Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

P@nther has spoken…obey the Rules Deputy! Lol
Thanks dude

Hello,
quick rules question: what happens to China After Japan completely conquers Chinese territory?
What happens to china’s money?
Do the Chinese Return to the Game If one of their territories is liberated?

Duri

@Duri7:

quick rules question: what happens to China After Japan completely conquers Chinese territory?
What happens to china’s money?
Do the Chinese Return to the Game If one of their territories is liberated?

From the China Rules:

@rulebook:

Unlike the other powers in the game, China is not an
industrialized nation and has a rural economy and
decentralized government. As a result, China does not have
a capital like other powers do. If all Chinese territories are
captured by Japan, China retains its unspent IPCs in hope
of liberation and does not give them to Japan.

So once a Chinese territory will be liberated, China will be able to continue the game.

HTH :-)

Hi Pather,
thanks a lot. (Bad for myself as Japan) but just in time.

Best Duri

@PlasticAttack:

…
Two questions:
(1) Where and how would I post it on these forums? (I see, in writing this message, that there’s an option to post it along with this message: would that be the best way to post it?)

(2) If I preface the file by saying I got the FAQ from here, including the URL, do I have permission to also post it on BoardGameGeek in the A&A 1940 forums over there?

Welcome to the forum, PlasticAttack, and I think you have earned all our respect for this undertaking.  :-)

I am going to send you a PM addressing your questions, so please check your Messages.

P@nther is just awesome.

This project sounds very beneficial, don’t get me wrong, but the purpose of this thread is just to post your rules question and have it answered.  It’s not meant to be like a “FAQ” sheet that answers all the questions you may have after reading the rulebook.

The thread has worked perfectly for this purpose.  You have a question, you ask it, you get the right answer.  If you get the wrong answer, a rules deputy or Krieghund himself comes along within hours, usually, and gets you the correct answer.

This is not directed at you, Mr. PlasticAttack, but at those over the months who complain about the voluminous nature of this thread.  I’m just trying to explain that it’s not really designed for ease of reading, and redundant questions are FINE.  We don’t expect people to read this thread from the beginning.

Good point, Gamerman. That indeed is the purpose of this thread. It is not a wiki!

@Krieghund:

@Bob77:

First off…damn there is a lot of redundant q & a in this thread. Can we clean up some? Just a thought.

That’s been done.  There’s nothing here that’s not either in the rules or the official FAQs.

In this context I remembered Krieghund’s above statement. Indeed, over the years this (and previous) FAQ-thread has been a source that added towards the improvement of the (updated) rulebooks and official FAQ-sheets at http://avalonhill.wizards.com/rules .

However, in the past some players have always demanded for an additional “Compendium” to study. So this FAQ-thread, as well as others (for example Gamerman’s ‘Mongolia and Neutrals’ thread, but other stickied and non-stickied threads, too) might serve as excellent sources for a related project. Though - until today - no one seemed to show that much of stamina to really do it.

So i shouldnt bother trying to find the answer in this thread. I should just post a question that has been asked/answered multiple times. Well maybe that should be edited into the very first post so that others dont have to waste their time looking for an answer like me and lots of others have done.

On page 64 of this FAQ thread, Krieghund gave this answer:

I can only find in the rule book that the Allies who are not at war with Japan can not fly over China
without declaring war (is considered an act of war by Japan)

But Japan can fly over UK/French territories before they are at war with UK (or France), correct?
Yes.

I don’t understand this answer: why is Japan allowed to fly over the territories of countries with which it is not yet at war?

P40 p.8 says:
“All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” below).”

Is it because of this statement:
“The United Kingdom and ANZAC have a special relationship, and they are treated as one for political purposes. They are both at war with Japan’s allies, Germany and Italy, on the other side of the world, so they are not completely neutral.”

And . . .
"France’s capital has been captured by Germany. As a result, French territories are treated in the same way as any Allied territories whose capital is held by an enemy power (see “Liberating a Territory,” page 20).

And p. 28:
“Air units can move through hostile territories and sea zones as if they were friendly.”

And p. 36:
“Germany, Japan, and Italy make up the Axis. For the moment, the United Kingdom (including Canada), ANZAC, France, and China make up the Allies. The United States and the Soviet Union are neutral. During this period, many other countries tried to remain neutral as well. As the war became global, many neutrals were forced to join one side or the other.”

Or is there some other governing rule?

To gamerman
@Gamerman01:

@Caesar:

So if Italy and Germany do not trigger Mongolia to join USSR, what happens if Germany controls a boarder USSR territory and Japan during non combat send a land unit into their allies territory?

The rule says “if Japan attacks any Soviet-controlled territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory”

Do you need access to a rulebook?

Why post any questions? Its in black and white.

@Gamerman01:

No need to be impolite.  There is no loophole here - it’s in black and white and very clear and direct.

@Gamerman01:

P@nther is just awesome.

This project sounds very beneficial, don’t get me wrong, but the purpose of this thread is just to post your rules question and have it answered.  It’s not meant to be like a “FAQ” sheet that answers all the questions you may have after reading the rulebook.

