AAG40 FAQ

Thanks for all the answers!

@Krieghund:

@Stoney229:

When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
4. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union. Theme: Recognized national emergency.

When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
2. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan. Theme: Recognized national emergency.

So the originally offending power still gets the bonus if the defending power takes back their lost territory (since the defending power has to declare war to do so)?  If Japan declares war on Russia and takes Amur, then Russia gets the 12 IPC but in order for Russia to take Amur back and not just let Japan walk to Moscow unthreatened, they will also have to declare war on Japan, in which case Japan also now gets 12 IPCs as far as I can tell from these rules as written.  Is that the intent?

No.  Only the first power to have war declared upon it by the other receives the IPCs.

Okay, I think that’s better… but am I reading the rules wrong?  It seems to me like it should say:

Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following an unprovoked declaration of war by ______ on ________. Theme: Recognized national emergency.

Also, perhaps you can include a definition of “an unprovoked DOW” somewhere in the errata/new rulebook (maybe pg 15?) especially if you end up using it here (unless I am missing it somewhere??).  Anyone that’s been on this forum more than 5 mins should know know what it means, but you know we all play with those difficult people who don’t read the rules but insist on stopping the game any time they have a dispute and won’t continue playing until they see they’re proven wrong in [officially published] unambiguous writing.

@Krieghund:

@Stoney229:

Does this Alpha +2 set entirely replace all previous rules changes/[provisional] errata?  Or does one need to read the OOB rules plus each progression/iteration of released changes to get the full set of updated rules?

It completely replaces previous versions.  Just add it to the box rules.

In that case, I hope you don’t mind if I don’t read through 50+pages of old Q&A for an answer that might now be reversed (I’ve been busy the past couple months and haven’t been following until now):

Are there no changes to the board itself?  For example:
-Is Alb-Sas-Man adjacent to Central US?
-Is Ontario adjecent to Central US?
-Is Eastern US adjacent to sz106?
-Is Quebec adjacent to New Bruns/Nova Scotia?
-And I assume the sz5/sz6 border is still supposed to meet with the Korea/Amur border?
-Any other board clarifications I’ve missed?

@Stoney229:

@Krieghund:

@Stoney229:

When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
4. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union. Theme: Recognized national emergency.

When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
2. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan. Theme: Recognized national emergency.

So the originally offending power still gets the bonus if the defending power takes back their lost territory (since the defending power has to declare war to do so)?  If Japan declares war on Russia and takes Amur, then Russia gets the 12 IPC but in order for Russia to take Amur back and not just let Japan walk to Moscow unthreatened, they will also have to declare war on Japan, in which case Japan also now gets 12 IPCs as far as I can tell from these rules as written.  Is that the intent?

No.  Only the first power to have war declared upon it by the other receives the IPCs.

Okay, I think that’s better… but am I reading the rules wrong?  It seems to me like it should say:

Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following an unprovoked declaration of war by ______ on ________. Theme: Recognized national emergency.

It does, now.  :wink:

@Stoney229:

Also, perhaps you can include a definition of “an unprovoked DOW” somewhere in the errata/new rulebook (maybe pg 15?) especially if you end up using it here (unless I am missing it somewhere??).

I’ll see what I can do.

@Stoney229:

In that case, I hope you don’t mind if I don’t read through 50+pages of old Q&A for an answer that might now be reversed (I’ve been busy the past couple months and haven’t been following until now):

Are there no changes to the board itself?  For example:
-Is Alb-Sas-Man adjacent to Central US?
-Is Ontario adjecent to Central US?
-Is Eastern US adjacent to sz106?
-Is Quebec adjacent to New Bruns/Nova Scotia?
-And I assume the sz5/sz6 border is still supposed to meet with the Korea/Amur border?
-Any other board clarifications I’ve missed?

None of the map errata or clarifications have changed.  They’re all still in effect.

@Krieghund:

@Stoney229:

In that case, I hope you don’t mind if I don’t read through 50+pages of old Q&A for an answer that might now be reversed (I’ve been busy the past couple months and haven’t been following until now):

Are there no changes to the board itself?  For example:
-Is Alb-Sas-Man adjacent to Central US?
-Is Ontario adjecent to Central US?
-Is Eastern US adjacent to sz106?
-Is Quebec adjacent to New Bruns/Nova Scotia?
-And I assume the sz5/sz6 border is still supposed to meet with the Korea/Amur border?
-Any other board clarifications I’ve missed?

