Posts made by moompix

Maybe

When you conduct a combat, there’s a sequence you follow. The decision to retreat comes after both sides fire, so you have to conduct at least one round of shots before you can retreat.

Yes, you can end up moving farther than you would normally be allowed to.

If you’re playing Japan and you try to make combat moves without first declaring war, just claim your embassies screwed up, and that you actually did declare war first.

@allboxcars:

Does it have to be in writing?

Or done as a grand speech mimicking the leader of the power you are playing.

"We stretch out the long arm of brotherhood and motherhood to the Australian and New Zealand people, and to the Indian people, whose army has already been fighting with so much distinction in the Mediterranean theatre. This movement of our naval forces, in conjunction with the United States main Fleet, may give practical proof to all who have eyes to see that the forces of freedom and democracy have not by any means reached the limit of their power.

I must admit that, having voted for the Japanese Alliance nearly 40 years ago-in 1902-and having always done my very best to promote good relations with the island Empire of Japan, and always having been a sentimental well-wisher of Japan and an admirer of her many gifts and qualities, I would view with keen sorrow the opening of a conflict between Japan and the English-speaking world.

The United States’ time-honoured interests in the Far East are well known. They are doing their utmost to find a way of preserving peace in the Pacific. We do not know whether their efforts will be successful, but if they fail, I take this occasion to say-and it is my duty to say-that should the United States become involved in war with Japan the British declaration will follow within the hour."

@Richter:

What about the quasi declaration of war if Uk moves an unit into china (chinese controlled) - that can ONLY be done during noncombat. Would it have to do a DOW during combat move?

Yes. From the errata under The United Kingdom and ANZAC:

Neither power may move units into China unless a state of war exists between them and Japan.

They can move units in, if a state of war exists. They can’t move units in, causing war.

Looks good. Definitely clearer. Thank you

@Krieghund:

Simply arriving at or passing through a sea zone at the same time as the transport is not enough.  Either a dedicated effort to escort it (moving along with it) or patrolling the area that it will pass through (remaining in the sea zone and not moving) is required to protect a moving transport from a sub attack.

Never mind. Saw the new errata. Looks good.

Thanks

Yes

Page 19 first bullet point, under Where Units Can Move, Air Units

I don’t think the errata is that big of deal, almost all games have them, and this one isn’t unusually long, despite what some are saying.

I also appreciate that the errata was posted here, allowing for questions and modification, rather than having it just appear on the WotC website and then needing to be updated more times there. Which may have caused even more complaints.

Thanks, not really a big deal.

I’m now somewhat curious about the reasons for the “under protection” wording.

Why not just:

Dutch like power whose capital is controlled by enemy
except UK/ANZAC can take control

If UK/ANZAC provokes war, Japan is free to attack the UK/ANZAC and take Dutch territories, without bringing the US into the war.

@Richter:

Australia is NOT an island (its a continent ;))  - so if I do rules lawyering I would say planes can NOT scramble from any territory in Australa (US/ASIA) to join a naval battle - correct?

If yes - is it intentional or just an oversight…?

You don’t have to do any rules lawyering, but you can if you want, sometimes it’s fun  :-D. An island is a single territory surrounded by one sea zone. Australia is multiple territories surrounded by multiple sea zones.

@Krieghund:

All Dutch territories are under UK/ANZAC protection, whether or not they have taken control of them.  As such, they are treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories.  If Japan is at war with UK/ANZAC but not the US, it can invade Dutch territories without provoking the US.

Does this mean that if the US liberates a Dutch territory from Japan control goes to the UK or ANZAC?

Or are they now treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories, until they are taken by Japan, at which point they are treated in the same way as any territory is when the original owning power’s capital is held by the enemy?

@BadSpeller:

@moompix:

This is new then???

No, this is not new.

I’m pretty sure it is.

“Japan is free to attack China and invade unoccupied French territories without provoking war with the other Allied powers.  However, any combat movements against British, Dutch, ANZAC, or American territories, troops, or ships by the Japanese (unless they are already at war with that power) will bring all of the Allied powers into the war.”

“If not yet at war, Britain and/or ANZAC are free to take control of Dutch and French territories (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into those territories, as long as those territories have not been captured by Japan."

“In all other respects, Dutch and French territories are treated in the same way as any territory is when the original owning power’s capital is held by the enemy.”

Other powers whose capitals are held by the enemy don’t have their territories “under the protection” of another power. This would be an additional special exception for the Dutch.

Plus Krieghund’s statement here: “they are treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories” means they are no longer treated the way the errata said they were treated

“If Britain or ANZAC attack Japanese territories or ships or move units into China, this will immediately result in a state of war between Japan and these two powers, but not bring the US into the war.”

The only way I could have known Japan could attack the Dutch territories after UK/ANZAC attacked them, would have been to just assume they could. There was no rule about the Dutch being under protection or sharing the same political situation with the UK/ANZAC.

This is in the sidebar on page 17

Destroying defenseless transports, instead of ignoring them, counts as a sea battle and prevents bombardment.

It’s allowed in enemy non-combat, as well.

@MaherC:

again, it is in the rulebook which is a misprinted pile of garbage as we have learned.  the errata has changed the way this plays.

The errata clarifies that you can’t attack the unaccompanied transports of powers you are not at war with. It still allows subs to attack the unaccompanied transports of powers you are at war with.

@Krieghund:

@Stoney229:

my own question: if Jap is at war with UK/ANZAC and not with US, then can they invade Dutch territories without provoking war with US?  is the answer different for Dutch-controled dutch terits and UK or ANZ-controled dutch terits?

All Dutch territories are under UK/ANZAC protection, whether or not they have taken control of them.  As such, they are treated in the same way as UK/ANZAC territories.  If Japan is at war with UK/ANZAC but not the US, it can invade Dutch territories without provoking the US.

This is new then???

And as far as game balance goes, it seems to be a very small nudge that benefits the Japanese.

My guess is that in order to be protected, they have to come from the same sea zone.

They can be attacked, if they move into the sea zone unaccompanied. If the surface warships come from a different sea zone, it’s a separate move that results in the transports becoming accompanied after both of the moves. Since the move itself was unaccompanied, and it’s the move that grants the option for the subs to attack, the move made by the transports would have to include the surface warships, for the transports to be protected from the attack.

But, I could see it being FAQed the other way, as well.

@Mino1124:

@Variable:

2. My understanding is they would collect the 40 IPCs at the end of the 3rd turn, making it spendable US4. That is the incentive to not attack the US on J3.

But if you collect income at the END of your turn, why would it matter if Japan attacks US during J3? If they don’t attack them J3, war is automatically declared US3. Even if they attack during J3 US still can’t collect the extra income until the end of their turn so they still couldn’t use it until US4. I’m pretty sure that’s how it works anyway.

If Japan attacks the US during J3, then the US can attack Japan during US3.

If Japan doesn’t attack the US during J3, then the US can’t attack Japan during US3.

The destroyers are the ones with the squared end.

The Cruisers have two pointed ends.