AAG40 FAQ

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…

yeah, I guess you’re right.

Didn’t work for very well for me last game though, long discussion, and I lost (the discussion, not the game).  :roll: Arguments above were convincing enough.

cheers

If you think that’s cheap just don’t tell the Allied player they can do the same.  Pretty devastating for Japan when US clears the blocker, UK moves his carrier 3 spaces closer, ANZAC flies off the carrier to kill a trns that was considered safe by the Japanese….

I have a question involving Japan.  When they are not at war with the USA can they move ships through sea zones with American Ships and end their turn in the same sea zone as US ships?  Also can Japan move off the coast of USA terriority when not at war with the US?

our group has a request for rule clarification, if Japan attacks UK units during J2, can the US attack immediately or do they need to declare war at the end of their turn first?

The only reason for the declaration of war by the USA at the end of round 3 is so that they can position themselves defensively for blocks and such for Japan’s next turn, which they wouldn’t be able to do if they had to wait to declare war at the start of their turn as normal like the USSR has to.

@SAS:

The only reason for the declaration of war by the USA at the end of round 3 is so that they can position themselves defensively for blocks and such for Japan’s next turn, which they wouldn’t be able to do if they had to wait to declare war at the start of their turn as normal like the USSR has to.

That, and they don’t receive their cashy money national objectives without being at war.

@kcdzim:

@SAS:

The only reason for the declaration of war by the USA at the end of round 3 is so that they can position themselves defensively for blocks and such for Japan’s next turn, which they wouldn’t be able to do if they had to wait to declare war at the start of their turn as normal like the USSR has to.

That, and they don’t receive their cashy money national objectives without being at war.

They can do that without being at war.  They just cannot have their warships adjacent to Japanese territories.

If the USA is not at war with Japan, they do not receive their NOs (all of which work only if the USA is at war with at least 1 axis power), they cannot move adjacent to Japanese territories, and the Japanese Navy can ignore the US Navy because they are treated as neutral.  Therefore allowing the USA to declare war at the end of their turn 3 lets them get their NOs for use on turn 4 and so they can block the Japanese Navy because they cannot be ignored by Japan not declaring war and bypassing them.

I think what Jen was trying to say is that technically, they can sort of defensively block, provided their ships are between US territories and any seazone that japanese units are in, because as soon as japan declares war on the US, the US units are blocking.

However, they can’t really offensively block and wouldn’t stop japanese attacks on UK or ANZAC units or territories provided the Japanese continued to ignore them.

That said, even if the US didn’t have units in place to block, they NEED to declare war during the collect income phase 'cause otherwise they get no national objectives