AAG40 FAQ

[Young Grasshopper]

Need quick clarification. Is Central US adjacent to Ontario in regards to land unit movements?

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Need quick clarification. Is Central US adjacent to Ontario in regards to land unit movements?

Yes between Lake Huron and Lake Eire.

[Axistiger13]

1) if somebody attacks a strict neutral, all the other strict neutrals join the other side.  i think we have to made a exception for Mongolia, which was a soviet puppet state from the 1920s until 1992
2) you mean attacking?
3) alpha 3 rule: If the Japanese attack any Soviet territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory , all Mongolian territories (Olgiy, Dzavhan, Tsagaan-Olom, Central Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, and Buyant-Uhaa) are placed under the control of the Soviet Union at the end of the Japanese Combat Move phase, in the same manner as though the Soviet Union had moved land units into a friendly neutral territory. These territories have Soviet control markers placed on them, and their standing army units are placed on the board and are controlled by the Soviet Union player from then on. This occurs regardless of the state of relations between the Soviet Union and Japan at the time of the attack, with one exception. If the Soviet Union attacks any Japanese-controlled territory bordering these Mongolian territories while Mongolia is still neutral, Mongolia will remain neutral and not ally itself with the Soviet Union.

she's talking about 3 things happening in that order, 3 steps, not 3 seperate things.

Jen, do you mean: what happens to the Mongolia rules after the Allies have attacked a true neutral?

I think the logical thing would be that, once Mongolia has become pro-Axis (if they do), that they won't change their mind when an ally attacks an enemy right next to them.  But that's just my thought.

sorry, i missed that.

[Young Grasshopper]

Lets say my aircraft carrier with 2 fighters is attacked by 2 destroyers. During the first round, the destroyers each score hits, but I also sink both destroyers with my casualty fire. If I decide to apply both hits to the carrier, can my fighters land safely elsewhere within range, or are they required to land on the undamaged carrier essentially forcing me to apply both hits to the 2 aircraft?   

[kcdzim]

Lets say my aircraft carrier with 2 fighters is attacked by 2 destroyers. During the first round, the destroyers each score hits, but I also sink both destroyers with my casualty fire. If I decide to apply both hits to the carrier, can my fighters land safely elsewhere within range, or are they required to land on the undamaged carrier essentially forcing me to apply both hits to the 2 aircraft?   

If you want the planes to land somewhere besides the carrier, you would need to take one or both hits on the carrier, making it so the planes cannot land there. 

You cannot choose to have the planes land on an island or territory in/by that seazone or carrier in an adjacent seazone unless the carrier can no longer pick them up (one, or more).

That said, you're not obligated to assign damage to keep the planes alive.  You can, if you wanted to, apply both points of damage to the carrier and the planes could have no other available landing space.  You wouldn't do this, but you can.

So you could either:
1) take both hits on the carrier - two planes need a landing space within one move or they die.
2) take one hit on the carrier and one hit on a plane - the remaining plane needs a landing space within one move or it dies.
3) take both hits on the planes.  Carrier remains undamaged.

[Young Grasshopper]

So in my senerio, the aircraft get a movement value of 1 to land safely. That would mean that there would need to be a friendly island within or friendly territory adjacent to contested sea zone in order to lose the carrier and still save the fighters. Is that what you're saying?

[kcdzim]

So in my senerio, the aircraft get a movement value of 1 to land safely. That would mean that there would need to be a friendly island within or friendly territory adjacent to contested sea zone in order to lose the carrier and still save the fighters. Is that what you're saying?

yes. 

[moralecheck]

The latest update to alpha 3 says that carrier based aircraft can roll for disruption but the carrier can't roll in this case.  Does this mean a carrier with no aircraft aboard gets to roll?

[Young Grasshopper]

Let's say my carrier with 2 fighters attacks 5 enemy destroyers. I score 2 hits with my fighters sinking 2 destroyers, and the return fire also hit me twice. Can I choose to sink my carrier and continue the battle with my fighters, even though they have no legal landing if they survive? My guess is yes, as long as I arrive with a legal landing space (the carrier) I can sink my carrier knowing that if my fighters survive, they too will crash in the water without the required landing space when the battle is finished, is that correct?

Also (same senerio), if my fighters, have already used their maximum movement value to enter the contested sea zone, and I decide to retreat my 2 fighters after I have sunk my carrier after round one, do I receive the 1 movement alowence to land in a friendly territory (if one exists) from the direction in which the attacking units came from? Or am I required to continue the battle without the possibility of retreat?

[Krieghund]

The latest update to alpha 3 says that carrier based aircraft can roll for disruption but the carrier can't roll in this case.  Does this mean a carrier with no aircraft aboard gets to roll?

It does not.

