Yes, ignore that, as this is related to the forum software change that occurred in 2018. Some characters haven’t been converted correctly.
AAG40 FAQ
-
@Uncrustable:
But you could purposely not clear a blocker by attacking and retreating, and thus not have to pick up the fighter
That is a possible way to “break” the rule, however, you still have to risk at least one round of battle and possible losses…
-
Krieghund’s take on it is that it is illegal. :lol:
Page 28, under aircraft carriers:
“In fact, a carrier must move if it’s able, or remain in place, in order to provide a landing space for an air unit that would not otherwise have one.”You know what? Â It also says it in another way at the bottom of page 27 under air units.
I’m not so sure about the minimum one round of combat thing.
Say you send a sub to attack 2 battleships, and the battleships would have to be sunk in order for the carrier to pick up the aircraft. Â Your sub can’t possibly sink the 2 battleships in less than 4 rounds.
The rules are clear you can’t use a planned retreat of a carrier to make a safe landing spot. Â However, I can’t tell whether a one round attack legitimizes a fighter attack out of range…Page 27 of the rulebook - “You can’t send air units on “suicide runs” - deliberately moving them into combat with no place to land afterward. Â If there is any question about whether an attack is a suicide run, then in the Combat Move phase you must declare, prior to rolling any battles, some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. Â This could include a combination of combat moves. Â It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier. Â If it does include a noncombat move by a carrier, then the carrier can’t move in the Combat Move phase…”
Let’s suppose your combat move is to send send fighter(s) over my battleship to attack something vulnerable, and you send one fighter to attack battleship. Â The only way you can pick up the fighters that flew over, is to send a carrier into or through the zone with my battleship. Â There is now “any question about whether an attack is a suicide run”. Â But you say, well I can assume my fighter keeps hitting and your battleship keeps missing. Â I say, fine, you’re right, it’s possible that you could clear my battleship and pick up the fighter.
But then you attack my battleship and miss, and my battleship misses. Â And now you want to retreat. Â But you declared during combat movement that there was a possible way that you could clear the battleship - if your fighter keeps hitting and my battleship keeps missing. Â But now that your fighter missed, you want to retreat? Â Then there’s no possible way that you could clear the zone. Â Also, it’s impossible for your fighter to clear the zone in less than 2 rounds from the beginning. Â Seems like a suicide run.
I’m not sure what the official answer is, but I’m presenting a point of view that seems congruent with the rules. Â My first thought was what SAS said - that a one round hit and run is sufficient… Â But after reading the rules again I’m not so sure…
Krieghund?
Is one round attack all it takes to legitimize the over-flying fighters? Â Or do you have to follow through to the death? -
It only takes one round. You have to prove your case for the planes’ landing spots during combat movement, but once the dice start rolling all bets are off. The only requirement after combat starts is that you must still pick up any planes that you still can once it’s over. You have no obligation to maintain those spots during combat.
-
Thanks!
-
Amphibious Assault: Can the attacker declare which ships are being designated for clearing a hostile SZ and which ones are for bombardment?
-
Just because someone does not believe me:
If you share a sea zone with a hostile ship and decide to sink it or retreat from it, any transports engaged in the “battle” of running away or fighting cannot load units that round - they have to retreat (for instance) and on their NEXT round, if not sunk, they can load transports again (assuming they are not thrust into a battle again).
Example:
Germany has 10 transports in SZ 113, America has an IC in Norway. On America’s turn they drop a destroyer in SZ 113 (build one there), Italy either cannot or fails to sink the destroyer on their turn. It is now Germany’s turn, they can retreat the transports, or sink the destroyer, but in either case, they are barred from loading and unloaded infantry, artillery, mech, armor and AA Guns as per historical rules - correct?
-
@Cmdr:
Just because someone does not believe me:
If you share a sea zone with a hostile ship and decide to sink it or retreat from it, any transports engaged in the “battle” of running away or fighting cannot load units that round - they have to retreat (for instance) and on their NEXT round, if not sunk, they can load transports again (assuming they are not thrust into a battle again).
Example:
Germany has 10 transports in SZ 113, America has an IC in Norway. On America’s turn they drop a destroyer in SZ 113 (build one there), Italy either cannot or fails to sink the destroyer on their turn. It is now Germany’s turn, they can retreat the transports, or sink the destroyer, but in either case, they are barred from loading and unloaded infantry, artillery, mech, armor and AA Guns as per historical rules - correct?
No. You just can’t load in Z113. You can leave the zone during combat move (it’s not retreating) and pick up ground units from a DIFFERENT sea zone, and then unload them. But all of this is combat movement. What you can’t do is a noncombat loading of units with those transports during the German turn. You can do a combat move, but not loading from Z113.
-
Amphibious Assault: Can the attacker declare which ships are being designated for clearing a hostile SZ and which ones are for bombardment?
NO. ALL must be involved in clearing the SZ. If there is a destroyer or more in a sea zone, you have to clear it and it’s impossible to do bombardment from that zone! If you CHOOSE to engage a submarine or transport and sink them (attempt to sink) then there will be NO bombardment from that zone that turn!
-
Can UK and Anzac land on DNG on the first turn?
IE 2 Inf, 3 Ftr from Anzac and 2 Inf from India?
-
Can UK and Anzac land on DNG on the first turn?Â
IE 2 Inf, 3 Ftr from Anzac and 2 Inf from India?
