New scrambing rule question

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

Good Point Krieghund… I had not thought of a carrier as a warship but corrected my post above.

Our group has had this discussion many times. It seems unrealistic that a country would develop something that is not useful.  In one of our games Russia bought a non-disposable tech dice and actually rolled a 6 then rolled on the chart and got “War Bonds” which was cool for them but if you look at the list there are very few that Russia can benefit from.  Mostly depends if they are on the offensive.  If they are on the defensive then only “War Bonds” and “Increased Factory Production” seem to be worthwhile.  “Radar” would also be good but its on a separate chart with tech that would not benefit them.  Most would say that Russia should not even consider rolling on tech and I tend to agree unless they are on the offensive and have a massive economy.

Great, thanks again. Great forum with awesome reaction time to simple questions!

Keep it up guys!

@Krieghund:

@ghr2:

I need to ask someone since the rules on larry’s site had too much ambiguity.  If russia declares war on japan and attacks a japanese terr (whether boardering Mong or not) then LATER if japan attacks a russian terr boardering Mong, does Mong turn russian?  (basically, russia started the war)

It doesn’t matter whether USSR and Japan are at war, or who started it.  What matters is attacks against territories that border Mongolian territories.  If USSR declares war on Japan, but does not attack any Japanese-controlled territories that are adjacent to Mongolian territories, then Japan attacks a USSR-controlled territory that is adjacent to a Mongolian territory, Mongolia will still ally itself with the Soviet Union.

See Ghr2, cut and dry, sweet and simple!  :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Yes, ever facility built has it’s own AA.

The attacker must choose which facility he is bombing FIRST, then the defender rolls.

@onetthome:

So I’m playing A&A global for the 2nd time and I am noticing a lot of inconsistencies with the rules between both books and even what is written on the board’s mobilization chart. Is there an updated/ revised rulebook I can download?

Use the Europe Rulebook.  The only rules from the Pacific Rulebook that apply to the Global game are the rules on China and kamikazes.  I’m not aware of any problems with the mobilization charts on the boards.  What are you referring to?

@onetthome:

Also, how much does USA collect before it goes into wartime? Europe book says it makes 35 during war so does that mean it makes 5 IPCs and then gets +30? is it +30 for Europe and +40 for global?

In the Europe game, the US collects 35 IPCs when not at war.  In the Global game, the US collects 52 IPCs when not at war (see page 32 of the Europe Rulebook).  Note that the politics rules and National Objectives in the Global game are completely different from those in the Europe game (see pages 33-35 of the Europe Rulebook).

on G1, However no one starts with NO income