AAG40 FAQ

question on UK  NO  for alpha +2 ruleset

“2. Collect 5 IPCs per turn if the United Kingdom controls all of its original territories in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.”

does the uk have to still control Malta & Crete in order to get the $5?

Yes.

lets try this one Krieg……

Calcutta has fallen.  Does London collect IPC’s for any territory on the Pacific map?

or

1. can London purchase an IC for W.India?
2. how about liberated territory?  Does London collect income from liberated territory?  If yes, I assume they could place an IC in that event.

2a)So if W.India was lost and then liberated, London could fianally place an IC there.

When the UK rolls for War Bonds does it get to roll twice?  Once for London and once for Calcutta?
If only once then does it have to choose where the money is going before or after rolling?

It rolls only once.  The IPCs may be divided between the two economies each turn in whichever way the United Kingdom player likes, including all of them to one economy and none of them to the other.

I’m sure you have answered this question many times but I still need to know. Can I place 9 new units on a minor IC the same turn I upgrade it or do I have to wait till my next turn?, and does an IC upgrade count as 1 unit produced by the IC I am upgrading?  Thanks for answering the same questions endlessly.

ok, if India falls can usa and anzac collect ipc’s for recaptured UK tt’s on the pacific map (like hong kong, malaya, etc)?

Thanks.

Since the Chinese fighter is technically American, is it affected by American technology?

Also if the UK gets war bonds as a technology, who gets the money received?

@kdfsjljklgjfg:

Since the Chinese fighter is technically American, is it affected by American technology?

The Chinese fighter is not American - it’s just an American piece.  It does not benefit from American R&D.

@kdfsjljklgjfg:

Also if the UK gets war bonds as a technology, who gets the money received?

The IPCs may be divided between the two economies each turn in whichever way the United Kingdom player likes, including all of them to one economy and none of them to the other.

Location A belongs to German forces, and has an airbase on it. British ships are in a sea zone neighboring Location A. American ships amphibiously assault Location A and Germany scrambles in response to this. Do British ships fight against the German planes as well or only the Americans

Also, if the airbase is strategically bombed, can the fighters still scramble?

I have a question about the American NO’s.  I know it states “when at war” but (this did happen in our game last Saturday) the US is at war with Ger, and Italy, but Not Japan.  the 5 IPC bonus for the Phillippines and 5 IPC bonus for controll of Hawaii, Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Line Islands, and Johnston Island do not seem to apply to the US when at war only in the Atlantic as these are located completely in the Pacific.  Was this intentional,or was it an oversight?

Thanks for the quick response, and yes I did miss that one.  The guy playing the US in our game was a newbie so he didn’t even think to ask about it either.  I was happy that he didn’t attack Japan though as I was Japan.  It does still bring up a possibility that for some reason the US would not want to attack Japan, but I think that would be too rare to worry about.

Alright so this is what just happened in one of our games, and we’re PRETTY sure we got it right, but here’s what happened.

Japan attacked the Hawaiian Islands sea zone with 3 carriers loaded with 4 fighters and 2 tactical bombers, a destroyer, and a cruiser. He had intent of launching an amphibious assault.

America defended with 3 scrambled tactical bombers, 2 destroyers, and 7 subs.

America ended up taking out the Japanese destroyer and cruiser (among other things, but those exact casaulties aren’t relevanT) and America took the tacs and destroyers as casaulties.

So the situation we had was, the Japanese fighters couldn’t attack the American subs due to the lack of a destroyer.

All that remained in the sea zone was Japanese aircraft, carriers, and transports and American subs.

My dad, playing as Japan, argued that since subs cannot launch sneak attacks at transports anymore, he could launch the amphibious assault.

My position as well as my friend’s, playing as America, was that the Japanese couldn’t kill the remaining American units, but couldn’t simply ignore them and launch their assault because the American units could still fire back, and the only Japanese option was to retreat.

We ended up going with the latter.

What is the official ruling on this situation?