None of the map errata or clarifications have changed.  They’re all still in effect.

Okay, thanks much.  Can anyone point me to a concise location of the latest said map errata/clarifications?

The ones on the Europe map are buried pretty deep in this thread, so here’s a recap of all of them:

Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba and Central United States are adjacent to each other.
Quebec and New Brunswick/Nova Scotia are adjacent to each other.
Sea zone 106 and Eastern United States are not adjacent to each other.
Greenland is an island.
Scotland and Eire are adjacent to each other.
The Caspian Sea is a sea zone.
Korea and sea zone 5 are not adjacent to each other.

@Krieghund:

The ones on the Europe map are buried pretty deep in this thread, so here’s a recap of all of them:

Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba and Central United States are adjacent to each other.
Quebec and New Brunswick/Nova Scotia are adjacent to each other.
Sea zone 106 and Eastern United States are not adjacent to each other.
Greenland is an island.
Scotland and Eire are adjacent to each other.
The Caspian Sea is a sea zone.
Korea and sea zone 5 are not adjacent to each other.

Thanks!  I hope they’ll be included in the next FAQ.

If you upgrade a minor IC can you build 10 units at it that turn?

No, only three (not including the upgrade itself).

If my opponent has a blocker to prevent me from moving three into Med for example and I destroy the blocker with a sub or plane in the combat phase.  During the non combat phase can my navy move through the sea zone that combat took place that did not involve them and go right through into the Med.

Thanks and sorry if this has already been answered.

Yes.

Question on loading of transports.

In a recent game, at the declaration of war between Germany and Russia (Germany attacks first), the Russian battleship is located in the same sea zone as some german transports. On the German turn, can the german transports move during the combat phase out of the sea zone?  Must they stay and fight? Can they move out, then pick up units and be used in an amphibious assault?

Ships that begin their turn in a hostile sea zone always have the choice of moving away or fighting.  The transports may move to a friendly sea zone, load units, then move back to either their original sea zone or another one to make an amphibious assault.

In addition, in the same turn that war is declared, transports may actually load in the sea zone in which they begin the turn even if it is hostile.  This exemption applies only in the combat move phase in war is declared and only in the transports’ starting sea zone.  In your example, this would mean that Germany could actually load the transports in the same sea zone with the Soviet battleship.

Thank you, Krieghund. Very concise and much appreciated.

Can i scramble a fighter to defend a lone transport against an air attack?

I want to make an amphibious assault an TT A, but have to move from TT B over TT C to get there. In TT C is an enemy warship
which i attack the same round with other units from TT D. Is the transport allowed to move through?

In other words:
A transport has to stop an amphibious assault when it encounters an other enemy warship on its way there, even when there is another planned battle right? And it cannot move on afterwards?

Thanks for the quick answer!

@Krieghund:

Ships that begin their turn in a hostile sea zone always have the choice of moving away or fighting.  The transports may move to a friendly sea zone, load units, then move back to either their original sea zone or another one to make an amphibious assault.

In addition, in the same turn that war is declared, transports may actually load in the sea zone in which they begin the turn even if it is hostile.  This exemption applies only in the combat move phase in war is declared and only in the transports’ starting sea zone.  In your example, this would mean that Germany could actually load the transports in the same sea zone with the Soviet battleship.

That’s very interesting, I had thought they couldn’t load after declaring war and making the sea zone hostile.  I’ll keep that in mind, could have used it earlier.  Thanks Kreig.

I apologize if this has been asked, there are 65 pages at the time of this post.

In the Pacific rules, only Anzac and India can take over Dutch territories. The US can only control them if they liberate them from an axis player.

Given that the Europe board is treated separately in some cases: Can the US take control of Suriname (North of Brazil borders sea zone 88) as a non combat move, or is the rule the same in that only UK or Anzac can? I am looking for an alternate naval base site should London fall prior to the Gibraltar base being knocked out.

This site has limited use, but it does permit (with a naval base) staging for attacks on London, Scotland, Normandy, Belgium, and (if allies have the straight) South France, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria while remaining out of range of most axis air units not staged in Gibraltar. I suppose it also gives you range to reach French Equatorial Africa and other western African zones.

I imagine UK could just build one in British Guiana since it is out of range of bombers and non carrier based tactical bombers.

The same rules apply to Dutch territories in the global game as in the Pacific game.  The US may not take control of them except by recapturing them from the Axis.