Rules Q&A

@Stoney229:

can one make noncombat moves before declaring war, and then announce an attack on a convoy, thus declaring war after the noncombat move has been made?

Convoy attacks are not combat moves, or non combat moves.  They are declared during the collect income phase of an opponent when you have ships in their convoy zone.

I believe that Japan could move their fleet into a seazone with a british convoy marker (and in fact a british fleet) while not at war.  During the british turn, during their collect income phase, Japan decides whether they will interdict the convoy.  At that point, a convoy attack is a declaration of war.

Question:@Shakespeare:

In the pre war turns, may opposing war ships surface or subs coexist in the same SZ without combat?    :?

Answer:@Krieghund:

@Stoney229:

@Krieghund:

@Vareel:

Do allied ships ‘block’ the movement of Japan boats before war is declared?

No.  A sea zone is only hostile if it contains surface warships belonging to a power with which you are at war.

So and allied power can make a non-combat movement ending in a seazone containing surface warships belonging to an axis power (and vice versa) if war has not been declared between them?

Yes.

@kcdzim:

@Stoney229:

can one make noncombat moves before declaring war, and then announce an attack on a convoy, thus declaring war after the noncombat move has been made?

Convoy attacks are not combat moves, or non combat moves.  They are declared during the collect income phase of an opponent when you have ships in their convoy zone.

I believe that Japan could move their fleet into a seazone with a british convoy marker (and in fact a british fleet) while not at war.  During the british turn, during their collect income phase, Japan decides whether they will interdict the convoy.  At that point, a convoy attack is a declaration of war.

That answers my question precisely, thank you.  So I understand that the rules do state, then, that the decision of whether or not to inderdict is made by the aggressor during the “defender’s” turn.

@shohoku201:

If Japan attacks on J1, how much does US start off with on US1?  is it 17 or 57? I would assume they start off with 17 and at the end of US1 during the collect income phase they collect 57 (if they did not lose any tt).

The US would still start with only 17.  If war is declared on the second turn, the US STILL wouldn’t have the bonus 40 available to spend until the buy phase of the 3rd turn.  Think of it as the time it takes for the US to effectively mobilize itself after the sneak attack.

National objectives work the same way.  You don’t collect extra money at the start of the game for any objectives you happen to be making at the start of the game.  For example, in AA50, at setup the US doesn’t get extra dough because she controls philipines, central USA, blah de blah de blah.  Objectives only kick in at the collect income phase at the end of a turn, not at beginning of game.

@djensen:

If the USA is not at war with Japan by the beginning of the collect income phase during the third turn, then the USA is immediately at war with Japan.

So the USA collects 50 from Western USA on it’s 3rd turn no matter what, right?  So there no disadvantage to anyone declaring war after USA’s second turn, right?

If Japan captures West USA, does it collect 50 from it or 10?  Is West USA a capital, i.e. does Japan get USA’s money in this case?

@Stoney229:

@djensen:

If the USA is not at war with Japan by the beginning of the collect income phase during the third turn, then the USA is immediately at war with Japan.

So the USA collects 50 from Western USA on it’s 3rd turn no matter what, right?  So there no disadvantage to anyone declaring war after USA’s second turn, right?

If Japan captures West USA, does it collect 50 from it or 10?  Is West USA a capital, i.e. does Japan get USA’s money in this case?

If you manage to capture West USA, the point is probably moot.  As for Japan attacking US on J3…  correct.  If it’s a good move you have no reason not to.  They will get the bonus anyway at the end of US3 even if you don’t.

Is the United States considered nuetral until attacked or declares war? Can the U.S. move it’s land units and airpower to territories controlled by the U.K.? They can’t go to Dutch territories so I assume they can’t go to U.K. territories?

The only restriction on moving unit to allied territory is moving them in china, which is considered an act of war, so US can’t do it but UK and ANZAC can.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Is the United States considered nuetral until attacked or declares war?

Yes.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Can the U.S. move it’s land units and airpower to territories controlled by the U.K.? They can’t go to Dutch territories so I assume they can’t go to U.K. territories?

