AAG40 FAQ

@13thguardsriflediv:

Imagine 4 seazones, A-B-C-D (from left to right).

Seazone A has a sub + carrier + fighter of power X.
Seazone C has 20 battleships of power Y.
Seazone D has 10 loaded transports of power Y.

Now X uses the fighter to ‘attack’ the transports in D and says the fighter will land in seazone C with its last movement point. X also attacks the stack of battleships with the sub.

Is this legal? And must X move the carrier to seazone C in the noncombat phase? After all, a fighter must have a theoretical legal landing spot and the carrier may not be moved elsewhere, right?

@Krieghund:

Yes, it’s legal, because the fighter has a possible landing space.  Remember, the rules say that in order to determine a possible landing space, you may assume that all of your rolls will be hits and all of your opponent’s rolls will be misses.

If by some miracle the sub defeats the battleships, the carrier must move to pick up the fighter.  In the more likely event that the sub loses, the carrier may not move to the sea zone, as the move would be illegal (the sea zone would remain hostile), so the fighter will have no place to land and will be lost.

And now I can use that carrier for a different purpose, right? Such as moving it somewhere else altogether.

Of course.

I’ve got a question on allied-aircraft-carrier interaction.

Let’s say I have two German fighters landed on a Italian carrier vessel. In Italy’s turn the carrier moves two spaces, let’s say from SZ98 to SZ94.

Do the German fighters have their full range from SZ94 or are they limited to their last station in Germany’s turn being SZ98?

It would seem strange to me that a german plane could travel two spaces more in the same year, just because it is landed on a ITA carrier… :?

Thanks!

@soldaatvanoranje:

I’ve got a question on allied-aircraft-carrier interaction.

Let’s say I have two German fighters landed on a Italian carrier vessel. In Italy’s turn the carrier moves two spaces, let’s say from SZ98 to SZ94.

Do the German fighters have their full range from SZ94 or are they limited to their last station in Germany’s turn being SZ98?

It would seem strange to me that a german plane could travel two spaces more in the same year, just because it is landed on a ITA carrier… :?

Thanks!

They have the full range. In this particular case G lands its fighters and Italy moves the carrier on the same round. When G moves the fighters from the carrier on SZ94 it is already a different round (or a ‘year’ if you prefer).

Question on Japan/USA at war/not at war conditions.

The Japan at peace with USA NO reads:
“When Japan is NOT at War with the United States
1. Collect 10 IPCs each turn that Japan is not at war with the United States and has not attacked French Indo-China and has not made an unprovoked declaration of war against United Kingdom/ANZAC. Theme: Strategic resource trade with the United States.”

If UK/ANZ declare war on Japan on turn 1 and Axis does not declare war on USA in response (ie USA would not be able to declare war on Axis until end of turn 3) if Japan attacks FIC does this:
a. Act as a DOC on USA?
b. If not a DOC on USA void the above at peace with USA NO; ie Japan would lose this NO?

Thanks!

@Jmite:

If UK/ANZ declare war on Japan on turn 1 and Axis does not declare war on USA in response (ie USA would not be able to declare war on Axis until end of turn 3) if Japan attacks FIC does this:
a. Act as a DOC on USA?
b. If not a DOC on USA void the above at peace with USA NO; ie Japan would lose this NO?

A)  Declaring war on France (technically required before combat moving into FIC) has no bearing on US diplomacy.  If UK/Anzac attack Japan first, the US will only be brought into war if the Axis declares war on her or during the collect income phase of US3.  So no.

B)  If you attack FIC, you lose the NO.  you can declare war on France and not attack FIC and still collect the NO.  There are 3 standards to be met and if one is violated, the NO is lost:

Japan has not declared war on UK/Anzac first.
Japan has not attacked FIC.
Japan has not declared war on the US / US has not declared war on Japan.

If all of those are true (and they are independent - one does not necessarily cause another), Japan still collects the NO.

When Germany declares war on Russia, they can choose to ignore the Battleship and move transports through it as if it did not exist, on that round only.

Does the same rule apply to Japan moving past allied ships?

Example:

Japan is at peace with everyone except China.
England has a Battleship in SZ 19 and a Destroyer in SZ 18
May Japan attack Hong Kong (SZ 20) without having to clear the Battleship or Destroyer located in SZ 18 or 19 (depending which route Japan decides to go) with transports located in SZ 6?  Just as Germany could by-pass the Russian Battleship in SZ 114 to attack Novgorod with Transports in SZ 113 on the very first round war is declared?

@Cmdr:

When Germany declares war on Russia, they can choose to ignore the Battleship and move transports through it as if it did not exist, on that round only.

