AAG40 FAQ

@gamerman01:

For example, from Scotland you could potentially have a French, American, and British fighter each scramble to 3 different sea zones, and you could have those same 3 fighters go up to intercept an SBR on the airbase.

I believe your “and” (which I emboldened above) should be an “or”.  The same fighters can’t participate in the fighting over the sea zones and act as interceptors against bombing raids in the same turn.

Sweet thanks.

Just to clarify:

A seazone X contains an island Y. Moving an airplane from seazone X onto island Y costs one point of movement, right?

Correct.

Let us pretend the following Situation:

There are 48 enemy transports in SZ 91 with no defense units for them.
There is a German aircraft carrier, submarine and 2 fighters in SZ 112.
There is 7 American Battleships, 3 American Loaded Aircraft Carriers, 14 American Destroyers and an American Cruiser in SZ 110.

Germany attacks the fleet in SZ 110 with 1 Submarine and sends a fighter to SZ 91 claiming that even though there is a statistical impossibility that the submarine will win, there is still a chance (however miniscule) that the submarine COULD sink all those American ships in SZ 110 and thus, the Carrier from SZ 112 could move to SZ 91 and retrieve the fighter.

The submarine, of course, is killed mercilessly by overwhelming firepower.
The fighter sinks all 48 transports in SZ 91 (stranging all those units in Gibraltar)
The fighter then falls into the water because there is no legal landing spot.

The allied player is complaining that the move is illegal because there is no chance the submarine has to win and you are sending a fighter out to die that you KNOW cannot have a landing spot within it’s 4 territory movement range.

I am contending this is a well established loophole that has existed for quite some time in many versions of the game.  Since the submarine has a theoretical chance of winning, then the carrier could move to retrieve the fighter.  Just because the submarine loses and the carrier no longer has the possibility of moving to recover the fighter does not invalidate the move and the fighter, along with all 48 transports go to the bottom of the Ocean.

Question:  Did Larry close this loophole, or does it still exist?

As hilarious as the situation is, that loophole does exist.

@Alsch91:

As hilarious as the situation is, that loophole does exist.

And I doubt it will be closed anytime soon.  :)

Best loophole ever.

I don’t see how this is a loophole. Doesn’t it clearly say in the rules that this is permitted? It says in the unit profiles under aircraft that you MAY assume all attacking units will hit (so the sub would kill the whole fleet), and that you MAY assume the defending units get only misses (so the sub would live all the way through).

I haven’t played many global games (I still don’t own Europe 1940), and I also don’t really understand the different rule sets. I’ve only played with the rules out of the box (are those alpha +2 or what?). So maybe this is different for different rule sets. Anyone know more than me?

About what Jenn asked (It is in our game we are having this issue) I feel it is needed to point out that we are in a low luck game, so that sub does not have a chance to win the fight versus 12+ Ships 6+ planes. The question is, does low luck affects this loophole?

ALSO, I’m almost certain that in order to have a valid suicide plane attack you need to actually do the fight, not just sit behind the fact that you could “possibly”
I did do the fight.  My submarine missed and due to LL, I didn’t bother rolling your fleet given you had way more than 6 punch. ~Jen

She says that, in ADS, theorically, her sub could destroy my entire fleet (some 12+ ships) Which, I agree. But we are in low luck, PLUS, she would actually need to do the fight. If she DOESNT do the fight and just pretends she could win it, I doubt that makes it a valid suicide.

LL is different again. Since its not random and the end result can be worked out, I would say NO you cannot do this with LL. There was clear definitions on the Harris website, stating the difference between everything on this topic. ( In regards to defining a legal landing space ) I can find it but right now it is sleep time. Since these games dont cover LL because I think its classified as a house rule, they probably wont have a rule on this. So common sense says since you know the out come of every battle, before it takes place, not including battles that are equal and require the remainder to be rolled then you could not use this in LL. Can anyone else back this up with references as this is  just my opinion on the subject.

It’s not a loophole.  It’s a rule.

When dealing with this situation, a line has to be drawn somewhere.  Many people would like it to be drawn at a “reasonable” chance of success.  However, everyone has a different opinion on what is reasonable.  Besides, do you want to calculate the odds every time to see if it’s legal?

Dispensing with that, you’re left with the choice of either allowing it if there’s any chance at all of success or disallowing it if there’s any chance at all of failure.  The designers chose the former.

As for how Low Luck affects this rule, I’ve opined on that in this thread.

So essentially it is a rule and all game rules are in effect LL as they are in ADS games.  The difference is that in LL the outcomes are mostly pre-determined.

If the allies land in west Germany and control it, do they get a one time bonus?. If so how much is the bonus? What other territories in Europe get a one time liberation bonus?

@Young:

If the allies land in west Germany and control it, do they get a one time bonus?. If so how much is the bonus? What other territories in Europe get a one time liberation bonus?

Russia gets a 1 time bonus for taking Germany.  There is no known bonus for W. Germany that I am aware of. (Other than Russia getting 3 IPC for controlling it, as they do for all other German territories.)

Yes,Sorry NO.

Kinda sounds like Arnold in Kindergarden cop, “It’s not a loophole”.

Hi, I’ve got a few question concerning G40 OOB

1. Can a sea unit move through a space that was cleared of enemy warships during the combat phase in the non-combat movement phase?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, let’s say a fighter moves to attack another sea zone, let’s say sz 6, and the only available landing space would be if the player moves an AC in an adjacent space, let’s say sz 17 for exemple. During the combat phase, a sea zone is cleared of ennemy warships and the player has a new path available to him and can move his AC to sz 7 in the NCMs phase. Since that landing space couldn’t be considered a legitimate one at the start of the combat phase, can the player still land his fighters in that sea zone