Posts made by kcdzim

@Gamerman01:

1. Yes.  Page 37, Europe 2nd edition manual, under USA.  If Japan makes an UNPROVOKED attack on UK or ANZAC, the USA can then declare war on any and all Axis powers.  If UK or ANZ attacks or Declares on Japan before Japan attacks, then the USA would have to wait until the end of round 3 to declare, unless one of the three Axis powers attacked the USA or declared on USA directly.

2. Yes.  Strategic and tactical bombers get to attack on a 1 in air to air combat.  Page 17 of Europe 2nd edition manual.  Bullet point one says attacking bombers and fighters are a part of the battle.  Bullet point three says all air units have attack and defense values of 1.  Krieghund has confirmed that bombers means tactical and strategic, both.
   Of course, strategic and tactical bombers of the defender cannot be used, only fighters can defend.  But attacking tactical and strategic bombers all get to fire on a 1.

Also: the US is not immediately brought into the war by the unprovoked attack on uk/Anzac.  It remains neutral until the US turn when the US can finally declare war.

@LHoffman:

Another question here…

If I have British units load onto US transports (in a bridging situation) during the combat move, can they immediately offload? I tried this last round (loading on British combat move) and then I tried to offload during non-combat and the game engine would not allow it, even back into the territory they came from. Can load-offload only be done in combat move, or must offload happen on the turn of the power who controls the transports?

In addition to what was already stated by Moralecheck -

While the game engine may sometimes allow it, you are not technically allowed per the game rules to load during the combat phase if those units cannot or will not be used for an amphibious assault during that combat phase.

@ghr2:

What about in cases where they are already at war?

You cannot load a transport in a seazone that is hostile UNLESS it has become hostile THAT turn due to YOUR declaration of war.

A seazone is not hostile if it has only enemy subs or transports (units that are NOT surface warships)

In cases where you are already at war, you cannot load your transport if an enemy surface warship is present.

@Krieghund:

@kcdzim:

The only instance where income goes into limbo is if the UK liberates UK territories on the side of the board where a UK capitol has fallen - in which case the UK controls it but cannot collect income as they do not have a collect income phase.�  Otherwise SOMEONE will be collecting income on this territory.�  This has always been the case, and is not a rule new to 1940.2.

A territory’s income is also in limbo if it is held by its original controller (including if that power recaptures its own territory) while its capital is enemy-held.

right right.

The only instance where income goes into limbo is if the UK liberates UK territories on the side of the board where a UK capitol has fallen - in which case the UK controls it but cannot collect income as they do not have a collect income phase.  Otherwise SOMEONE will be collecting income on this territory.  This has always been the case, and is not a rule new to 1940.2.

@Port:

After playing AAR for several years I recently bought AAG40.2 and I am now studying the rules before starting my first game tomorrow. I found two differences between AAG40.2 and Alpha +3:

• Alpha: 1 extra UK INF in Egypt

• OOB: USSR attacking Korea lifting NAP

Two questions:

• Why these differences, looking at the Alpha +3 change log on HGD all relevant changes seem to be made before AAG40.2 went to print, is it an error?

• What rules do you recommend playing my first game? I tend to play Alpha as it looks pro-Allies and the game seems to be Axis-biased as I read through the forum, or is there some reason to play OOB?

Thanks

It’s not an error.  These changes were made prior to printing.  Likely, LH and KH felt it was unnecessary to amend the Alpha 3 rules for these items.

You should probably play OOB, as if balance is off, it will be game reports that use the OOB rules that will be studied as justification for any future changes.  Also, unless stated otherwise, any official ruling will be OOB, but implementing house rules is completely up to you.  But since neither of those has a huge impact, it’s up to you.  The removal of the infantry in egypt relieves pressure on italy, and leaving korea out of the non aggression pact was silly anyway.

@Young:

@Kreuzfeld:

yes

they also collects income from them

(assuming germany took normandy/S france, and UK/US/anzak have retaken it)

This is incorrect, Yes…… the allies may use IC compexes on french territories if they have liberated it for a full round, however, Allied nations may never collect the IPC value of original French territories. Only France may collect the IPC value of it’s own territories that are not under Axis controll, and only when their capital is liberated.

YG - Unless I’m very much mistaken and this is a new development, you’re incorrect.  Any allied power that controls a french territory while Paris is under axis control can and WILL collect the IPC value of that territory.  Please provide the rule language that would indicate otherwise.