Yes. Do you have a rulebook? It spells this issue out very clearly…
-
A fighter’s only legal landing spot after combat is an aircraft carrier which is involved in its own separate sea battle. Even if it’s obvious that the carrier won’t survive, can the fighter still fly its mission or is it viewed as a suicide run?
-
@Young:
A fighter’s only legal landing spot after combat is an aircraft carrier which is involved in its own separate sea battle. Even if it’s obvious that the carrier won’t survive, can the fighter still fly its mission or is it viewed as a suicide run?
Not a suicide run - that is legal.
If all your dice are hits and all theirs are misses, the carrier would be available to pick up the fighter (assuming the spot of the combat is within range of the fighter(s) in question)
-
Can UK and Anzac land on DNG on the first turn?�
IE 2 Inf, 3 Ftr from Anzac and 2 Inf from India?
Yes. Do you have a rulebook? It spells this issue out very clearly…
I was just under the impression that until at war, you could not occupy a territory another nation is in control of.
I am aware that India and Anzac can move onto DEI without any DoW - including aircraft they don’t send ground units to.
Unless a J1 attack occurs or India/Anzac DoW on their Combat moves, I presumed my assumption held true.
I presume these two are the exception as there are shared territories in Malaya and Egypt already between these two countries.
-
Can UK and Anzac land on DNG on the first turn?�
IE 2 Inf, 3 Ftr from Anzac and 2 Inf from India?
Yes. Do you have a rulebook? It spells this issue out very clearly…
I was just under the impression that until at war, you could not occupy a territory another nation is in control of.
I am aware that India and Anzac can move onto DEI without any DoW - including aircraft they don’t send ground units to.
Unless a J1 attack occurs or India/Anzac DoW on their Combat moves, I presumed my assumption held true.
I presume these two are the exception as there are shared territories in Malaya and Egypt already between these two countries.
All true, a neutral power (one that is not at war) would not be able to move into a territory until at war.
Good thing UK/Anzac start at war with Germany/Italy, even on the Pacific side of the board (and even in the Pacific theater game individually).
The only powers that begin neutral are Russia and the US. And the only country with theater specific neutrality conditions is Russia.
-
@Young:
A fighter’s only legal landing spot after combat is an aircraft carrier which is involved in its own separate sea battle. Even if it’s obvious that the carrier won’t survive, can the fighter still fly its mission or is it viewed as a suicide run?
Not a suicide run - that is legal.
If all your dice are hits and all theirs are misses, the carrier would be available to pick up the fighter (assuming the spot of the combat is within range of the fighter(s) in question)
It depends: if you’re playing 1940, no: the carrier has no attack rolls. So therefore no rolls mean no hits mean no chance to clear. If you’re playing a version where carriers can attack, then yes.
-
OK: Here’s a question: Assume Russia is at war in Europe but not Pacific. They move in to defend Persia from Italy, aided by a UK stack. Japan sees this UK stack and moves their India stack in to attack. The Russians stay there. The Japanese attack.
1. Can Japan attack if they don’t declare war on Russia?
2. Can Russia fight without declaring war?
3. What happens to the Russians if Japan wins? -
OK: Here’s a question: Assume Russia is at war in Europe but not Pacific. They move in to defend Persia from Italy, aided by a UK stack. Japan sees this UK stack and moves their India stack in to attack. The Russians stay there. The Japanese attack.
1. Can Japan attack if they don’t declare war on Russia?
2. Can Russia fight without declaring war?
3. What happens to the Russians if Japan wins?You cannot attack a territory if you aren’t at war with each and every power in a territory. In your example, Japan MUST declare war on Russia prior to their combat move against any territory containing Russian units.
Seazones are not the same as territories - one does not “control” a seazone (you occupy), as such there can be split attacks ignoring nations you’re not at war with. But that’s a seazone, NOT a territory.
-
So 1 Russian inf. can essentially save a UK stack if Japan doesn’t want to declare war?
-
So 1 Russian inf. can essentially save a UK stack if Japan doesn’t want to declare war?
Yes, but unless the US is ready and waiting to use “Vladivostok” as a staging area, there’s no rule and few reasons that would discourage this as persia doesn’t exactly border a mongolian neutral :)
Also, as Russia can declare war on Japan at any time (and not bother with any combat move - just declare war) just to open up that front, if the Allies wanted joint forces in Amur, they’d already have had them.
There’s actually no reason for Russia, besides “manners” and historic affection, to not declare war turn 1 to open their territories up for potential US bomber landing spaces, British reinforcements, Ruskies through china, etc etc. The only thing they can’t do without cancelling the mongolian neutrality rule is attack Manchuria. But they can be at war and not perform an attack, and since there’s no rule that doesn’t punish that aggression, there’s no reason not to do so. What’s Japan going to do? Attack Russia? doesn’t change anything.
-
@Young:
A fighter’s only legal landing spot after combat is an aircraft carrier which is involved in its own separate sea battle. Even if it’s obvious that the carrier won’t survive, can the fighter still fly its mission or is it viewed as a suicide run?
Not a suicide run - that is legal.
If all your dice are hits and all theirs are misses, the carrier would be available to pick up the fighter (assuming the spot of the combat is within range of the fighter(s) in question)
It depends: if you’re playing 1940, no: the carrier has no attack rolls. So therefore no rolls mean no hits mean no chance to clear. If you’re playing a version where carriers can attack, then yes.
True. I was assuming it was going into battle with other units that had attack value.
Suggested Topics
