I saw it somewhere on line about 2 weeks ago. Try google search. I’ll post link if i come across it again
AAG40 FAQ
-
woot first post with link that s not flagged as spam :)
-
According to the rules, when an allied power first attacks a strict neutral, all other strict-neutrals become pro-axis. Does this mean the allies can attack a strict neutral to allow Russia to conquer the new pro-axis and get extra NO bonuses from them in Alpha 3?
When a Major IC with more than 6 damage gets downgraded, does it keep all its damage or does the damage go down to 6? The rules as written seem to suggest all damage is kept.
-
According to the rules, when an allied power first attacks a strict neutral, all other strict-neutrals become pro-axis. Does this mean the allies can attack a strict neutral to allow Russia to conquer the new pro-axis and get extra NO bonuses from them in Alpha 3?
The bonus applies only to territories that begin the game as pro-axis.
@Stoney229:When a Major IC with more than 6 damage gets downgraded, does it keep all its damage or does the damage go down to 6? The rules as written seem to suggest all damage is kept.
all damage above the maximum amount is discarded.
-
Hello mates. Some help here:
Under the latest Global rules, can the USSR upgrade any of its minor ICs to majors?
-
As I understood it, Major ICs could only be built / upgraded on territories worth 3 IPCs or higher.
(So that factory which popped up in the Ukraine is probably illegal, Dutch…)
-
Major ICs can only be built on 3IPC territories that were originally owned by the power building IC. That means the only industrial expansion USSR could make would be to build minor ICs in Rostov, Caucasus, North Ukraine, or originally non-Soviet territories worth $2 or more.
-
Page 24 under unit profiles for complexes -
“Majors can only be placed on a territory with an IPC value of 3 or more”
Russia can never upgrade anything to a major under Alpha 3 rules.
-
Thanks for the feedback. Oops. 8-)
-
You’re welcome! :oops:
I’ll remove my foot from my mouth now. Hopefully by giving the wrong answer and being corrected I’ll remember that rule for awhile… :roll: -
when one half of UK’s economy purchases a base, does it have to be placed on that economy’s territory, or can it be put on territories that give money to the other economy?
Example: Can London buy a naval base for west India (part of India’s economy)? -
Good question because the latest Alpha3 rules (including UK rules in blue) do not address this.
Look at the original rulebook, though:
Page 32, under “Global UK rules”
“…UK units purchased and placed on the Pacific map can only be bought with IPC’s generated on the Pacific map. Likewise, UK units purchased and placed on the Europe map can only be bought with IPCs generated on the Europe map.”Seems clear that London can’t buy bases on the Pacific map (except on Yukon or BC) and Calcutta can’t pay for bases on the Europe map (except Western India). Even if the other capital is down. Krieghund will say if this is wrong, but I’m 99% sure
-
Good question because the latest Alpha3 rules (including UK rules in blue) do not address this.
Look at the original rulebook, though:
Page 32, under “Global UK rules”
“…UK units purchased and placed on the Pacific map can only be bought with IPC’s generated on the Pacific map. Likewise, UK units purchased and placed on the Europe map can only be bought with IPCs generated on the Europe map.”Seems clear that London can’t buy bases on the Pacific map (except on Yukon or BC) and Calcutta can’t pay for bases on the Europe map (except Western India). Even if the other capital is down. Krieghund will say if this is wrong, but I’m 99% sure
yup. alpha supplements OOB, so if you don’t see something addressed or contradicted by alpha, OOB still governs.
-
I wondered the same thing….but my evil plan was thwarted :evil:
-
So bases are considered “units” then? Because if they aren’t “units”, then the rulebook doesn’t say anything about them, which would make it legal.
-
So bases are considered “units” then? Because if they aren’t “units”, then the rulebook doesn’t say anything about them, which would make it legal.
Yes, bases are “units”
-
I am satisfied by your answers, I’m just bringing up a point which caused me confusion, and screwed up my strategy in the XDAP tournament. I trust your guys answers. Thank you, by the way, for your quick responses.
-
No, bases aren’t “units”. I just made a logical inference.
Bases (and ICs) are units - they are just not combat units.
-
Any time, boot
I’ll edit my post to correct, Krieg
-
Can a submarine noncombat move into (not through) a hostile SZ which contains an enemy destroyer?
I believe it can since page 28 says:
“A destroyer cancels the Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly unit characteristic of any submarine that moves into the sea zone with it. This means that the submarine must immediately end its movement, whether combat or noncombat, upon entering the sea zone.”I think it’s been addressed before, but I can’t find where with the search engine and I need outside confirmation for a match I am playing.
-
Can a submarine noncombat move into (not through) a hostile SZ which contains an enemy destroyer?
I believe it can since page 28 says:
“A destroyer cancels the Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly unit characteristic of any submarine that moves into the sea zone with it. This means that the submarine must immediately end its movement, whether combat or noncombat, upon entering the sea zone.”I think it’s been addressed before, but I can’t find where with the search engine and I need outside confirmation for a match I am playing.
Yes.