US wartime rules

Yes, it’s in the FAQ.

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA_Pacific_1940_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf

@Krieghund:

Welcome, Stefano1189!

While it’s not at war, the US may not move units into territories belonging to other powers, including the Dutch territories.  After it’s at war, it may occupy Dutch territories (move units there), but it may not take control of them unless it’s recapturing them from Japan.

See the FAQ for more information.

Thank you Krieg!

Assuming the Japanese don’t attack J1, One strat I tried was for the US to Move the Fleet to Wake, and I built a naval base there on US 1. If Guam is open on US1, move the fighter and troops there too. Now your forces at Wake are in range to counter attack or reinforce Guam, and the Aussies can fly up all four fighters on ANZAC 2 (actually, 1 can move up on ANZAC 1).

Guam is a key location for the Allies, specifcally the US, to attack Asia & lots of targets from.

Just something to consider. :-)

Nevermind - the answer is on pg. 16.  Looks like attacking air units can either be chosen to defend against the scramble (i.e. participate in the sea battle), or can ignore the scramble and assist in the amphib assault - but cannot do both.

Yoper:

“But spelling mistakes are different from people actually having troubles understanding certain ideas or concepts in the rules.”

Yes, they are different, but both fall under the jurisdiction of the editor(s).  That being said, I agree that “Trying to put forth a rule (like the political rules in AAP 40) in a way that is clear to all is a tough task.”

From what I’ve read, it seems that people should also apply some common sense - especially those who’ve been playing A&A games for many years.  I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve read of someone wanting a clarification - only to wonder why it needed to be clarified in the first place.

As to the spelling mistakes… well that’s just plain shoddy workmanship.  No, it doesn’t effect gameplay, and I’m still going to have fun playing the game. But if people are shelling out a fair amount of money for a game - they expect a higher quality product, one that doesn’t have spelling errors (which is something that might be expected from a garage based game publisher - not a major manufacturer).  And there is the element of presentation as well, in this kind of medium, it’s important.  And c’mon, consider the demographic of your buyers… we’re talking about guys (mainly) that go through great lengths such as painting the pieces, inventing pages of optional rules, making new maps etc.  Of course spelling mistakes are going to leap out at the average A&A enthusiast!

You stated, “I would like you (or anyone else) to give me a list of all the spelling mistakes in the rulebook.”  I’m not about to be an unpaid editor/proofer, but the point is that if there is one… that’s one too many.  It’s not that difficult to publish something without spelling mistakes - its done everyday.  And a lot of these publications don’t even have the benefit of more than one editor. Perhaps I’m a bit retentive in regard to the spelling issue, but I am obviously not alone in this stance.

BTW - I too don’t think anyone should be pointing fingers at the wardog or Larry Harris, it’s not like they design and produce the whole game themselves…

The second link you sent seems to apply- thanks for clearing this up.  I was rereading the parts in the rule book and it is very unclear and contradicting when talking about the “scrambling” and the “amphibs”

So then even a combat move with no sea combat that results in a amphib is still grounds for scrambling.  I’ll tell Kreighund to clear this up in the FAQs because it is worded very badly.

thanks
:-)

20,6,6,6

That’s workable. Anything would be better then 1 DD see’s everything right out of the box. You could even house rule something like that into AA50, just make it part of the radar tech. 1 for 1 until you get advanced radar(tech) then 1 DD see’s all subs. Its even kinda how the radar tech works. You fire AA guns @ 1 until you develop radar giving your AA guns a kill @ 2. Early in the game subs could easily out number DD’s, but you would still get limited detection. I might have to try this next game.

This would also work when air units & DD attack subs. Matched up 1 for 1. Excess subs would be allowed to submerge, unless the power w/DD & air units also has radar. At that point subs could not submerge til the DD is destroyed, just how it is now

Come on give subs more bite! :evil: