Rules Q&A

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.

Stoney229 and JamesG are correct.  Japan would have the choice of either ignoring the US units and attacking only the ANZAC units, or attacking all the units, resulting in war with the US.  This is the only case in which you may attack only some of the units in a space.  This will be in the FAQ.

@Krieghund:

This will be in the FAQ.

…will be in the FAQ, will be in the FAQ…oh my god, stuff like this should be in the rulebook, so tell me, what have editor Cal Moore been doing last year ? Playing fantazy games ?

edit: This is NOT a flame bait, its just the usual rant that everyone who own this game will make after they have read the poorly writen rulebook.

If after war has started and no one has claimed Borneo, may the Brits land airplanes there?

who gets the IPC’s of Borneo after war starts with UK?

If ANZAC takess Borneo before the UK gets there who gets the IPC’s?  UK or Anzac?

Who gets Borneo’s {PC’s after war starts but no one is there?

@Battlingmaxo:

@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 was totally serious :-D

@Shakespeare:

If after war has started and no one has claimed Borneo, may the Brits land airplanes there?

who gets the IPC’s of Borneo after war starts with UK?

If ANZAC takess Borneo before the UK gets there who gets the IPC’s?  UK or Anzac?

Who gets Borneo’s {PC’s after war starts but no one is there?

Borneo has a UK symbol, and are UK homeland, so its pretty obvious.