AAP40 FAQ

Can ANZAC (or UK) land fighters on unoccupied Dutch territories during non-combat move?
Does this count as taking possession of territories?

@Van_Trump:

Can ANZAC (or UK) land fighters on unoccupied Dutch territories during non-combat move?
Does this count as taking possession of territories?

_The United Kingdom and ANZAC

… As a result, they are free to move units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan. They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them._

The answers to your questions are
Yes
No

The final wording of the Submarine question from the 8 page long thread is not the wording in the PDF FAQ (doesn’t include the 2nd sentence about shooting at a group of transports)

(bump)
And hey KH, any insight into when we can expect a pdf of the Rules online somewhere?

Be nice to have them on hand for quick reference when reading some of these more detailed posts!

#447

@Krieghund:

It will be added at the next update.

You plan on annual updates ?

I love you guys, we are all part of a game developement in progress.

Topic set as sticky for obvious reasons.

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.

So, if the UK/ANZAC attack Japan first, can Japan counter without bringing the US into the war?  This would not be an ‘unprovoked attack’ by Japan, but would require the declaration of war by Japan on the subsequent turn to UK/ANZAC.  Japan could certainly defend itself in the UK/ANZAC attacks, but if they go offensive their next turn it changes the status of combatants.  It seems that this is indeed what it is meant, however the wording still seems ambiguously vague.

Declarations of war must occur at the beginning of a Combat Move phase before movement (ie, no moving past ANZAC or US ships through one SZ to conduct combat in another SZ surrounding an island on the other side of ships)

So if the US blockcades the SZs around Hawaii then Japan would have to fight in those SZ’s a space away from Hawaii on one turn before next turn moving to the Hawaii SZ?

@LuckyDay:

So if the US blockades the SZs around Hawaii then Japan would have to fight in those SZ’s a space away from Hawaii on one turn before next turn moving to the Hawaii SZ?

@Krieghund:

True, unless the Japanese ships begin the turn in one of those sea zones.

Sorry to ask for a clarification but this situation has come up more than once:

During the non-combat phase, an opposing power moves into a SZ occupied by the ships from a neutral country.  The next turn, the opposing power declares war on the neutral country with the intent to attack it’s mainland during the combat phase.  Do they have to attack the ships in the co-occupied SZ or can they go right to the land battle w/bombardment?

It would appear from your answer above that the attacker would be able to go straight to its objective, thereby avoiding the sea battle.

Thanks, Krieghund, that clears up that issue.

@Krieghund:

@LuckyDay:

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

Yes.

@LuckyDay:

This would not be an ‘unprovoked attack’ by Japan, but would require the declaration of war by Japan on the subsequent turn to UK/ANZAC.  Japan could certainly defend itself in the UK/ANZAC attacks, but if they go offensive their next turn it changes the status of combatants.  It seems that this is indeed what it is meant, however the wording still seems ambiguously vague.

Again, the phrase “unprovoked attack” no longer appears in the political rules, and attacks may not be done without a declaration of war.  It seems to me that declaring war upon someone that has already declared war upon you is not “unprovoked”.  Forgive me, but I’m not seeing any ambiguity.

The ambiguity was indeed worse in the previous incarnation of the FAQ and the official rules, albeit this one is much better, though can still be evidenced in the first question’s answer above.  Partly this is because you have to explain game mechanics through the eyes of how real life works, what with Jap ships sneaking past ships and declaring war with bombs rather than words, alas…

If UK attacks Japan, you are telling me that a state of war occurs between UK/ANZAC and Japan, as well as the Dutch, but not between them and the US.  So if UK attacks Japan on UK1, then Japan can freely attack UK/Anzac or the Dutch without bringing the US into the war until turn 3, unless they also attack the US before that because it was an unprovoked declaration of war by the UK on Japan.

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.

A declaration of war can be made and acted upon some of the powers by others, and in some cases that will create a state of war between them and in some cases not.  I just wanted the clarification on what was intended to be meant so we know where ‘house rules’ would start.

thanks- appreciate the help.

@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?