The thread has worked perfectly for this purpose.  You have a question, you ask it, you get the right answer.  If you get the wrong answer, a rules deputy or Krieghund himself comes along within hours, usually, and gets you the correct answer.

This is not directed at you, Mr. PlasticAttack, but at those over the months who complain about the voluminous nature of this thread.  I’m just trying to explain that it’s not really designed for ease of reading, and redundant questions are FINE.  We don’t expect people to read this thread from the beginning.

Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet? The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.
We ask a question. We get an answer. How many times have the various people in the know (including you) ask if we have a rulebook and produce the link.
We’ve read the rule book and needed clarification. Those replies are condescending in nature.
Then to add salt to it, you say thats what the FAQ is here for.

I think it’s perfectly normal for people whose work/words comprise the source material to have a strong interest in the final product.

@PlasticAttack:

and yet a boldface, multi-lined warning was also felt to be necessary, in two places no less.

People commonly do not bother to read the titles of documents, or introductory paragraphs, or even through to the end of a sentence they’ve started. Sometimes you need to compensate for that  :lol:

@Bob77:

Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet? The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.

Moderators, I beseech you, please rename this thread “Rolling Q&A Full of Redundancy (AAG40.2)”

Really stick it to those fancy websites!

In all seriousness, I love the fact that this is a place where you can also get answers to odd or otherwise infrequently asked questions and get an ironclad answer. Don’t give the unpaid experts who make that possible a hard time.

@PlasticAttack:

On page 64 of this FAQ thread, Krieghund gave this answer:

I can only find in the rule book that the Allies who are not at war with Japan can not fly over China
without declaring war (is considered an act of war by Japan)

But Japan can fly over UK/French territories before they are at war with UK (or France), correct?
Yes.

I don’t understand this answer: why is Japan allowed to fly over the territories of countries with which it is not yet at war?

P40 p.8 says:
“All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” below).”

Is it because of this statement:
“The United Kingdom and ANZAC have a special relationship, and they are treated as one for political purposes. They are both at war with Japan’s allies, Germany and Italy, on the other side of the world, so they are not completely neutral.”

Yes, UK and ANZAC are at war (with Germany and Italy) all over the world at the beginning of the game, so they are not neutral powers like the USA and USSR are.

And . . .
"France’s capital has been captured by Germany. As a result, French territories are treated in the same way as any Allied territories whose capital is held by an enemy power (see “Liberating a Territory,” page 20).

And p. 28:
“Air units can move through hostile territories and sea zones as if they were friendly.”

And p. 36:
“Germany, Japan, and Italy make up the Axis. For the moment, the United Kingdom (including Canada), ANZAC, France, and China make up the Allies. The United States and the Soviet Union are neutral. During this period, many other countries tried to remain neutral as well. As the war became global, many neutrals were forced to join one side or the other.”

Or is there some other governing rule?

I think you’ve got it - Japan is at war.  UK is at war.  Japan can always fly over UK territories.  UK can’t fly over China without declaring war because that is considered an act of war by Japan.  (Japan is not at war with the UK, they are trying to dominate China without Allied interference.)

It’s risky to even respond to someone who is so critical of people you don’t even know, but I do want to politely answer a couple of your questions.
@Bob77:

Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet?

No, it is not.

The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.

Well that’s them, and this is us.  I guess the thread is misnamed.

We ask a question. We get an answer. How many times have the various people in the know (including you) ask if we have a rulebook and produce the link.

I only do that when I seriously doubt that you have a rulebook.  There are people who try to play these games without one, and they just ask everyone else a ton of questions.  I was not rude to ask if they have a rulebook because I meant it sincerely.

We’ve read the rule book and needed clarification. Those replies are condescending in nature.
Then to add salt to it, you say thats what the FAQ is here for.

Again, we don’t know that you’ve read the rulebook.  Sometimes the questions indicate that you (visitors to the site in general, that is) haven’t.  All moderators and official answer guys here try to give respect to all.  Forums between complete strangers are ripe for misunderstandings.

I sincerely asked that person if they had a rulebook because I wasn’t sure they did, and if they would have said “no”, I was going to provide a link to a rulebook for them.  You saw condescension where there was none.

Risky to respond to me. Ha. You two didnt have a problem being critical of me and my posts. Oh no! The strangers talking weirdness. Check the last few posts you and panther posted on pg 159. No problem being critical there.
Poor plasticattack. What did you guys do to make him pull his hard work?

I guess the thread is misnamed.

I also have made that observation.

I also am confused by the above quoted answer from Kreighund. You cannot overfly a territory which which you are neutral with AIUI. If UK and Japan are not yet at war, Shan State for example is neutral to Japan, therefore, Japan cannot overfly it. Where is my logic going wrong?

UK being at war in Europe is a reason why it would be allowed to activate neutrals (i.e. if there was a first turn neutral crush by the Axis, UK could activate Afghanistan) or step on allied territories, I don’t see how it changes the overflight rule?