Let's say my carrier with 2 fighters attacks 5 enemy destroyers. I score 2 hits with my fighters sinking 2 destroyers, and the return fire also hit me twice. Can I choose to sink my carrier and continue the battle with my fighters, even though they have no legal landing if they survive? My guess is yes, as long as I arrive with a legal landing space (the carrier) I can sink my carrier knowing that if my fighters survive, they too will crash in the water without the required landing space when the battle is finished, is that correct?

Yes.

Also (same senerio), if my fighters, have already used their maximum movement value to enter the contested sea zone, and I decide to retreat my 2 fighters after I have sunk my carrier after round one, do I receive the 1 movement alowence to land in a friendly territory (if one exists) from the direction in which the attacking units came from? Or am I required to continue the battle without the possibility of retreat?

You may retreat, but the fighters get no extra movement and will crash in the sea zone after the battle, so there is no reason to retreat.

[Young Grasshopper]

OK, but if a tank moves it's maximum movement value of 2 into an attack and wants to retreat, it will receive a retreating movement value of 1 in the direction in which it came, but fighters don't get this extra movement point if they retreat?

[kcdzim]

OK, but if a tank moves it's maximum movement value of 2 into an attack and wants to retreat, it will receive a retreating movement value of 1 in the direction in which it came, but fighters don't get this extra movement point if they retreat?

Correct, because aircraft don't retreat with land or sea units.  They retreat on their own, during the non combat phase, and don't get an "extra movement".  However, this means they can retreat to a different space than the land units retreated to.  In addition, their movement to the attacking space won't count as one of the spaces you can retreat to UNLESS a land or sea unit moved through or from there as well.

[Young Grasshopper]

OK, thankyou.

Next question: My opponent will attack my ships with air units in a sea zone adjacent to an airbase with 3 of my fighters on it. He finishes all his combat movements and before he begins to roll, I declair that I am scrambling my 3 fighters into the sea battle. He will than get upset that he didn't bring enough into the battle, and blames me for not making him aware of my scramble possibilities. He always demands a "redo" of his attacks, and I feel that if I warn him all the time, I won't ever get the chance use my bases the way they were ment to be used.

Also, if I am attacking his ships in a sea zone where he is able to scramble aircraft, do I have to ask him if he is going to scramble, or is it up to him to be aware of his own scrambling possibilities before I roll. I don't want to hear advise about what's right or wrong or how to not to be unsportsmanlike like. I want an actual rule. I appreciate that it is up to everyone to look for and point out convoy disruptions because I am obligated under the rules to do so, and I'm ok with that. I need to know what is the rule about notifying scramble possibilities for both attacker and defender, and I will obey a written rule, but not unwritten rules.

[kcdzim]

OK, thankyou.

Next question: My opponent will attack my ships with air units in a sea zone adjacent to an airbase with 3 of my fighters on it. He finishes all his combat movements and before he begins to roll, I declair that I am scrambling my 3 fighters into the sea battle. He will than get upset that he didn't bring enough into the battle, and blames me for not making him aware of my scramble possibilities. He always demands a "redo" of his attacks, and I feel that if I warn him all the time, I won't ever get the chance use my bases the way they were ment to be used.

Also, if I am attacking his ships in a sea zone where he is able to scramble aircraft, do I have to ask him if he is going to scramble, or is it up to him to be aware of his own scrambling possibilities before I roll. I don't want to hear advise about what's right or wrong or how to not to be unsportsmanlike like. I want an actual rule. I appreciate that it is up to everyone to look for and point out convoy disruptions because I am obligated under the rules to do so, and I'm ok with that. I need to know what is the rule about notifying scramble possibilities for both attacker and defender, and I will obey a written rule, but not unwritten rules.

This is mostly gray area and etiquette - there is no written rule, and it is up to the defender to announce.  

Regarding 1)
There is no rule obligation for you to allow him to "redo" anything.  You were aware of scrambling and at the phase where it's relevent (after all combat moves are finished), you declared you would scramble.  It's his own fault for not paying attention.   It is stated in the rules that the attacker is NOT permitted to change combat movement or attacks after scrambling is declared. At the same time, if he's not as experienced a player, then you can, if you choose, warn him prior to any combat moves, but you are NOT obligated to.

Regarding 2)
It is polite to ask whether scrambling will happen AFTER all combat moves are complete, but again, you're not required to.  The attacker must assume he will scramble and stack accordingly, but the attacker is not obligated by a written rule to ask if he will, and the defender can have a poker face and play completely oblivious to scrambling possibilities until the attacker is finished with his moves.

That said, you should never assume he'll forget and then not mention the possibility, because it sounds as though you're playing a less experienced person and trying to slip a mickey.  Don't take advantage of a player's experience if it's going to ruin the game environment or a friendship.  This is a beer and pretzels sort of game - bragging rights are only good if they're going to want to play again.

When in doubt, consider Wheaton's Law.

[moralecheck]

When in doubt, consider Wheaton's Law.

Bazinga!