Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

Since it is a uk territory, not a chinese territory, china can not place there with or without factory

A neutral power may not noncom or attack a neutral territory. Its all over both rule books.
The Russian political situation in both Eur and Global states in the first paragraph…"This secret agreement, known as the molotov-zipperhead pact, assures that the Sov Un will remain neutral will remain neutral should Ger go to war in europe. “It also permits each power to expand its sphere of influence in eastern europe without interference from the other”
Should i ignore this or is it a special circumstance allowing Rus and Germany to take european neutrals (yugo, greece &/or bulgaria)?

I think that just refers to USSR starting the game with Eastern Poland, which it didn’t own in 1930. Perhaps the Baltic States too. Not sure when they came into the USSR.

@Bob77:

A neutral power may not noncom or attack a neutral territory. Its all over both rule books.
The Russian political situation in both Eur and Global states in the first paragraph…"This secret agreement, known as the molotov-zipperhead pact, assures that the Sov Un will remain neutral will remain neutral should Ger go to war in europe. “It also permits each power to expand its sphere of influence in eastern europe without interference from the other”
Should i ignore this or is it a special circumstance allowing Rus and Germany to take european neutrals (yugo, greece &/or bulgaria)?

The text in italics is a brief description of the historical background. The rules follow starting from “Political Situation”.

Ok. On pg9 of the europe says the same thing as pg 36 except no italics. Does that mean its legal if only playing eur40?

@Bob77:

Ok. On pg9 of the europe says the same thing as pg 36 except no italics. Does that mean its legal if only playing eur40?

Don’t just focus on the italics. On page 9 of the Europe Rulebook you can see, that the very brief description of the historical background ends, when it says:

@rulebook:

As a result, the Soviet Union …

That small descriptive part serves as background for the rules following after “As a result…” and does not override any core game rules.

P@nther has spoken…obey the Rules Deputy! Lol
Thanks dude

Hello,
quick rules question: what happens to China After Japan completely conquers Chinese territory?
What happens to china’s money?
Do the Chinese Return to the Game If one of their territories is liberated?

Duri

@Duri7:

quick rules question: what happens to China After Japan completely conquers Chinese territory?
What happens to china’s money?
Do the Chinese Return to the Game If one of their territories is liberated?

From the China Rules:

@rulebook:

Unlike the other powers in the game, China is not an
industrialized nation and has a rural economy and
decentralized government. As a result, China does not have
a capital like other powers do. If all Chinese territories are
captured by Japan, China retains its unspent IPCs in hope
of liberation and does not give them to Japan.

So once a Chinese territory will be liberated, China will be able to continue the game.

HTH :-)

Hi Pather,
thanks a lot. (Bad for myself as Japan) but just in time.

Best Duri

@PlasticAttack:

…
Two questions:
(1) Where and how would I post it on these forums? (I see, in writing this message, that there’s an option to post it along with this message: would that be the best way to post it?)

(2) If I preface the file by saying I got the FAQ from here, including the URL, do I have permission to also post it on BoardGameGeek in the A&A 1940 forums over there?

Welcome to the forum, PlasticAttack, and I think you have earned all our respect for this undertaking.  :-)

I am going to send you a PM addressing your questions, so please check your Messages.

P@nther is just awesome.

This project sounds very beneficial, don’t get me wrong, but the purpose of this thread is just to post your rules question and have it answered.  It’s not meant to be like a “FAQ” sheet that answers all the questions you may have after reading the rulebook.

The thread has worked perfectly for this purpose.  You have a question, you ask it, you get the right answer.  If you get the wrong answer, a rules deputy or Krieghund himself comes along within hours, usually, and gets you the correct answer.

This is not directed at you, Mr. PlasticAttack, but at those over the months who complain about the voluminous nature of this thread.  I’m just trying to explain that it’s not really designed for ease of reading, and redundant questions are FINE.  We don’t expect people to read this thread from the beginning.

Good point, Gamerman. That indeed is the purpose of this thread. It is not a wiki!

@Krieghund:

@Bob77:

First off…damn there is a lot of redundant q & a in this thread. Can we clean up some? Just a thought.

That’s been done.  There’s nothing here that’s not either in the rules or the official FAQs.

In this context I remembered Krieghund’s above statement. Indeed, over the years this (and previous) FAQ-thread has been a source that added towards the improvement of the (updated) rulebooks and official FAQ-sheets at http://avalonhill.wizards.com/rules .

However, in the past some players have always demanded for an additional “Compendium” to study. So this FAQ-thread, as well as others (for example Gamerman’s ‘Mongolia and Neutrals’ thread, but other stickied and non-stickied threads, too) might serve as excellent sources for a related project. Though - until today - no one seemed to show that much of stamina to really do it.

So i shouldnt bother trying to find the answer in this thread. I should just post a question that has been asked/answered multiple times. Well maybe that should be edited into the very first post so that others dont have to waste their time looking for an answer like me and lots of others have done.

On page 64 of this FAQ thread, Krieghund gave this answer:

I can only find in the rule book that the Allies who are not at war with Japan can not fly over China
without declaring war (is considered an act of war by Japan)

But Japan can fly over UK/French territories before they are at war with UK (or France), correct?
Yes.

I don’t understand this answer: why is Japan allowed to fly over the territories of countries with which it is not yet at war?

P40 p.8 says:
“All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” below).”

Is it because of this statement:
“The United Kingdom and ANZAC have a special relationship, and they are treated as one for political purposes. They are both at war with Japan’s allies, Germany and Italy, on the other side of the world, so they are not completely neutral.”