Not exactly.  Germany may load transports in the same sea zone as Soviet ships, if the transports begin their turn there.  In all other respects, sea zones containing Soviet surface warships are hostile.

@Cmdr:

Does the same rule apply to Japan moving past allied ships?

Yes.

@Cmdr:

Example:

Japan is at peace with everyone except China.
England has a Battleship in SZ 19 and a Destroyer in SZ 18
May Japan attack Hong Kong (SZ 20) without having to clear the Battleship or Destroyer located in SZ 18 or 19 (depending which route Japan decides to go) with transports located in SZ 6?  Just as Germany could by-pass the Russian Battleship in SZ 114 to attack Novgorod with Transports in SZ 113 on the very first round war is declared?

No.  Neither of these may be done.  If the UK ships were in sea zone 6, Japan could load transports and move out.  If the German transports were in sea zone 114, Germany could load transports and move out.

Hello – a clarification question:

If there is a lone sub in a sea zone can another sub attack the lone sub; ie sub on sub combat?

Thanks!

@Jmite:

Hello – a clarification question:

If there is a lone sub in a sea zone can another sub attack the lone sub; ie sub on sub combat?

Thanks!

Yes, it can, BUT before any round of combat, if there is no opposing destroyer, each sub can choose to submerge.  So it’s unlikely that a lone sub will choose to get shot at.  Multiple subs, on the other hand…  power in numbers and all that.  But still, they’ll usually submerge and avoid the fight until they have the advantage (attack, rather than defense).

So, you need a destroyer to truly guarantee a chance at killing a lone sub.

Followup sub question on the submerging:

The rules state:
Submersible: A submarine has the option of submerging. It can do this anytime it would otherwise roll the die to fire.

For a defending sub it would roll the dice after the attacker has rolled the dice, so would that not mean if the attacker missed the first round the defending sub could escape unharmed by submerging, but if the attacking sub successfully hit on the first round the defending sub would be destroyed?

Thanks!

That wording was changed to “anytime it would otherwise fire” in the Europe Rulebook, as it was misleading.  Per the rules, “Decisions on whether attacking and defending submarines will fire or submerge must be made before any dice are rolled.”

@Krieghund:

That wording was changed to “anytime it would otherwise fire” in the Europe Rulebook, as it was misleading.  Per the rules, “Decisions on whether attacking and defending submarines will fire or submerge must be made before any dice are rolled.”

Page 5 of the FAQ PDF, for those looking for the change.

If the sea zone in question is SZ 125, if the German submarine decides to submerge before the Russian submarine can attack it, Russia would still lose the National Objective, correct?  Since there is literally an enemy warship in SZ 125.

Can the UK London purchase a IC for West India?

@Bismark:

Can the UK London purchase a IC for West India?

Per OOB rules, West India is under the London Economy and British Columbia is under the Calcutta Economy.  Per OOB rules, London can purchase an IC in West India.

Per Alpha rules, West India is under the Calcutta Econ and British Columbia is under the London Econ.  Per Alpha rules, London cannot.

So, depends which version you’re playing.

If India is under Japanese control and Kwangtung is under Japanese control and they have a Minor IC in Kwangtung, what happens when Kwangtung is liberated by the Chinese. Do the IPCs go to the Chinese? Does the Factory stay and cannot be used or is it destroyed? Alpha +2 rules apply. What else applies that i am missing.

The IPCs and IC go to China, but the IC may not be used by China.

Excellent thank you.

@Hobbes:

@soldaatvanoranje:

I’ve got a question on allied-aircraft-carrier interaction.

Let’s say I have two German fighters landed on a Italian carrier vessel. In Italy’s turn the carrier moves two spaces, let’s say from SZ98 to SZ94.

Do the German fighters have their full range from SZ94 or are they limited to their last station in Germany’s turn being SZ98?

It would seem strange to me that a german plane could travel two spaces more in the same year, just because it is landed on a ITA carrier… :?

Thanks!

They have the full range. In this particular case G lands its fighters and Italy moves the carrier on the same round. When G moves the fighters from the carrier on SZ94 it is already a different round (or a ‘year’ if you prefer).

Thanks for the clarification. We’ve agreed on this rule the same, though I’m not really satisfied with the outcome.

Imho it still seems odd that Germany can extend their fighters’ range for landing by two in the same round, just because they’ve landed on a foreign carier. This wouldn’t be possible when Germany lands their planes after combat on their own carriers, they wouldn’t be allowed to move these carriers in the non-combat phase…

This way a German fighter can launch from greece, fight in egypt and can be available in SZ94 the next turn. This just seems wrong to me and a defect in the rules…

I always assumed the events in a round held the fiction that all the fighting and movement in the round happened simultaniously, displaying one year of events of war. The turn-based play would just the way to make the game work…