Can existing fighters and tactical bombers (on a tt with an industrial complex) be placed on a newly bought/placed aircraft carrier?
Not if they’re on land; they need to end non combat in the seazone where the carrier will be floated.
so during non combat movement, move 2 fighters to the adjacent sea zone where the aircraft carrier will be placed and the 2 fighters land on the aircraft carrier?
I thought if planes do not get back to a safe landing area by the end of non combat movement, they perish. Placing a newly bought aircraft carrier is after non combat movement. Wouldn’t this mean the 2 fighers perish prior to the aircraft carrier being placed?
so during non combat movement, move 2 fighters to the adjacent sea zone where the aircraft carrier will be placed and the 2 fighters land on the aircraft carrier?
I thought if planes do not get back to a safe landing area by the end of non combat movement, they perish. Placing a newly bought aircraft carrier is after non combat movement. Wouldn’t this mean the 2 fighers perish prior to the aircraft carrier being placed?
per my understanding of AA50 rules, a sea zone where you’ll place a new carrier counts as a ‘safe landing area’. it’s an exception.
so during non combat movement, move 2 fighters to the adjacent sea zone where the aircraft carrier will be placed and the 2 fighters land on the aircraft carrier?
I thought if planes do not get back to a safe landing area by the end of non combat movement, they perish. Placing a newly bought aircraft carrier is after non combat movement. Wouldn’t this mean the 2 fighers perish prior to the aircraft carrier being placed?
a sea zone where you’ll place a new carrier counts as a ‘safe landing area’. it’s an exception.
Thanks for clarifying!
as I recall from playing TripleA i don’t think this was allowed. I can be wrong since it’s been a while since I actually played on TripleA
The US can’t land it’s planes in British or Australian territories until it is at war? Where did it say that in the rulebook?
Also, if the British and ANZAC forces go to war with Japan but Japan is not at war with the United States does that allow Japan to occupy the Dutch East Indies or is that still a declaration of war with the US?
as I recall from playing TripleA i don’t think this was allowed. I can be wrong since it’s been a while since I actually played on TripleA
In revised, the planes are supposed to be in the territory with the factory adjacent to the seazone where the carrier is floated. TripleA reflects this.
In AA50 the plane must end in the seazone of the territory where the carrier will be floated. I assume this rule now was carried over to AA1942. TripleA also reflects this, although the first time you try it’s almost an act of faith that your planes won’t disappear.
The US can’t land it’s planes in British or Australian territories until it is at war? Where did it say that in the rulebook?
Also, if the British and ANZAC forces go to war with Japan but Japan is not at war with the United States does that allow Japan to occupy the Dutch East Indies or is that still a declaration of war with the US?
Doesn’t say they cannot land there planes there, but it makes logical sense, it would also be weird if Anzac attacked japan on turn 1 after the us droped 2 Inf into new guinea and then japan attacked new guinea. As far as invading the Indies I belive that if they are controlled by the dutch, they cannot, but if they are controlled by UK/AN then they could.
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.
The US can’t land it’s planes in British or Australian territories until it is at war? Where did it say that in the rulebook?
Also, if the British and ANZAC forces go to war with Japan but Japan is not at war with the United States does that allow Japan to occupy the Dutch East Indies or is that still a declaration of war with the US?
I think Krieg said it’s not clarified in the rulebook, but was intended and will be in the FAQ.
@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.
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.
@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.
Thank you Vareel, +1 :-D
What is the maximum amount of misspelled words before this game is considered crap?
I was going to go, but now I’m thinking about staying home and being frustrated because you are attempting to hijack my topic by chatting about the open house.
Maybe I’ll just come so that I can beat you up instead.
Anyway.
Rules ‘Idea’ Book.
Thoughts?
I know that this was addressed earlier in the posts of this thread. But I love the fact that capital ships don’t get a free hit. :-)
Ok transport question. So in the new rules a transport that is unescorted by surface warships can move through sea zones with a sub but now the subs get one free shot at the transports. Which I think makes sense and was a good addition. Now for the question.
Scenario
Japan has 2 subs and a transport. Anzac has a sub. Japan wants to send one sub and one transport through the sea zone with the anzac sub. If this was it then it would be easy, sub gets a pot shot. Now Japan also wants to attack the anzac sub with the 2nd sub. Does the anzac sub still get a pot shot? I am guessing maybe it does but it seems a little unclear. Seems a little unfair that the anzac sub could submerge and not fight the attacking japanese sub but still get to take a shot at the transport.
Scenario
Japan has 2 subs and a transport. Anzac has a sub. Japan wants to send one sub and one transport through the sea zone with the anzac sub. If this was it then it would be easy, sub gets a pot shot. Now Japan also wants to attack the anzac sub with the 2nd sub. Does the anzac sub still get a pot shot? I am guessing maybe it does but it seems a little unclear. Seems a little unfair that the anzac sub could submerge and not fight the attacking japanese sub but still get to take a shot at the transport.
I’m pretty sure this is a case where you can’t send a transport THROUGH a contested seazone to a seazone further on (for an amphib assault or otherwise). If you engage the Anzac sub, the transport is stuck there until the battle is over (anzac sub destroyed or submerged) because the seazone now has a battle and you can’t pass through a battle. The Anzac sub only tries to fire on the transport if you’re running the blockade. Basically, if you choose to ignore the sub, he fires on the tranny. If you don’t ignore the sub, he’s firing on your sub and if you lose you’ll need to retreat the tranny (not keep moving forward). Best plan is to not escort a tranny with a sub.
I would argue (looking at the sub-shot rule in djensen’s preview) that subs only shoot if it’s subs defending vs transports moving through. Plus, I think you can move through a battle, because I’ve seen mention of how if a naval unit decides to kill a transport or sub, it has to stop. This indicates that other units move on through. Someone just please bootleg the AAP40 rulebook to stop this insanity; because we evidently can’t help ourselves.
From the rules : Any sea zone that contains only enemy sub. does not stop the movement of a sea unit. … . There is an exception … A submarine can attack any transport that moves into or through its sea zone unaccompanied by surface warship (note : submarines are NOT surface warship) … Each submarine fire once (att. 2) at the transports … any undestroyed transports can continue their planned movement.
Note : sea unit ending their combat movement in a zone containing only enemy sub may choose to attack or not.
I would argue (looking at the sub-shot rule in djensen’s preview) that subs only shoot if it’s subs defending vs transports moving through. Plus, I think you can move through a battle, because I’ve seen mention of how if a naval unit decides to kill a transport or sub, it has to stop. This indicates that other units move on through. Someone just please bootleg the AAP40 rulebook to stop this insanity; because we evidently can’t help ourselves.
The whole ignoring subs rule totally throws me. You know, it really should be “If you do not have a destroyer, you CANNOT choose to engage combat in a seazone with only submarines” and I don’t believe that’s the case. However, I really don’t see how you can move through one seazone with a sub with some units and leave others there to fight. A seazone is either contested or it’s not, and as all combat moves happen at the same time, you shouldn’t be able to choose to move through a contested seazone, even if it’s a single sub. It should be either “on” or “off”.
