AAG40 FAQ

[Axisplaya]

I’m in the middle of a game, and here is the situation:

Italy and Germany are not at war with Russia.

Italy 3: they declare war to Russia, and take Epl.

now, Germany 4: can they NCM some units in Epl without declaring war to Russia (in order to collect the “not at war” NO)  ?

[gamerman01]

@Axisplaya:

I’m in the middle of a game, and here is the situation:

Italy and Germany are not at war with Russia.

Italy 3: they declare war to Russia, and take Epl.

now, Germany 4: can they NCM some units in Epl without declaring war to Russia (in order to collect the “not at war” NO)  ?

Yes.  EPl is Italian at that point, not Russian.

[Axisplaya]

Thanks.

:-)

[Carnage]

Question:
If I am doing a Sealion and Britain has no Navy in the space I choose to do the amphibious assault through but does choose to scramble aircraft to negate my bombardment can my fighters become a part of the ensuing naval battle or must they continue to England? Or for that matter are they forced to become part of the sea battle?
If I am doing a Sealion and I attack through a SZ that has English ships in it do my aircraft have to participate in the naval battle or can I assume I’ll win the naval battle and continue to the UK?

C

[Jennifer]

@Carnage:

Question:
If I am doing a Sealion and Britain has no Navy in the space I choose to do the amphibious assault through but does choose to scramble aircraft to negate my bombardment can my fighters become a part of the ensuing naval battle or must they continue to England? Or for that matter are they forced to become part of the sea battle?
If I am doing a Sealion and I attack through a SZ that has English ships in it do my aircraft have to participate in the naval battle or can I assume I’ll win the naval battle and continue to the UK?

C

That depends.  Where did you order your planes to go?  It looks like you ordered them to go to London, in which case, your combat move is over, they must go to London, even if England scrambles 3 planes from Scotland and 3 Planes from England.  (And yes, if your transports are forced to retreat, you still have to roll one round of battle over England!)

[Carnage]

Thanks for the quick response :)
Follow up question. If as Italy I want to attack the RN that is on the coast of Egypt but also want to attack Egypt itself (No Amphibious Assault) can my planes fly over the hostel SZ and help in the land battle? If yes, could they fly through the hostel SZ ignoring the RN ships entirely to hit Egypt?

C

[Jennifer]

@Carnage:

Thanks for the quick response :)
Follow up question. If as Italy I want to attack the RN that is on the coast of Egypt but also want to attack Egypt itself (No Amphibious Assault) can my planes fly over the hostel SZ and help in the land battle? If yes, could they fly through the hostel SZ ignoring the RN ships entirely to hit Egypt?

C

Planes may fly over any number of hostile sea or land zones provided they have a potentially legal landing zone.

For instance, if there is a destroyer in SZ 98 and 2 Infantry in Egypt, Italy may send 3 fighters, 2 submarines to SZ 98, 4 transports with 4 infantry, 4 armor and 1 strategic bomber to Egypt simultaniously, even if they had to fly over the combated sea zone to get to Egypt.

[Carnage]

@Cmdr:

@Carnage:

Thanks for the quick response :)
Follow up question. If as Italy I want to attack the RN that is on the coast of Egypt but also want to attack Egypt itself (No Amphibious Assault) can my planes fly over the hostel SZ and help in the land battle? If yes, could they fly through the hostel SZ ignoring the RN ships entirely to hit Egypt?

C

Planes may fly over any number of hostile sea or land zones provided they have a potentially legal landing zone.

For instance, if there is a destroyer in SZ 98 and 2 Infantry in Egypt, Italy may send 3 fighters, 2 submarines to SZ 98, 4 transports with 4 infantry, 4 armor and 1 strategic bomber to Egypt simultaniously, even if they had to fly over the combated sea zone to get to Egypt.

That’s what we’d been assuming could happen in my group but a recent addition to it asked why the planes could fly over the SZ’s uncontested and I couldn’t find anything in the rules that said anything either way. It makes sense logically that they could choose whether or not they wanted to engage, but I wanted to make sure.

Thanks again for the quick response.

C

[Veqryn]

this FAQ is 132 pages long, and we also have a 25 page long rules question thread.

Krief, can you take all the best questions, put them with their answers in a single post of a new thread, then we delete this thread?

132+25 is a lot of pages to read, and just results in people ignoring the 130 pages in the middle and asking their duplicate question anyway

[gamerman01]

It would be awesome if Krieg has the time and willingness to do that, yes.

In the meantime, duplicate questions are not a problem.  If you need the answer to something, I don’t expect that you would make sure it has never been asked first.  Just ask it again.  That’s just kind of how we’ve been rolling since G40 came out…

[Jennifer]

@Veqryn:

this FAQ is 132 pages long, and we also have a 25 page long rules question thread.

Krief, can you take all the best questions, put them with their answers in a single post of a new thread, then we delete this thread?

132+25 is a lot of pages to read, and just results in people ignoring the 130 pages in the middle and asking their duplicate question anyway

It’s been asked before.  I once attempted to get a FAQ thread with just questions compiled by the respondants (ie just list all the questions they could think of) but I did not receive a lot of replies. (I got 1 reply, if I remember right.)

