AAG40 FAQ

I have spent the past three days reading word-for-word all 87 pages of this FAQ (and accomplishing very little at work in the meantime).  I now honestly feel that I know everything there is to know about A&A G40  :wink:

I do want to congratulate Larry (even though he doesn’t visit this site), Krieghund, and all the others on creating what appears to be an excellent successor to A&A Anniv.  I have only just acquired the two boxed games over Easter weekend and had time to sit down with a partial game.  It took us a several hours to go over the rules and set up the board.  By that point we only had time to run through a few rounds before we had to chock it up to just a “learning run”.  The US and USSR never even had a chance to declare war.

Most everything that I had wondered about after that partial game was answered somewhere in this massive thread.  It has been interesting seeing the flow of changes from the first page to the last.  However, there is one area that I/we still remain somewhat foggy on:

In regards to the Japanese and Soviet non-aggression treaty, the rules state that it is left to the Japanese and Soviet players to decide how this is worked out.  Or something to that effect (I don’t have the rulebook directly in front of me atm).  What is and is not allowed in this treaty between players?  When it states the details are left to the players, what can be involved in those details?  Surely not trading of IPCs, units, or any other game resource?  We are assuming the only real details that can be involved are ones of timing.  For example, “I will not [ever] attack you if you don’t [ever] attack me” or “I will not attack you for X turns if you do not attack me for X turns.”  After that it is simply an honor-bound treaty that may be broken at any time by either side.  This treaty cannot override any game rules, correct?  Eg., Japan cannot allow Soviet troops into Japanese territories or “ignore” Soviet troops in Chinese territories as part of the treaty as this would be in violation of the game rules, right?  Is there any conceivable detail outside of the timing examples I gave initially that could be used with a Japanese-Soviet non-aggression treaty?

Thanks in advance!

Welcome, Pan!

In the box rules, it’s completely up to the Soviet and Japanese players whether there should be an agreement, what it should be, and whether or not to honor it once it’s made.  The only restriction is that the agreement may not break any rules of the game.

If you haven’t already done so, check out the Official Rules Clarifications for Europe and Global, as well as the FAQ for Pacific.  They contain a bunch of important rules clarifications and errata.

Thanks to both of you for your quick replies.  The Pacific FAQ that Krieghund linked is what was missing from my reading selection.  Now I think I have read everything (box manuals, P40 FAQ, E/G40 Rules Clarifications, Alpha 2 changes, and this FAQ thread) and somewhat have it set in my mind how it all works.  If I have missed anything that I should read, please let me know.

The tricky part is being able to selectively remove the rules from my mind that have been replaced so as not to get confused.  I still have to stop myself when I see someone mentioning scrambling fighters from an airbase on a mainland coastal territory and remember that we can do that now instead of only islands or being able to scramble for an amphib assault without needing a naval battle to justify the scramble.  And other such similar situations.

A lot of stuff here to keep in mind but I’m sure after my 20th or so game it’ll start to gel :)

Thanks again!

@gamerman01:

@Jmite:

Hi - question on kamikaze usage. Are they only used for defense or can they be used offensively too?

Eg if USA fleet is sitting in z6 and Japanese fleet counter attacks can the kamikazes also be called in as part of the attack?

Thanks for the help!

Defense only!  They can only be used during an Allied combat move (they are rolled at the beginning of the resolve combat phase)

Good to know.  Those of us too lazy to open the rule book (fine, the ME too lazy to undo the shrink wrap and pull out the rule book, you feel better?) were having issues in that regard.

Hi,

Specific question on nuetrality:

If Japan and Russia are still at peace, the USA takes Korea what happens if:
1. Russia moves troops into Korea to fortify while it is under USA command (ie does that declare war with Japan)?
2. If Japan counterattacks Korea (owned by USA but with Russian troops) – does that declare ware on Russia or does Japan only attack USA troops (happens with boats, but seems implausible on land). However (unlikely), if this occurs and Japan wins what happens to the russian troops? Do they cohabit Korea with Japan or get pushed out or does an immediate war start (and if so who declares – russia since they are in japanese territory)?

Thanks!

I believe everything in the zone has to be attacked, since all nations present are beligerant.

The question is:

Did Russia violate the neutrality giving Japan the NO?

or

Does Japan violate the neutrality if attacking Korea, giving Russia the NO?

or

Is the NO nullified if Japan attacks?

USSR can’t move troops into Korea if it’s not at war with Japan because it’s still under the restrictions of a neutral power on the Pacific map.

I’m pretty sure about this one but my brother want an official confirmation:

I am doing an amphibious assault with only one ship, I am well aware that he is going to scramble his 3 fighters so I’m sending my fighters/tact with the ship in the sea zone to ‘‘protect’’ the assault.

There is no sea zone combat, the ship is alone in the zone, the fight only occurs because he scramble. He is questionning me that I cannot just send the planes there without a fight, this makes no sense. Help us! lol.

Someone is obviously an “in the box” thinker.

