Axis and Allies Pacific 1940 2nd Edition ( AAP40.2) FAQ/question

@Carolina:

Question… can the transports land the infantry and start a land battle even though the sky above the attacking BB and TP still has defending fighters?  Rules only state there is a sea battle if there are defending warships and/or “scrambled” aircraft (not aircraft from a carrier).

No, the attacker has to kill the defending fighters before being able to land his units. When the Carrier is sunk, the sea battle continues unless the attacker does not retreat.

HTH :-)

French Indo China question - IF Japan does an air only attack against a UK unit in FIC, will that cause Japan to lose the 10 IPC Natl Obj bonus?

YES
You can’t attack FIC and get the 10, and that includes air-only

If USA not at war start of their turn 3, US can declare war at start of Collect Income phase.
Question: Would that declaration be before any rolls for convoy disruptions?  ie. Turn 3 Japan puts a sub off coast of Philippines.  Would that sub would disrupt convoys for USA IPC count on turn 3 (if US declares war)?

Yes it is before the convoy disruptions, because those are part of the collect income phase.  The Japanese sub would get to roll for disruption

Scramble question: Japan attempting an amphib assault on Philippines where US planes exist with air base.  The sea zone around Philippines has only UK ships (plus the attacking JA ships).  Can US scramble planes to defend in the sea zone? (pretty sure the answer is yes)

Yes, Carolina. Up to three planes (any Allied nation, including  US ones), can scramble and defend with the U.K. Ships.

If japan is not at war with UK the UK ships can be ignored I think.Alternatively ,If japan is not at war with USA,the UK ships can be attacked.The US planes can’t scramble(no amphibious attack in this case)

@ampdrive:

If japan is not at war with UK the UK ships can be ignored I think.Alternatively ,If japan is not at war with USA,the UK ships can be attacked.The US planes can’t scramble(no amphibious attack in this case)

Yes, but pretty clear from his question that Japan is at war with both

Alaska / Shan State;  These both have dual coasts.  Assume Naval Base marker is good for both sea zones?

@Carolina:

Alaska / Shan State;  These both have dual coasts.  Assume Naval Base marker is good for both sea zones?

Yes, all naval bases service all adjacent coasts, like West Germany’s serves 112 and 113 both

Amphib attack question:  Can you withhold dice rolls from BB or CA during the sea zone combat round(s) in order to use for bombardment rolls?  (Pretty sure answer is no).

No - they have to fight in the naval battle

Defenseless Transport question:  If there is a defending transport and I am making an amphib attack on the island in the sea zone, and I use planes in the sea zone plus a BB.  Do I get to make a bombardment roll for the BB, and also get to destroy the defenseless transport?  I know the transport can be ignored by the BB, but seems silly that the transport gets off free because I choose to use the BB for bombarding.

It is one or the other: either you sink the TT or you do a Bombardment.  Cannot do both. The argument being, the battle between the air units and the TT, would bring the Battleship in, regardless.

ANZAC and UK:
a) If ANZAC liberates Borneo from Japan, and India’s still british, ANZAC can’t claim any IPC. But if Japan conquers India the very next turn, does ANZAC still have no claim there, as there have been no IPCs “harvested” yet?
b) If ANZAC liberates India, ANZAC loses all IPC income it receives for each british territory they liberated from Japan. Is there a rule to obey for ANZAC as being part of the Commonwealth or can they just keep on convoy disruptions and strat bomb facilities in India and keep those neat little british 12 IPCs (and piss off the UK player…)?
c) (global) What happens if the Netherlands are liberated from Axis in Europe? Any influence on DEI?

Morning Wicked Caitiff.
a. No; they have no claim.  It was returned to UK control, by Anzac. The fact India is captured or that no one “harvested” the income is irrelevant.
Would be better to not recapture Borneo, especially if it like like India might fall.

b. Anzac can’t bomb India. (That is not cricket!). Not sure what you mean about UK’s 12 income. Was that just an example?

c. Nothing. None at all. (They are not a power in the game.)

@wittmann:

b. Anzac can’t bomb India. (That is not cricket!). Not sure what you mean about UK’s 12 income. Was that just an example?

:-D
Of course I mean India controlled by Japan.

Situation: Japan sweapt through China and southeast asia and even got India, just before US got them very busy in Korea.
UK was crushed, but ANZAC was left quite healthy, so ANZAC managed to recapture most british territories and thus received 12 IPC for Borneo, Malaya, Kwangtung, Shan State, and Burma. Now standing at the Indian border, they are about to cripple their own economy by liberating India. Next Problem: UK must wait 3 turns to move any unit after liberation by ANZAC: Anzac is last in order, followed by J, US, China, then a mere IPC collection phase for UK, another complete round, UK buys units but must wait to place them at the end of their turn, another complete round, and finally UK may move a unit. Any suggestions which move’s better: leave a weak Japanese India and build a CV with 2 ftr (3 x 12 IPC) or liberate India but receive no help from UK for at least 3 turns?

I suppose it depends if India will push Japan towards its 6 VPs and victory. Might be better not to reactivate India and try and reduce Japan’s economy, pushing from Korea, through China. Reactivating China, can really bother Japan, meaning it has to look all directions again.

Japan is getting 8 a turn from India too.  If Japan will not be able to re-take India any time soon, then you should liberate it.  Are you sure a carrier and 2 fighters would be your most effective buy?  Do you have a complex on Queensland yet?  Usually subs, destroyers, transports, and cheap ground units are most effective for ANZAC

That said, another reason to actually NOT liberate India is that ANZAC has the capability of building facilities on these territories.  If Hong Kong is secure, it’s possible to build a complex there with ANZAC, right?!