And . . .
"France’s capital has been captured by Germany. As a result, French territories are treated in the same way as any Allied territories whose capital is held by an enemy power (see “Liberating a Territory,” page 20).

And p. 28:
“Air units can move through hostile territories and sea zones as if they were friendly.”

And p. 36:
“Germany, Japan, and Italy make up the Axis. For the moment, the United Kingdom (including Canada), ANZAC, France, and China make up the Allies. The United States and the Soviet Union are neutral. During this period, many other countries tried to remain neutral as well. As the war became global, many neutrals were forced to join one side or the other.”

Or is there some other governing rule?

To gamerman
@Gamerman01:

@Caesar:

So if Italy and Germany do not trigger Mongolia to join USSR, what happens if Germany controls a boarder USSR territory and Japan during non combat send a land unit into their allies territory?

The rule says “if Japan attacks any Soviet-controlled territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory”

Do you need access to a rulebook?

Why post any questions? Its in black and white.

@Gamerman01:

No need to be impolite.  There is no loophole here - it’s in black and white and very clear and direct.

@Gamerman01:

P@nther is just awesome.

This project sounds very beneficial, don’t get me wrong, but the purpose of this thread is just to post your rules question and have it answered.  It’s not meant to be like a “FAQ” sheet that answers all the questions you may have after reading the rulebook.

The thread has worked perfectly for this purpose.  You have a question, you ask it, you get the right answer.  If you get the wrong answer, a rules deputy or Krieghund himself comes along within hours, usually, and gets you the correct answer.

This is not directed at you, Mr. PlasticAttack, but at those over the months who complain about the voluminous nature of this thread.  I’m just trying to explain that it’s not really designed for ease of reading, and redundant questions are FINE.  We don’t expect people to read this thread from the beginning.

Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet? The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.
We ask a question. We get an answer. How many times have the various people in the know (including you) ask if we have a rulebook and produce the link.
We’ve read the rule book and needed clarification. Those replies are condescending in nature.
Then to add salt to it, you say thats what the FAQ is here for.

I think it’s perfectly normal for people whose work/words comprise the source material to have a strong interest in the final product.

@PlasticAttack:

and yet a boldface, multi-lined warning was also felt to be necessary, in two places no less.

People commonly do not bother to read the titles of documents, or introductory paragraphs, or even through to the end of a sentence they’ve started. Sometimes you need to compensate for that  :lol:

@Bob77:

Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet? The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.

Moderators, I beseech you, please rename this thread “Rolling Q&A Full of Redundancy (AAG40.2)”

Really stick it to those fancy websites!

In all seriousness, I love the fact that this is a place where you can also get answers to odd or otherwise infrequently asked questions and get an ironclad answer. Don’t give the unpaid experts who make that possible a hard time.

@PlasticAttack:

On page 64 of this FAQ thread, Krieghund gave this answer:

I can only find in the rule book that the Allies who are not at war with Japan can not fly over China
without declaring war (is considered an act of war by Japan)

But Japan can fly over UK/French territories before they are at war with UK (or France), correct?
Yes.

I don’t understand this answer: why is Japan allowed to fly over the territories of countries with which it is not yet at war?

P40 p.8 says:
“All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” below).”

Is it because of this statement:
“The United Kingdom and ANZAC have a special relationship, and they are treated as one for political purposes. They are both at war with Japan’s allies, Germany and Italy, on the other side of the world, so they are not completely neutral.”

Yes, UK and ANZAC are at war (with Germany and Italy) all over the world at the beginning of the game, so they are not neutral powers like the USA and USSR are.

And . . .
"France’s capital has been captured by Germany. As a result, French territories are treated in the same way as any Allied territories whose capital is held by an enemy power (see “Liberating a Territory,” page 20).

And p. 28:
“Air units can move through hostile territories and sea zones as if they were friendly.”

And p. 36:
“Germany, Japan, and Italy make up the Axis. For the moment, the United Kingdom (including Canada), ANZAC, France, and China make up the Allies. The United States and the Soviet Union are neutral. During this period, many other countries tried to remain neutral as well. As the war became global, many neutrals were forced to join one side or the other.”

Or is there some other governing rule?

I think you’ve got it - Japan is at war.  UK is at war.  Japan can always fly over UK territories.  UK can’t fly over China without declaring war because that is considered an act of war by Japan.  (Japan is not at war with the UK, they are trying to dominate China without Allied interference.)

It’s risky to even respond to someone who is so critical of people you don’t even know, but I do want to politely answer a couple of your questions.
@Bob77:

Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet?

No, it is not.

The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.

Well that’s them, and this is us.  I guess the thread is misnamed.

We ask a question. We get an answer. How many times have the various people in the know (including you) ask if we have a rulebook and produce the link.

I only do that when I seriously doubt that you have a rulebook.  There are people who try to play these games without one, and they just ask everyone else a ton of questions.  I was not rude to ask if they have a rulebook because I meant it sincerely.

We’ve read the rule book and needed clarification. Those replies are condescending in nature.
Then to add salt to it, you say thats what the FAQ is here for.

Again, we don’t know that you’ve read the rulebook.  Sometimes the questions indicate that you (visitors to the site in general, that is) haven’t.  All moderators and official answer guys here try to give respect to all.  Forums between complete strangers are ripe for misunderstandings.

I sincerely asked that person if they had a rulebook because I wasn’t sure they did, and if they would have said “no”, I was going to provide a link to a rulebook for them.  You saw condescension where there was none.