If I can get a list of FAQs (as in JUST the questions) I’ll go through the thread and peel out second responses and thirds and fourths, etc.

[JimmyHat]

@Krieghund:

We’ve decided to make a slight adjustment to the Mongolia rules.  Mongolian territories will never become pro-Axis unless the USSR attacks one or more of them while they’re still neutral.

Well this is good to see, the saintly neutrals getting a look.  I am glad logic worked its way in here, but lets go one step further.  Mongolia is no longer a ‘true neutral’ and is involved more wth the 2 countries on its borders than all those worthless neutral territories in Africa and SAmerica.  Mongolia should only be concerned with Russia and Japan, making it easy to write rules about.

NEUTRAL blocks PLEASE!  Why not!  I dont understand why they wouldn’t be in blocks, as they are now why even have them on the board?

[Young Grasshopper]

When ships are able to disrupt convoys, must they? Or is it the choice of the player who owns the ships, to refuse to disrupt convoys if they wish?

[gamerman01]

@Young:

When ships are able to disrupt convoys, must they? Or is it the choice of the player who owns the ships, to refuse to disrupt convoys if they wish?

I’m not up on the Alpha3 changes, but up until then if ships were in position to disrupt convoys, there was no choice.  That is, yes, if ships are able to disrupt convoys, they “must”.  But I haven’t even read the Alpha3 changes yet.  If it’s just a change in methodology (people are talking about dice rolling!?), and if there is no statement saying that actually raiding convoys is an option of the attacking player, then I wouldn’t think the answer to your question would have changed.

[Carnage]

@Gamerman01:

@Young:

When ships are able to disrupt convoys, must they? Or is it the choice of the player who owns the ships, to refuse to disrupt convoys if they wish?

I’m not up on the Alpha3 changes, but up until then if ships were in position to disrupt convoys, there was no choice.  That is, yes, if ships are able to disrupt convoys, they “must”.  But I haven’t even read the Alpha3 changes yet.  If it’s just a change in methodology (people are talking about dice rolling!?), and if there is no statement saying that actually raiding convoys is an option of the attacking player, then I wouldn’t think the answer to your question would have changed.

I always assumed it was the players discretion. I wouldn’t want to find myself declaring war on a nation simply because my ships are in his convoy space. I don’t see anything in the OOB that suggests they’re obligated to make those attacks. I don’t see anything that says they’re optional either though.

[kcdzim]

@Carnage:

@Gamerman01:

@Young:

When ships are able to disrupt convoys, must they? Or is it the choice of the player who owns the ships, to refuse to disrupt convoys if they wish?

I’m not up on the Alpha3 changes, but up until then if ships were in position to disrupt convoys, there was no choice.  That is, yes, if ships are able to disrupt convoys, they “must”.  But I haven’t even read the Alpha3 changes yet.  If it’s just a change in methodology (people are talking about dice rolling!?), and if there is no statement saying that actually raiding convoys is an option of the attacking player, then I wouldn’t think the answer to your question would have changed.

I always assumed it was the players discretion. I wouldn’t want to find myself declaring war on a nation simply because my ships are in his convoy space. I don’t see anything in the OOB that suggests they’re obligated to make those attacks. I don’t see anything that says they’re optional either though.

You can only disrupt a convoy if you’re already at war with the enemy power.  And you can only declare war on your turn, so unless they declared war on you during that turn or unless you started at war with that power there would be no way to disrupt their convoy.

So, there’s no condition where you could find yourself declaring war on a nation simply because your ships were in his convoy space.

Once at war, there’s no way that you would not disrupt convoys if you’re in their convoy box, but, once at war, there’s no reason you wouldn’t.

[thatonekid]

if you were right on their door and ready to take their capital youd want them to have as much money as possible. just like a player might not want to SB moscow if they are going to take it next round.

[gamerman01]

@thatonekid:

if you were right on their door and ready to take their capital youd want them to have as much money as possible. just like a player might not want to SB moscow if they are going to take it next round.

Good point, but yeah, it’s not optional.  The rules say all players are supposed to be checking for convoy disruption during the collect income phase.  So it might be the player who’s about to lose a capital that catches it, but disrupting convoys is not optional, AFAIK

[Young Grasshopper]

@Gamerman01:

@thatonekid:

if you were right on their door and ready to take their capital youd want them to have as much money as possible. just like a player might not want to SB moscow if they are going to take it next round.

Good point, but yeah, it’s not optional.  The rules say all players are supposed to be checking for convoy disruption during the collect income phase.  So it might be the player who’s about to lose a capital that catches it, but disrupting convoys is not optional, AFAIK

Yes, it does say in the rules, that all players are obligated to look for, and point out convoy disruption possibilities on the board, but I don’t understand how that translates into mandatory disruptions when in a convoy sea zone.

[gamerman01]

@Young:

Yes, it does say in the rules, that all players are obligated to look for, and point out convoy disruption possibilities on the board, but I don’t understand how that translates into mandatory disruptions when in a convoy sea zone.

I didn’t mean to imply that that rule translated into mandatory disruptions.  Pretty sure Krieghund has already answered this question, that convoy disruptions are not optional.  Wait for him to repeat it if you want to.