AAG40 FAQ

Ha! I read all 59.25 pages and I have no questions! Although, my cerebellum is now fused…

Allied Factories in Asia?.  Where in eastern Asia can the Allies build a factory?  I ask since my understanding of the rules is that if the US/UK/Anzac forces “liberate” a Japanese held chinese territory (especially one with a japanese factory), that territory reverts back to China (right?).  So how can the allies take advantage of “chinese” land territories where japanese factories exist?  and if they cant, can they opt to destroy the factory if there is a risk of the territory being taken back by the japanese?  Thanks.

@Sime:

Could someone explain the scrambling rule to me in regard to amphibious assaults?

Does UK now have to assign part of his fleet to battle the fighters and part of his fleet to conduct bombardment (for instance: 1 battleship and 1 cruiser will take on the fighters and 1 battleship will bombard the territory), or do all of the naval ships battle the fighters and any ships remaining after the battle get to bombard, or is it something totally different?

I understand the other part of the scramble rule where it’s fleet on fleet, but I’m a bit confused by the amphibious side of it.

@Krieghund:

As with any sea battle preceding an amphibious assault, all of the ships must battle the fighters.  None may bombard.

Just to avoid any nitpicking. does it matter if the defending player deliberiatly waits to see if the attacker will shore bombard and THEN declares he’s scrambling? Declaring bombardmarmetn is that part of the combat move phase or conduct combat phase?

I can think of people saying: yeah but if you scramble I wouldnt have bombarderd or vice versa. so just to ask does the defender have final say after attacker has declared everything? as it should be i think…

@nimitz1:

Allied Factories in Asia?.  Where in eastern Asia can the Allies build a factory?  I ask since my understanding of the rules is that if the US/UK/Anzac forces “liberate” a Japanese held chinese territory (especially one with a japanese factory), that territory reverts back to China (right?).  So how can the allies take advantage of “chinese” land territories where japanese factories exist?  and if they cant, can they opt to destroy the factory if there is a risk of the territory being taken back by the japanese?  Thanks.

Asia is not just merely China. As I understand it: Any factories on japanese occupied china territories that contain a factory (build by japan)  get destroyed when it gets liberated by the allies. Since china territory reverts automatically back to chinese control (since they don’t have a capital) no factories can ever be build on chinese lands by the allies. just naval bases and airbases edit: and these only by the japanese i think they just won’t be destroyed after liberated.

@Kingpinda:

@nimitz1:

Allied Factories in Asia?.  Where in eastern Asia can the Allies build a factory?  I ask since my understanding of the rules is that if the US/UK/Anzac forces “liberate” a Japanese held chinese territory (especially one with a japanese factory), that territory reverts back to China (right?).  So how can the allies take advantage of “chinese” land territories where japanese factories exist?  and if they cant, can they opt to destroy the factory if there is a risk of the territory being taken back by the japanese?  Thanks.

Asia is not just merely China. As I understand it: Any factories on japanese occupied china territories that contain a factory (build by japan)  get destroyed when it gets liberated by the allies. Since china territory reverts automatically back to chinese control (since they don’t have a capital) no factories can ever be build on chinese lands by the allies. just naval bases and airbases edit: and these only by the japanese i think they just won’t be destroyed after liberated.

Thanks but I’d prefer some definitive answers from Kreighund if possible, certainly French Indo China and Korea are eligible for allied capture and factory placement but the questions still remain ….1. Can the allies build factories in China?  2. Can they capture a major factory complex (after it is reduced to a minor) and utilise it?  3. Can they opt to destroy a captured minor factory (a reduced major factory) if they want to? (especially if they cant use it).  4… Can they upgrade it if they are permitted to use it?   China has no capital as such and its system of recruiting and placing replacements reflects the actions of both the imperial and communist chinese forces during the war, so factories are useless to the chinese in game terms.  It seems unfair to allow the japanese only to take advantage of the capacity to build factories in China and doubly unfair if when built and captured, the allies still cannot use them as they can AA guns and airfields.  Official ruling please.   Thanks in advance.

Here is the “official” ruling on that:
Allies can’t have any ICs in China. The reason is this: any Chinese terriotry with a Japanese IC on it will have the IC destroyed(not reduced to a minor) when the territory is liberated. Only China of the allies can control Chinese territory. Thus, the allies can’t build factories in China.

FYI, since the Alpha 0.2 plus will replace the OOB rules, only minors can be built on foreign soil.

question of my own concerning firststrike subs:

It states in the europe manual that:

attacking subs roll and if hit defending player places sea casualties behind casualty strip.

Then each defendingsub conducts surprise strike. attacker chooses 1 sea unit for each hit and removes it from game.

The last step is that each casualty is then removed from play.

So… Does this mean then that the defender while rolling for 1’s with the dice does have one advantage… namely that a defending sub which was HIT and put behind the casualty strip may FIRE a surprise attack back before its put out of play?

To illustrate using the rules observerd in the manual:

attacker: 2 subs, 1 cruiser

defender 1 sub, 1 cruiser

attacker declares both subs use surprise strike. Defender declares surprise strike.

attacker rolls: 1 and a 3
defender moves sub behind casualty strip
defending “hit” sub rolls a 1
attacker removes 1 sub out of play and then the last step all players remove casualties out of play (the remaining defending sub).

now normal combat starts between the cruisers (they both miss) and next combat turn the last sub utilizes its first strike killing the cruiser. no defendingsubs annymore so casualties are removed.

Is this correct?

Calvin’s right.

@Kingpinda:

Just to avoid any nitpicking. does it matter if the defending player deliberiatly waits to see if the attacker will shore bombard and THEN declares he’s scrambling? Declaring bombardmarmetn is that part of the combat move phase or conduct combat phase?

I can think of people saying: yeah but if you scramble I wouldnt have bombarderd or vice versa. so just to ask does the defender have final say after attacker has declared everything? as it should be i think…

If the ships move into the sea zone in combat movement, they’re part of the amphibious assault, and the planes may scramble in response.

@Kingpinda:

So… Does this mean then that the defender while rolling for 1’s with the dice does have one advantage… namely that a defending sub which was HIT and put behind the casualty strip may FIRE a surprise attack back before its put out of play?

Yes.

@Kingpinda:

Is this [example] correct?

Yes.

The scrambling rules is changed? Now, the Japan airbase can scramble fighters to attack transports that are unloading in Korea?

Yes.

Alpha +.2 Rules Question:

US is neutral. Successful Sealion (barely) on G2. New rules say US may declare war on any Axis powers on their turn. Japan has not attacked US or UK. Japan still only at war with China. Can/should the US be able to declare war on Japan? I would think not but the rules seem to indicate yes. Larry or Krieg, can I get a ruling?

Thanks guys.

First, thanks for the clarification. I presumed this was the case, but wanted to make sure since Russia has its special situation and this is slightly different rules from OOB.

Second, I believe the only stupid question is the one not asked. If I’m going to do my part in the play testing, I should be using the rules correctly, right? That is the reason for my question…

EM, please stop trying to pick a fight.  Gamer’s response was both crystal clear and courteous.  I agree that you should not have engaged him and it’s clear you are still holding a grudge from recent events.  Please stop tormenting players on this site - I too have seen you in action on many other threads and it’s pretty clear you leave a trail of burned bridges.  I think the truth is you are calling Gamer out on something he never intended, but something you are probably often guilty of, belittling others.  Your double standards are wearing very thin and I hope it will eventually be acknowledged by the moderaters on here.