If SZ 10 has no ships in it, is it friendly or hostile?  BOTH!  It qualifies for any action that can be done in a friendly sea zone and it qualifies for any action that can be done in a hostile sea zone!

Further, it cannot be neutral, as the rules for neutrals specifically state that invasion of a neutral territory make all other neutral (not leaning) territories lean toward the other alliance (axis).

Thus, a sea zone MUST be EITHER friendly OR hostile OR both.  It cannot, by the very definition of movement through a hostile nation, be neutral as it does not act as such.  That only leaves the other two options.

I am thinking someone needs a tutorial on basic logic (scientific, mathematical or ethical - you choose.)

@Cmdr:

If SZ 10 has no ships in it, is it friendly or hostile?  BOTH!  It qualifies for any action that can be done in a friendly sea zone and it qualifies for any action that can be done in a hostile sea zone! 
Thus, a sea zone MUST be EITHER friendly OR hostile OR both.  It cannot, by the very definition of movement through a hostile nation, be neutral as it does not act as such.  That only leaves the other two options.

I am thinking someone needs a tutorial on basic logic (scientific, mathematical or ethical - you choose.)

No, a seazone is friendly OR hostile.  It is NOT both.  If there are no enemy ships, it’s friendly.  You cannot CONTROL a seazone, so there aren’t neutral seazones, and since no one controls them, they’re friendly unless an enemy ship is present.  Very simple.

And it does NOT qualify for any action.  If it’s a combat move, by letter of the rules you cannot move ships unless there’s going to be combat (or possibility of combat) - either bombardment by battleships or the possibility of scrambling fighters.  Otherwise you aren’t supposed to move ships during a combat phase (most of us do, to avoid forgetting later, just to keep ships grouped during amphibs, even if destroyers/subs don’t participate).  It’s not both and you’re not SUPPOSED to make a combat move that CANNOT EVER result in combat.  Most players simply allow naval combat movements that doesn’t result in combat because in the past we didn’t need to worry about scrambling so all naval assets moved with transports whether or not there was combat in the amphibiously assaulted seazone.  Just means we’re loose with the rules, it DOESN’T mean a seazone is both friendly and hostile.  that silly talk.

At the risk of hijacking the thread longer, I totally disagree with you.  Sea zones are both hostile and friendly, depending what phase of your turn you are in and whether or not there are any surface warships present. (Submarines and Transports do not count.)

Proof (by contradictions):

Any zone on the map must be Neutral, Friendly or Hostile.  No zones exist on the map that are of a fourth designation.
Example: Antartica is neither neutral, friendly nor hostile.  Therefore, it does not exist on the map, and thus, the fourth designation principle has not been violated.

You may not move into a hostile zone during the non-combat movement phase of the game.  However, you may also not end your movement in a friendly zone during the combat movement phase of the game.  This clearly states that all zones in which you end combat must be either friendly or hostile, but never neutral (*invading a neutral makes them hostile or friendly depending on which neutral you invade and with which country.)

There exists three types of neutral nations in the game.  1)  Those leaning towards alliance with the Allies.  2)  Those leaning towards alliance with the Axis.  3)  Those who are true neutral.

Further, any invasion of a neutral nation that is not leaning towards alliance with the Allies or the Axis automatically makes all other true neutral nations lean towards alliance with the opposing force.

However!  We have a dilemna, because sea zones allow you to end your movement phase in them regardless of whether they have friendly ships or hostile ships!  Further, they are not neutral territories, because they are neither leaning towars alliance towards one side or the other, nor does invading them make all other true neutral nations lean towards one alliance or the others.

Therefore, it is clearly established that sea zones are not neutral zones.

Since they are not neutral zones, and since only three categories of zones have been established, then they must - by default - be either friendly or hostile zones.

Since you may end your combat movement in a sea zone regardless of any combat taking place in said sea zone, this implies that the zone is hostile.  Since the zone acts as would any undefended land zone.

Since you may end your non-combat movement in a sea zone regardless of any friendly vessels present or not present, and since you may build new units into said sea zones, this implies they are friendly sea zones. (As you may only place equipment in friendly zones.)  Further, since enemy vessels may be present in a sea zone you place new naval units into, this implies further that the sea zone is friendly.

But wait, if the sea zone must be friendly OR hostile, then we have a contradiction!  Since you can obviously place new units in the sea zone, but you cannot build units in a hostile zone, but there are enemy surface warships present and therefore, the zone must be hostile.

Thus, it is established that sea zones are both friendly and hostile simultaniously.  It is the only logical solution to the dilemna.  Of course, if you wish to supply a counter-proof, please PM me and start a new thread.  I would be glad to hear your arguement, even if I won’t agree with it, probably.

If the sea zone has no enemy ships in it, then it is not hostile - as you say, but then, you cannot end your movement phase during CM in it!  But wait, YOU CAN, otherwise there would be no rules for shore bombarding, as all instances of moving your Battleships and Cruisers into the sea zone would REQUIRE you to engage in naval combat.