No, that is a pacific objective only.

And the transport never ends up on a territory.  Just in the seazone adjacent to the territory you’re dumping units into.

In all current forms of the game since AA Anniversary edition, subs (and transports) can not and do not ever block movement.  So if in your example you can attack a stack of subs with a stack of destroyers and other units are free to proceed through to another seazone, even though there will be combat in that seazone (destroyer on sub).

@orania:

@kcdzim:

Yes absolutely. � You are always allowed to move ground or sea units (that weren’t moved or used in the combat phase) through or into newly conquered territories or nonhostile seazones (subs and transports don’t make a seazone hostile) during the noncombat phase.

Ground units too? So i can move a tank trough a newly conquered territory? Of fortify a territory i just conquered?

absolutely.  Which can be used very strategically, for example holding holding mech or tanks back from attacking so that they can drive through to reach another newly conquered territory that they couldn’t reach before.  This is a common move in A&A50 with Germany’s first turn, leaving tanks out of the combat in poland so that they can drive thru the baltic states to reinforce a newly captured karelia during the noncom of G1.

@orania:

Can i clear a SZ with planes (there is a TT and a DD in the SZ) and NCM my fleet through this SZ to another one?

I saw this in a Tripple A match i followed on the forum.

Is this a legal move? Tripple A will let you do this.

Yes absolutely.  You are always allowed to move ground or sea units (that weren’t moved or used in the combat phase) through or into newly conquered territories or nonhostile seazones (subs and transports don’t make a seazone hostile) during the noncombat phase.

@Eqqman:

@kcdzim:

Territory combat is different: all units defend in a territory, and you cannot attack a territory that contains a unit belonging to a power that you’re not at war with, even if there are other units there that you are at war with.

I don’t see anything in the rules that says this would be the case.  A hostile territory is defined as being owned by a power with which you are at war.  The definition of combat movement says I can move into any hostile territory.  I can’t find any exceptions for hostile territory being co-occupied by neutral powers, which is why I am asking.

Axis and Allies Pacific page 18 sidebar.

@Eqqman:

Just checked through the whole thread and I saw a question similar to this, but not quite answered.

If either Germany or Italy, but not both, declares war on the USSR and on the next Russian turn, the Russians have the ability to attack a territory owned by the power they are at war with, but is occupied with units belonging to both Germany and Italy, are they allowed to make the attack?  If so, do both the Axis players defend, which allows the Russians to kill units belonging to a power they are not at war with?  These cases are covered pretty well for situations at sea, but not on land.  I’m not interested in why this situation would be allowed to occur (clearly the Russians would just solve everything by issuing a DoW on the other power), just do the rules allow for this to be possible and if so, what happens.

The only attacks where units belonging to a potential defending power are going to be in naval combat as seazones aren’t controlled, only occupied.  That’s why units at war with each other can occupy the same seazone under various instances.

Territory combat is different: all units defend in a territory, and you cannot attack a territory that contains a unit belonging to a power that you’re not at war with, even if there are other units there that you are at war with.

@elevenjerk:

Cool.  Makes sense but I think (not that it means much) that planes on a carrier don’t defend in the air unless there is something to defend against.  I’m new here but I’ve been reading for well over a year and I appreciate all the info given!  Thanks!

If it helps justify it, imagine that they’re flying CAP, and were already in the air when the subs struck.  The only time aircraft aren’t considered “in the air” is when attacking with a carrier that has a friendly plane.  In all other circumstances, the airplanes are independent of the carrier (and already in the air).  Not just when attacked, but even before they were attacked.  Hence, Combat Air Patrol.

The absolute only way that a plane can be trapped is if:

1. a friendly plane is on a carrier during the carrier’s owners turn (it is cargo)
2. the carrier is used in combat during the carrier’s owners combat phase. (it is still cargo)
3. the carrier takes a hit during the battle.  (it is cargo and now cannot take off)
4. the carrier survives combat and is not adjacent to a naval base for repair. (trapped until repair)

@kdfsjljklgjfg:

In the Pacific board, the USSR and Japan aren’t at war yet. Japan has taken India. Can Soviet tanks move into Persia in the Europe board and block Japanese movement, since the Soviets are at war on the Europe board?

