Rules Q&A

@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.

I’m sorry, if it was Sumatra!!!  Same Q’s, but Sumatra. My geography was wrong!!!    :x

@Shakespeare:

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

Yes, but it will not give them control of it.  Taking control requires land units.

@Shakespeare:

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

Whomever has claimed/invaded it.

@Shakespeare:

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

ANZAC.

@Shakespeare:

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

If no one has claimed it, no one gets the income.

Questions like these can be answered by applying a simple principle.  If the situation isn’t specifically dealt with in the rules, treat the Dutch and French territories in exactly the same way as Allied territories whose capital is held by the enemy.

One more quick question about Sumatra (or any Dutch Isle) once US is in the war, can they take ownership of Dutch if no one else has, or can they only liberate it from Japan (taking ownership). I would think they could simply invade it once at war like the UK or Anzac if it is still Dutch, but I’ve been wrong before.

Unlike the UK or ANZAC, the US has no “special permission” to take over Dutch territories.  It can no more do so than it could invade Borneo if India was held by Japan.

Krieg,
boy this faq is going to be as thick as the rule book lol, by the way do you have an idea of when it might be posted, will it be this weekend (optimistic I know),or later through the week?

I’m hoping to have the unofficial FAQ posted early next week.  Getting official approval for the answers takes time.  (I know, it sounds weird that I need official approval for an unofficial FAQ, but I want to make sure that I’m not including anything that will get overturned later.)

Thanks for being up front, and very quick with your responses as always. I’ll leave you to it and wait patently (well at least till hump day). :-D

I would like to confirm the starting income for the US.  On rulebook page 7 the US income is shown as 17 IPC, but on page 8 it states that the US incomes increases by 40 to a total of 50 IPC after declaring war on Japan.  This implies that the starting US income is 10 IPC (50-40=10).  Which is it, 17 or 10?  If the non-war income is 17 does the at-war income become 17=40=57?  Or is the 40 IPC income boost number wrong and it should be 33 (17+33=50)?  Thanks for your help.

I would like to confirm the starting income for the US.  On rulebook page 7 the US income is shown as 17 IPC, but on page 8 it states that the US incomes increases by 40 to a total of 50 IPC after declaring war on Japan.  This implies that the starting US income is 10 IPC (50-40=10).  Which is it, 17 or 10?  If the non-war income is 17 does the at-war income become 17=40=57?  Or is the 40 IPC income boost number wrong and it should be 33 (17+33=50)?  Thanks for your help.

It should say that the income from the Western United States territory increases by 40 to a total of 50 IPCs.  All other US possessions are still added onto that.  If the US still has its original territories, its income will be 57 IPCs when it goes to war.