Moderator’s action

@wheatbeer:

@Bob77:

Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet? The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.

Moderators, I beseech you, please rename this thread “Rolling Q&A Full of Redundancy (AAG40.2)”

Really stick it to those fancy websites!

In all seriousness, I love the fact that this is a place where you can also get answers to odd or otherwise infrequently asked questions and get an ironclad answer. Don’t give the unpaid experts who make that possible a hard time.

@Gamerman01:

The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.

Well that’s them, and this is us.  I guess the thread is misnamed.

@simon33:

I guess the thread is misnamed.

I also have made that observation.
….

In this context I remembered Krieghund’s statement in a similar context about this thread:

@Krieghund:

…

The other one is local, and is unfortunately named.  Calling it “FAQ” makes it sound official, but I would have called it “Q&A”.  This is not to say that the answers there aren’t correct, but there shouldn’t be anything there that’s not also in the official rules.

In short, everything you need should be in the rulebooks and FAQs.  Anything you find anyplace else should simply be clarifications.

So, inspired by the latest irritations about naming and content of this thread I have changed the title accordingly to

Global 2nd edition Q+A  ( AAG40.2)

@simon33:

…
I also am confused by the above quoted answer from Kreighund. You cannot overfly a territory which which you are neutral with AIUI. If UK and Japan are not yet at war, Shan State for example is neutral to Japan, therefore, Japan cannot overfly it. Where is my logic going wrong?

UK being at war in Europe is a reason why it would be allowed to activate neutrals (i.e. if there was a first turn neutral crush by the Axis, UK could activate Afghanistan) or step on allied territories, I don’t see how it changes the overflight rule?

Maybe this clarification by Krieghund on a similar issue might help understanding:

@Krieghund:

By the way, I noticed … that you used the term “neutral with Germany” as regards to the USSR.  This is incorrect, as “neutral” is actually an absolute term which means that a power is not at war with anyone.  In the situation we’re discussing here, the USSR is at war with Italy and not at war with Germany.  It is no longer neutral because it’s at war with at least one power, so any rule regarding neutrality no longer applies to it, even in relation to power with which it’s not yet at war.  (The situation is a bit more complicated with the USSR, as it’s in the unique position of being able to remain neutral on one side of the map while no longer being neutral on the other, but the general principle still applies on each map.)  Viewing the situation in this light may make things more clear.

So UK is not “neutral to Japan”. They are simply not at war at that moment.

@P@nther:

@simon33:

…
I also am confused by the above quoted answer from Kreighund. You cannot overfly a territory which which you are neutral with AIUI. If UK and Japan are not yet at war, Shan State for example is neutral to Japan, therefore, Japan cannot overfly it. Where is my logic going wrong?

UK being at war in Europe is a reason why it would be allowed to activate neutrals (i.e. if there was a first turn neutral crush by the Axis, UK could activate Afghanistan) or step on allied territories, I don’t see how it changes the overflight rule?

Maybe this clarification by Krieghund on a similar issue might help understanding:

@Krieghund:

By the way, I noticed … that you used the term “neutral with Germany” as regards to the USSR.  This is incorrect, as “neutral” is actually an absolute term which means that a power is not at war with anyone.  In the situation we’re discussing here, the USSR is at war with Italy and not at war with Germany.  It is no longer neutral because it’s at war with at least one power, so any rule regarding neutrality no longer applies to it, even in relation to power with which it’s not yet at war.  (The situation is a bit more complicated with the USSR, as it’s in the unique position of being able to remain neutral on one side of the map while no longer being neutral on the other, but the general principle still applies on each map.)  Viewing the situation in this light may make things more clear.

So UK is not “neutral to Japan”. They are simply not at war at that moment.

I think I might be seeing where confusion enters:
@Pac:

Moving into a neutral territory is considered a combat move,
and any combat must be resolved during the conduct combat
phase (see “Combat Move,” page 12). Before the neutral
territory can be taken control of by the invading power, all
of the neutral’s standing army units must be eliminated. Air
units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.

You are telling me that this “neutral” refers to a neutral territory, which is different to a territory belonging to a neutral power. It also means that this concept of “neutral territory” is different to the status of a territory referred to on p8:
@Pac:

Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you ar at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a
power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see
“The Political Situation,” below). Neutral territories, such as
Central Mongolia, have white borders and do not have any
power’s emblem on them. Most such territories also have
a unit silhouette with a number, which indicates how many
infantry units the territory will generate to defend itself when
its neutrality is violated. The Himalayas are impassable and
may not be moved into or through by any units.

Wow, how tortured!

@simon33:

Wow, how tortured!

No, just rules from the rulebook:

@Rulebook:

An important concept to understand is the difference
between a neutral territory and a neutral power.
…
neutral territories begin the game not being controlled by
any power.
…

@simon33:

If UK and Japan are not yet at war, Shan State for example is neutral to Japan, therefore, Japan cannot overfly it. Where is my logic going wrong?

Shan State is controlled by UK, so can’t be a neutral territory!