Rules Q&A

@ksmckay:

Scenario
Japan has 2 subs and a transport.  Anzac has a sub.  Japan wants to send one sub and one transport through the sea zone with the anzac sub.  If this was it then it would be easy, sub gets a pot shot.  Now Japan also wants to attack the anzac sub with the 2nd sub.  Does the anzac sub still get a pot shot?  I am guessing maybe it does but it seems a little unclear.  Seems a little unfair that the anzac sub could submerge and not fight the attacking japanese sub but still get to take a shot at the transport.

I’m pretty sure this is a case where you can’t send a transport THROUGH a contested seazone to a seazone further on (for an amphib assault or otherwise).  If you engage the Anzac sub, the transport is stuck there until the battle is over (anzac sub destroyed or submerged) because the seazone now has a battle and you can’t pass through a battle.  The Anzac sub only tries to fire on the transport if you’re running the blockade.  Basically, if you choose to ignore the sub, he fires on the tranny.  If you don’t ignore the sub, he’s firing on your sub and if you lose you’ll need to retreat the tranny (not keep moving forward).  Best plan is to not escort a tranny with a sub.

I would argue (looking at the sub-shot rule in djensen’s preview) that subs only shoot if it’s subs defending vs transports moving through. Plus, I think you can move through a battle, because I’ve seen mention of how if a naval unit decides to kill a transport or sub, it has to stop. This indicates that other units move on through. Someone just please bootleg the AAP40 rulebook to stop this insanity; because we evidently can’t help ourselves.

From the rules : Any sea zone that contains only enemy sub. does not stop the movement of a sea unit. … . There is an exception … A submarine can attack any transport that moves into or through its sea zone unaccompanied by surface warship (note : submarines are NOT surface warship) … Each submarine fire once (att. 2) at the transports … any undestroyed transports can continue their planned movement.

Note : sea unit ending their combat movement in a zone containing only enemy sub may choose to attack or not.

@hyogoetophile:

I would argue (looking at the sub-shot rule in djensen’s preview) that subs only shoot if it’s subs defending vs transports moving through. Plus, I think you can move through a battle, because I’ve seen mention of how if a naval unit decides to kill a transport or sub, it has to stop. This indicates that other units move on through. Someone just please bootleg the AAP40 rulebook to stop this insanity; because we evidently can’t help ourselves.

The whole ignoring subs rule totally throws me.  You know, it really should be “If you do not have a destroyer, you CANNOT choose to engage combat in a seazone with only submarines” and I don’t believe that’s the case.  However, I really don’t see how you can move through one seazone with a sub with some units and leave others there to fight.  A seazone is either contested or it’s not, and as all combat moves happen at the same time, you shouldn’t be able to choose to move through a contested seazone, even if it’s a single sub.  It should be either “on” or “off”.

@Kilukru:

From the rules : Any sea zone that contains only enemy sub. does not stop the movement of a sea unit. … . There is an exception … A submarine can attack any transport that moves into or through its sea zone unaccompanied by surface warship (note : submarines are NOT surface warship) … Each submarine fire once (att. 2) at the transports … any undestroyed transports can continue their planned movement.

Note : sea unit ending their combat movement in a zone containing only enemy sub may choose to attack or not.

But that doesn’t answer whether you can engage the sub with your sub AND move the transport through, which I felt was the gist of the question.  I don’t believe you can.  Once a seazone is contested, all movement should be blocked.  So you can choose to ignore the anzac sub (and he gets a free shot), or you can choose to engage the anzac sub (and the subs fire on each other), but you can’t choose to do both.  Unless you can.  Which I guess is ok, but still wierd.  In which case the Anzac sub should still get a pot shot.

Yes, you can (attempt to) attack the sub with one sub while the other sub and the transport move on.  It’s not a contested sea zone that stops movement, it’s a hostile one.  The presence of enemy subs and/or transports alone does not make a sea zone hostile.

@Krieghund:

Yes, you can (attempt to) attack the sub with one sub while the other sub and the transport move on.  It’s not a contested sea zone that stops movement, it’s a hostile one.  The presence of enemy subs and/or transports alone does not make a sea zone hostile.

Ah.  All clear.  But then the sub still gets a free shot on the transport.

@Vareel:

@Krupp:

A few quick questions im confused about.

1. Can a Minor IC be built on any land territory regardless of IPC value?Only a major may be built on a territory with a IPC value of 3 correct?

2.Without declaring war can i as japan on J1 move a fleet to SZ35 which contains American surface ships?I dont want to attack,i just want them there for j2.

EDIT: 3- WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM damage a minor and major IC can take each?

Thank you.

1. Value must be atleast 2 IPCs to build a minor
2. Yes
3. Double production value, so 6 and 20.

Lets look closer at #2.
“2.Without declaring war can i as japan on J1 move a fleet to SZ35 which contains American surface ships?I dont want to attack,i just want them there for j2.”
On page # 8 of the rule book, it explains
Friendly vs hostel sz. Its pretty cut and dry, but it doesn’t say if a neutral power’s surface ships make it friendly or hostel however. It does say on pg #8 under " The Political Situation" (referring to Japan) that combat movement against Britts, Dutch, Anzac, or American territories, troops, or ships will bring all of the Allied powers into the war. In Japans combat move it could ignore the US transport I think, but if that US DD is there, I think there would be a battle, and all will be at war. I believe Japan could move there in its non combat move however. From what I gather Krieg will address this in a faq at some point. He already said (not in rules) that US can’t move its units into UK or Anzac, or Dutch tt unless its in the war war. The flip side would be that UK, Anzac can’t reinforce US positions either. It sounds like this won’t spill over to the sz, as any powers ships can share sz if they are not at war, as long as they move there in non combat. Kinda weird, I’m not sure you would want to be sharing to much with Japan, unless you are tying to provoke them into war.

