AAP40 FAQ

As I understand the rules, Japan attacking UK/ANZAC before they move into China or declare war first gives the US the ability to declare war, and until then, the US can land onto Japanese spaces and move through Japanese waters without engaging Japanese forces. My friend landed men on Okinawa and Iwo Jima as the US before I attacked anyone as Japan, other than China. The next turn I attacked the UK, and my friend argued that then the US was entered into the war, and since it was my turn, I would enter combat on Okinawa and Iwo Jima as the attacker, and he would get the defense rolls. I argued that since I owned the land, he would be considered the attacker, and combat would begin on his turn, thus making him the attacker. We ended up doing it as me attacking, and I lost Iwo Jima.

How should that scenario have actually played out?

I’m not sure if this has been asked already but let’s say the US attacks a japanese kamikaze island and a carrier gets hit twice and sinks and I needed that carrier to land planes that were participating in the attack. What happens to the planes? are they destroyed, not participate in the attack or attack as normal and crash afterwards if they have no place to land.

@The:

I’m not sure if this has been asked already but let’s say the US attacks a japanese kamikaze island and a carrier gets hit twice and sinks and I needed that carrier to land planes that were participating in the attack. What happens to the planes? are they destroyed, not participate in the attack or attack as normal and crash afterwards if they have no place to land.

Since airplane move in combat move phase and kamikaze attack in combat phase, the fighters would attack as normal and then crash.

Can’t the carrier move in that zone in its non-combat phase and thus avoiding the kamikaze attacks?

@special:

Can’t the carrier move in that zone in its non-combat phase and thus avoiding the kamikaze attacks?

Yes, but that means the Japanese just get to target the planes or other ships directly instead of the carrier.

If the allies capture Japan, but Japan still controls 6 victory cities, who wins?

@calvinhobbesliker:

If the allies capture Japan, but Japan still controls 6 victory cities, who wins?

excellent question, i had never thought of this scenario before.

it depends on when japan captures the 6 victory cities. there are 2 scenarios. 1 japan wins and 2 allies win.

the answer can be found on page 6 of the rulebook under “how the war is won” section.

japan wins by “controlling any 6 of these 8 victory cities at the end of a complete round of play”
allies “win the game by controlling the territory of Japan and holding it until the end of the Japanese player’s turn following the capture of territory.”

scenario 1.
at the end of japanese power’s turn they control 7 victory cities.
during the allies’ turns they control the territory of japan but do not capture or liberate any other victory cities.
at the end of the complete round the japanese power controls 6 victory cities and wins the game.

scenario 2.
at the end of japanese power’s turn they control less than 6 victory cities.
during the allies’ turns they control the territory of japan.
during japanese power’s turn they win combat in 6 victory cities but not the territory of japan. allies win the game.

in both scenarios japan controls 6 victory cities but not the territory of japan. it is interesting to see you can have different winners in this situation. an easy way to remember which side is the winner is whichever side completes it’s objective first wins.

“Let’s call it a draw.”

“But I captured your capital!  Your arms are lying on the ground!”

“It’s merely a flesh wound!”

i’d say if the allies control the Japanese island, then the game MUST continue until either:

1. the Japanese liberate their island, while controlling 6 vcs, therefor winning
2. or the Western Allies get 3 victory cities and therefore winning
3. the Japanese liberate their island, while losing two other vcs, bringing their total vc’s down to 5 or less…. meaning that the game then just continues as normal

under no circumstance would i let a rulebook that didn’t think of all possible scenarios dictate that a player can win while their capital is occupied just because it says so…

@Veqryn:

under no circumstance would i let a rulebook that didn’t think of all possible scenarios dictate that a player can win while their capital is under seige just because it says so….

My thoughts exactly.
You mean capital actually occupied, not “under siege”, right?

@Veqryn:

i’d say if the allies control the Japanese island, then the game MUST continue until either:

1. the Japanese liberate their island, while controlling 6 vcs, therefor winning
2. or the Western Allies get 3 victory cities and therefore winning
3. the Japanese liberate their island, while losing two other vcs, bringing their total vc’s down to 5 or less…. meaning that the game then just continues as normal

that is an interesting house rule.

@Veqryn:

under no circumstance would i let a rulebook that didn’t think of all possible scenarios dictate that a player can win while their capital is occupied just because it says so….

i think this is contradictory to your statement number 2.

consider the following scenario.
allies control tokyo, shanghai, manilla, honolulou, and hong kong. japan controls san fransico, sydney, and calcutta.
you said this would be a win for allies, however the allies capitals are occupied.

i would prefer to play by a house rule that says japan wins by controlling 6 victory cities at the end of a complete round and one of the victory cities mustt be tokyo. allies win by controlling tokyo and at least one of their capitals after the power of japan has had one turn to try to recapture tokyo.

when triplea gets a pac40 variant i would hope all triplea games are played by these house rules.

Hi Krieghund,

I have another question regarding subs.

If there is an amphibious landing involving one transport surported by planes (no surface warship) on an island but an ennemy sub and 1 destroyer is on the adjacent seazone, I understand there must have a sea battle first to get rid of the destroyer.  If the planes kill the destroyer but can’t hit the sub (no friendly destroyer around), can then the transport unload and continue the amphibious assault despite the surviving ennemy sub or does the sub prevent the landing and transports must retreat?

Cheers,

Serk

Hi there 'Hund.

I’ve got two questions, both regarding the finer points of American neutrality/isolationism:

1. Once the US is at war with Japan, can the Americans take over Dutch territories, or is that right always reserved for the UK/ANZAC player(s)?

2. Can the US invade non-player neutrals (like Mongolia, if it were reachable) before turn 3?

_If the answer to #2 is ‘no’, then:

2b) Can the US enter ‘pro-Allied’ neutrals (or will this be considered an ‘invasion’ as well, and therefore impermissible)?

Cheers in advance for your time,

M_I_R_