Things were changed in the errata.
M
Posts made by moompix
-
RE: Dutch and French in Globalposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
-
RE: Dutch and French in Globalposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
I think Paris will start off already controlled by Germany.
Doubt that there will be such a thing as liberating the Dutch capital. Which ever ally controls it, will control it until the end of the war. It will then be returned to the Dutch.
No to the third one. The Allies can’t take control of French territories that way. And, only the UK/ANZAC can do it with the Dutch territories.
-
RE: Building ICs…posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
You can not build units at industrial complexes you captured or built in the same turn. (page 20, 1st paragraph)
So, they have to go to a preexisting location.
-
RE: Convoy questionposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
i guess i am refering to the rule book #2 the word “your”. does this refer to the attacker disrupting convoys, or the defender - the owner of the convoy being disrupted.
The owner of the convoy being disrupted.
It’s your turn. It’s your collect income phase. The conditions are what it takes to disrupt your convoys.
-
RE: Convoy questionposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
maybe i am doing the whole blockade thing wrong.
lets say jap controls phillipines. in order for the allies to blockade sz35(phi), do the allies have to control an island(bor, pau, cel, guam, or dgu) adjacent to the blockaded sz?
No
The “your” in condition 2 under Conduct Convoy Disruptions is a reference to the power collecting income. In this example that would be Japan.
-
RE: Fighter Interceptorsposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
If follow those rules are followed it is not possible for a unit to participate in more than 1 combat per turn (other than a house rule allowing to disregard the law of physics that states than an object cannot be at 2 different locations at the same time ;) ).
Considering a turn represents a few months …
There’s no general rule that says a unit can’t participate in more than one combat per turn. There is just no situation in which it is possible.
-
RE: Fighter Interceptorsposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
Most likely they can not participate in both.
The rules make it very clear attackers can not, but there are no clear statements for defenders, that I could find. Clearly stating something for attackers and not for defenders, when it is supposed to also apply to defenders, makes for a sloppy rule.
I also can’t find a general rule about a unit being limited to participating in only one combat per turn.
-
RE: Kamikaze questionposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
When Japan does a kamikaze attack, do they designate the number of attacks (up to 6) all at once ie at the same time
or
can they designate one attack to one ship, roll that dice and if it doesn’t hit designate another kamikaze attack?
No
Page 14 second paragraph
Declare all you are making that turn, before any dice are rolled. -
RE: Scramble questionposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
They can’t hit the subs, or be hit by the subs. So, what would be the point?
I would say they can still scramble, if they want. There is an attack occurig in the sea zone, that is what allows them to scramble.
They defend on a 4.
If they hit, none of their hits can be assigned to the submarines.
They may not be removed as casualties, if the subs cause hits.
-
RE: Rules Question - Do Scrambled Fighters prevent Shore Bombardemnt?posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
In the scramble section of the rules, it states that it prevents shore bombardment.
Scramble happens at the beginning of the Conduct Combat Phase, which happens after all combat moves have been made. The loading of transports occurs during the Combat Move Phase. Scrambling can’t prevent the loading of transports during the Combat Move Phase.
-
RE: Rethink of usa captureposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
Thats what I meant, in that I thought USA could buy a bit more or change a bit. But your r3 purchase is 68 ipc, not 60.
I mistakenly calculated the US3 buy using the old cost of tanks.
-
RE: AAP40 FAQposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
Yes, always check the errata for updated versions of the rules you quote. I sometimes forget this.
-
RE: AAP40 FAQposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
However, if Japan attacks the Dutch on J1, then they are at war with the Dutch, UK/anzac and the US immediately and really no declaration of war is needed because of an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan.
Not exactly. If Japan declares war on UK/ANZAC on J1, war with the US does not immediately result. It does, however, give the US the ability to declare war on Japan on any subsequent turn.
Interesting. This is new to me. Are all declarations of war non-reciprocal? So if, for example, Japan is the first to declare war in a game, they are still not subject to convoy raids during the turn in which they declared war, correct?
The condition for convoy disruption:
Isn’t - At least one warship belonging to a power that has declared war on the power collecting income must be in the sea zone.
It’s - At least one warship belonging to a power with which you are at war must be in the sea zone.
The ships of any power that Japan has declared war on, during a turn, would meet this requirement during the collect income phase of that same turn.
The US not being at war with Japan, after Japan declares on the UK, isn’t a non-reciprocal situation. My understanding is that declarations of war are reciprocal. There is one line in the Errata that gives the impression they aren’t.
The line: “The United States may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC.” - The green part is probably not necessary because later in the Errata there’s the following line:
“If a power is not yet at war with another power, and there are no restrictions currently keeping them from being at war (see The Political Situation on pg. 8 ), it may declare war on that power.”
If Japan has declared war on the US, then the US is NOT “not yet at war”. The US is at war with Japan, because Japan declared war on the US. A declaration by the US is unnecessary.
-
RE: Is Carrier change to capital ship justifiable?posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
Plus, think about a carrier on defense next to one of your territories.
They defend the same as old carriers, and you can absorb the extra hit without worrying about losing your planes, if they survive the battle.
-
RE: Is Carrier change to capital ship justifiable?posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
No, they are stronger overall.
An old carrier that took one hit could land just as many planes.
-
RE: Why is Mongolia Neutral?posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
They clearly weren’t neutral. Why aren’t they painted red and given to the Soviet Union?
After the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941, Mongolia remained neutral throughout most of the war, but its geographical situation meant that it in fact served as a buffer between Japanese forces and the Soviet Union.
They wouldn’t be a buffer, if they were just made part of the Soviet Union.
Maybe the global game will include more complex rules that deal with Neutral Powers, instead of just treating all the neutrals as independent territories.
-
RE: Rules are pretty confusingposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
New Guinea is an island and it’s split in two.
In the real world it’s an island. It is not an island in this game - No scramble allowed
-
RE: Errataposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
@Yoper:
I don’t think an unofficial errata, that contains unapproved additions, which people could use instead of the official FAQ is a good idea.
As I said, it would be new questions, beyond what is in the official FAQ.
It would be questions that have come up since the official FAQ has been published and it would be the ones that would eventually be reviewed for inclusion.
In the parlance of the gaming community, this kind of evolving work is called “Living Rules”. Something that WotC/AH/Hasbro hasn’t/doesn’t/doesn’t care to get.
I think we’re agreeing, but just don’t know it. Well I guess I do now, because that’s what I suggested above.
I would suggest two types of threads - One that covers the more common questions that really don’t need to be in the official FAQ, because they can be answered by rereading the rules or FAQ.
and one for the things that maybe should go in the official FAQ.
-
RE: Strat bombers vs infantryposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
Yup. Doesn’t make much sense as well for planes to blast whole armies but it’s only a game ;)
I agree with this. Far less realistic for an aircraft unit to destroy an infantry unit, than for an infantry unit to destroy an aircraft unit.
But, It’s a game, not a training simulation for supreme allied commander candidates, or is it?
Post 100 !!!
-
RE: 2 questionsposted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
Yes, damaged battleships can bombard.
A single attacking warship (or any unit with an attack value of 1+) in a sea zone with just enemy transports will destroy all the transports. The undefended transports rule is there so you don’t have to keep rolling the dice to finish a battle that has only one possible outcome - the destruction of all the transports.
You can keep hitting them, but they can’t hit you back. It might take you ten additional rounds of combat, but eventually you will roll the number of hits needed. No point rolling the dice, just remove the transports.
Suggested Topics
