Transport question

Thank you for the clarification. :)

@thrumpskin:

Do ipc’s “roll over” like phone phone minutes?

Yes, but more like a bank account.

@Krieghund:

@moralecheck:

The UK not only can’t land it’s units, but it has to endure one round of defensive fire from the scrambled unit(s) before it can retreat.  Any units on those transports are lost.

Not so.  Since it’s not the transport’s turn, it is not in the battle and can’t move.  The scrambled fighter simply prevents the amphibious landing without inflicting any casualties.

@moralecheck:

KH explained: A fighter can scramble to join a battle or against an amphibious assault.  It cannot scramble against ships that are just putting around its waters though.  This raises a new question, so I hope Krieghund is reading:  If I send transports (only), or even a fleet with warships to assault an island with scramblable (I made up a word!!) units, can I send a fighter into the waters with it, even though that is not really a combat move (but it will be if my opponent scrambles)?

Yes.  Just the chance of combat is enough to justify the move.

UK units on a US transport. Missed that.  My bad.

Kreighund, why didnt ANZAC start with an AA gun?
Seems bazzare to me that that power doesnt get one.

Nevermind - the answer is on pg. 16.  Looks like attacking air units can either be chosen to defend against the scramble (i.e. participate in the sea battle), or can ignore the scramble and assist in the amphib assault - but cannot do both.

The simple thought of new players is why money should have been included. The experienced players don’t need the money. In the base AA42 game money should have been included as a learning tool. In the AA40 games the complexity goes way up. For a newer player the more help to simplify things the better. These games at the very least should have offered a tracking chart in the rule book that could be copied. I would suggest to newer players to use poker chips, money from other games, or make up a chart to track money including NO’s by nation.

@Jagdtiger:

Excuse me if this has been covered somewhere before, but I’m a newbie on this forum, and cant seem to find it.  
Question:  On turn J1 or J2…Japan has not and does not DOW anyone.  If the Japanese attack an un-occupied(never occupied by UK or ANZAC) Dutch territory, the UK and ANZAC consider that an act of war.  Because of this would the US be able to declare war on Japan on US1 or US2?  Answer:  I say no, because Japan did not declare war on UK or ANZAC.  But it is kinda fuzzy and I can see a possible argument for the other side of this…ie…Japan committed an act of war.
Thanks
C

Japan must declare war on UK/ANZAC to invade a dutch colony.  Upon declaring war with UK/Anzac the US immediately declares war on Japan.

You can only invade a dutch colony without provoking US involvment if UK or Anzac attack Japan first.

I get it now…thanks for the help gentlemen.