Yes.  But you do realize it doesn’t block japan from attacking persia.  There’s no punishment for Japan or Russia when they declare war on each other, and you don’t need to make an attack to declare war.  So it doesn’t “block” movement for more than the turn it takes Japan to smash through the Russian line in persia.

The only time the mongolians are affected is when it’s a territory adjacent to mongolia (or korea).  So as long as they aren’t skirmishing in manchuria, korea, or the soviet far east, they can beat each other up as much as they want and declare war on the first turn if they want to.

There’s actually no reason that Russia would not declare war on Japan on R1, because it opens their territories up for US landings.  If Japan’s going to attack, they’ll attack.  The state of war between them is irrelevant prior to Japan’s attacks, so why be at peace?  No reason at all.

@Axisplaya:

Don’t remember this one…

Is it allowed to NCM a loaded transport into a sz with an enemy sub, and unload the units in a friendly territory ?

yes

@Mistergreen:

Can I elect not to place units and receive a refund? I think this was legal in global at some point but I can’t find the rule in the 2nd edition rulebook.

I don’t recall this ever being legal in 1st edition or alpha (or any edition previous) and don’t believe it’s legal in 2nd.

@Lozmoid:

Okay guys, a few more Pacific 1940 S.E. questions please:

1 - Pages 8 & 9 of the rulebook seem to have conflicting or even contradictory rules regarding when Japan may attack Dutch territories. Under ‘The Political Situation’ guidelines for Japan on page 8 it says: “Japan may attack Dutch territories only if a state of war exists between it and the UK and ANZAC.” However, on page 9 under the guidelines for the UK and ANZAC it says: “Additionally, the UK & ANZAC consider attacks against any Dutch territories to be acts of war against them directly.” Well, which is it to be? Some clarification is much needed here.

2a - On page 2 of the rulebook it states: “On Turn 3… the United States will declare war on Japan.” The operative words here being will declare war. However, on page 9 it states: “… if the US is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at the beginning of that phase.” The operative words here being may declare war. So, which is it? Is the US declaration of war on Japan automatic & compulsory, or is the US player truly free to not declare war? And if the latter is true, then what happens to the US economy from the Collect Income phase of its third turn onwards? i.e. Does the US still stay at 17 IPCs until it declares war (on a subsequent Combat Move phase)?

2b - Also, if Japan obeys all of the rules regarding its restrictions/obligations toward the Allies & the US during peacetime, and then the US elects to declare war against Japan on its 3rd turn, would that not be an unprovoked declaration of war? What would the implications of this be?

3 - ‘Declaring War’ on page 11 is a little unclear. If a power declares war on an opposing power, then is it true that that opposing power does not also have to declare war back on its next turn? This seems obvious but the wording in the rulebook is a little vague to me.

4 - Is it true that French Indo China will initially stay French unless it is captured and controlled by Japan? And then subsequently, let’s suppose it is liberated by the UK - Does the UK then take control (adjust IPC chart) of it instead? Also, is F.I.C. treated in the same way as Dutch territories in that the UK & ANZAC may move land units into it during their Noncombat Move phase, in order to take guardianship of it and thereby control it (again, adjust IPC chart)?

To confirm, these questions are purely for the Pacific 1940 S.E. game and have no bearing at all on Global.

Thank you all very much.

1.  Japan must declare war on UK/ANZAC to attack a dutch territory, OR, Japan may declare war on UK/ANZAC if the commonwealth has already declared war on Japan.  Not really contradictory but maybe could have used an edit for language - it’s worded that way so that it should be clear that a state of war must exist between them but doesn’t get into the particulars of who attacked whom first.

2a. They WILL declare war because there’s no reason not to, but they don’t HAVE to, so it’s a may, but it’s a moot may.  If they don’t declare war, they don’t increase their economy.

2b.  Makes no difference.  Once the US is in the war, it doesn’t matter who provoked it.  There are no implications nor special rules based on provocation & the US.  The only nations where provocation has a rule implication are UK/ANZAC and the Dutch territories.

3.  Once a state of war exists, the defender does not need to counter with another declaration of war to the belligerent.

4.  Yes, it will stay french unless captured and controlled by the japanese, until it is liberated by an ally, whereupon control is transferred to that ally (France is treated as an occupied capitol during the entire Pac game).

No, it is not treated like a dutch territory.  the only way for an ally to gain control is if they liberate it from Japan.