea zone for the attacking aircraft to land on.  The attacking aircraft have only 1 movement point left on reaching Gaum.

In what order does the US player scramble their fighter?  If they scramble after Japan completes all movement then the carrier must fight one round against the fighter and if it retreats the fighters will be removed as they have no legal landing position.

That is, is it impossible for Japan to make this attack without losing both attacking aircraft automatically if the US scrambles?

Is that correct?