No, it can’t.  Neutral countries can’t move units into other countries’ territories.  This isn’t clear in the rules, but it will be in the FAQ.

Krieg, I can’t believe what I am reading ….  :-o

The US can’t fly planes to Australia if she is not at war with Japan? Bloody hell, how was it possible this is not mentioned in the rulebook…  :?

@Driel310:

Krieg, I can’t believe what I am reading ….  :-o

The US can’t fly planes to Australia if she is not at war with Japan? Bloody hell, how was it possible this is not mentioned in the rulebook…  :?

If this is true then the allies are even weaker than I thought.

I can’t believe the terrible quality of the rulebook. I am a fiscal advisor. If I get one letter wrong this could have big consequences. Therefore we check, check and doublecheck all our work.
Either they are all incompetent or they try to save money on the wrong things.

I assume that if more than one allied player has units in the same land territory defending , that they all defend together, while they cannot attack together is clear in the rules.

@Stoney229:

So the USA collects 50 from Western USA on it’s 3rd turn no matter what, right?  So there no disadvantage to anyone declaring war after USA’s second turn, right?

It seems there are all sorts of rules coming out of the woodwork, but so far the only disadvantage would be that the U.S. can attack Japan on US3. Though I’m not sure if this would amount to any sort of threat that early in the game.

Now that the game has been released,
is it possible to download the rulebook?
I’ve ordered my copy,
but not sure I’ll get it before the end of the year…
:?

In the rulebook in Phase 6: Collect Income it says " before you can actually recieve this income, you much check for any losses incurred by air and naval attacks against your shipping routes"

Then in the convoy section it doesnt mention anything about air units, only surface warships and subs.  Obviously air units (on carriers for example) are not surface warships but do they count went totaling convoy disruptions or was it a mistake to mention them in the quote above?

@Stoney229:

If Japan captures West USA, does it collect 50 from it or 10?  Is West USA a capital, i.e. does Japan get USA’s money in this case?

If Japan attacks, they are at war, so I’d say Japan takes a 50 IPCs territory. I guess it’s a capital and take the money, but anyway game is over if you manage such deed  :-)

Air attacks simply refers to air units on carriers in the sea zone.  The air units are included in the carrier’s convoy damage, as a carrier itself wouldn’t be able to damage much shipping.  Rather than complicate the rules with things like “all surface warships except carriers cause one point of damage, and air units on carriers cause one each” or “only carriers with at least one air unit cause damage”, it was simplified to say that each surface warship causes a point regardless of type.

@Craig:

After a quick check of the AA40 Europe Rule Set (unofficial/playtest copy), I see that this situation was caught and edited to remove the “air” part of the statement.

Yes.  This was done in order to avoid just this sort of confusion.

@Craig:

This goes back to Krieghund stating that there are a bit of typo/clarifications that will have to been put out concerning AA40 Pacific.  Everyone needs to keep their panties from getting in a wad and wait patiently for Krieghund and Larry to get that info out.

Speaking of which, I’m working on the FAQ now.  In in effort to facilitate that process, I’m going to stop answering rules questions and let you guys work them out for yourselves.  I’ll only step in if you get to an impasse.  That way, I’ll be better able to more quickly identify ambiguities in the rules.

I know there are some minor problems with the political rules, but this is the first A&A game that’s ever had them, so please bear with us.  Due to the development schedule, some new issues came up with them while testing Europe after the Pacific rulebook had already been finalized.  Many of the clarifications in the FAQ will deal with those issues.  Of course, some of these are also just plain old mistakes.  :oops:

@Craig:

Remember, they are just humans too!  I know, it’s hard to believe, but trust me.  I have proof of their mortalness.  See my avatar.

They are nice guys (Larry most of the time!  :wink: ) doing a great job of keeping us happy with new challenges.

Lies!  All lies!!  :wink:

Krieghund, Craig A Yope, I really appreciate your efforts in helping us clarify quite a lot of issues here. Thank you both. Can either of you confirm whether an offical FAQ is being put together as we speak?

Yeah, I’m working on it now.  See my last post, above.