@WILD:

@Vareel:

@Krupp:

A few quick questions im confused about.

1. Can a Minor IC be built on any land territory regardless of IPC value?Only a major may be built on a territory with a IPC value of 3 correct?

2.Without declaring war can i as japan on J1 move a fleet to SZ35 which contains American surface ships?I dont want to attack,i just want them there for j2.

EDIT: 3- WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM damage a minor and major IC can take each?

Thank you.

1. Value must be atleast 2 IPCs to build a minor
2. Yes
3. Double production value, so 6 and 20.

Lets look closer at #2.
“2.Without declaring war can i as japan on J1 move a fleet to SZ35 which contains American surface ships?I dont want to attack,i just want them there for j2.”
On page # 8 of the rule book, it explains
Friendly vs hostel sz. Its pretty cut and dry, but it doesn’t say if a neutral power’s surface ships make it friendly or hostel however. It does say on pg #8 under " The Political Situation" (referring to Japan) that combat movement against Britts, Dutch, Anzac, or American territories, troops, or ships will bring all of the Allied powers into the war. In Japans combat move it could ignore the US transport I think, but if that US DD is there, I think there would be a battle, and all will be at war. I believe Japan could move there in its non combat move however. From what I gather Krieg will address this in a faq at some point. He already said (not in rules) that US can’t move its units into UK or Anzac, or Dutch tt unless its in the war war. The flip side would be that UK, Anzac can’t reinforce US positions either. It sounds like this won’t spill over to the sz, as any powers ships can share sz if they are not at war, as long as they move there in non combat. Kinda weird, I’m not sure you would want to be sharing to much with Japan, unless you are tying to provoke them into war.

yes, I think krieg already said an axis power can noncombat-move into a sea zone containing allied ships and vice-versa, so long as they are not already at war.

@Stoney229:

@Vareel:

My question is, lets say on US1/AN1 they both moved boats into the same SZ, and UK attacked japan starting war.  IF japan were to attack the SZ containing US/AN units would the US units fight or just be there but do nothing?  I’m assuming the later.

I think that’s a good question.  Perhaps japan chooses if (s)he is attacking both or just AN.

still curious to know the answer to Vareel’s question.  any ideas?

@Stoney229:

@Stoney229:

@Vareel:

My question is, lets say on US1/AN1 they both moved boats into the same SZ, and UK attacked japan starting war.  IF japan were to attack the SZ containing US/AN units would the US units fight or just be there but do nothing?  I’m assuming the later.

I think that’s a good question.  Perhaps japan chooses if (s)he is attacking both or just AN.

still curious to know the answer to Vareel’s question.  any ideas?

I would think that if Japan attacks a sz it attacks the entire sz. So if US ships are there then that’s a declaration of war on the US.

I would agree with that.  I do have a question though with the US being neutral can it really share sz with anzac?  The UK/Anzac ships can share land spaces but cant do so with the US.  The UK and anzac can share sea spaces with japan when they arent at war.  Can the US ships be in the same sz as japan or UK/ANZAC before they are at war?

@ksmckay:

I would agree with that.  I do have a question though with the US being neutral can it really share sz with anzac?  The UK/Anzac ships can share land spaces but cant do so with the US.  The UK and anzac can share sea spaces with japan when they arent at war.  Can the US ships be in the same sz as japan or UK/ANZAC before they are at war?

I think of it as international waters.  No power has territorial control over a seazone (without declaring war, really), so any neutral or friendly power can share the sea(zone).

I second that.

yeah, That certainly what I would think as well.

@Brain:

Maybe they should drill a hole in the top like in the game battleship and you could mark one hit with a red peg.

Just saw this…cracked me up.  that’s one of your best

I thought about drilling two holes in the carrier and then one in the ftr & tac bmr. Then using a peg to keep them on it. Ftrs were hard enough to keep on, but the tac’s (nice sculpt by the way) are nearly impossible. Maybe I’ll try magnets, I’ve heard they work well.

So, to make it clear, I can move my Japanese fleet just outside Hawaii, the American can do the same and eachother will wait either the Japanese player to choose a fight or Turn 4. I get this OK?

The Carolina japanese fleet can travel through Phillipines, in J1 without provoking war, right?

yep.

@WILD:

@Stoney229:

@Stoney229:

@Vareel:

My question is, lets say on US1/AN1 they both moved boats into the same SZ, and UK attacked japan starting war.  IF japan were to attack the SZ containing US/AN units would the US units fight or just be there but do nothing?  I’m assuming the later.

I think that’s a good question.  Perhaps japan chooses if (s)he is attacking both or just AN.

still curious to know the answer to Vareel’s question.  any ideas?

I would think that if Japan attacks a sz it attacks the entire sz. So if US ships are there then that’s a declaration of war on the US.

I disagree.  If Japan is only at war with UK/AN but not with the US, then Japan should be able to attack just the AN units. The US units also in that sea zone would be ignored.  Otherwise the US player could make sure it had a sea unit “escort” all UK/AN sea units in order to “protect” them from Jap retaliation in the event of a UK/AN attack on Japan.  Which seems a little cheesy to me.

This is just my opinion, I don’t have the game yet so don’t know if the rules address this.