Map question

Awesome, thanks Krieghund… while you’re here, any chance we can get a brief explanation why this and the London NO for Germany were dropped in 2nd Edition?

Thanks again.

That’s what I thought.

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

Someone on BGG has a global 2e map with the setups. Check either the Europe 1940 or Pacific 1940 games there.

Anyone?

Zallomallo is right.  Because the sub submerged, it no longer blocks the amphibious assault and cannot kill the transport.  There was no reason for the sub to submerge, however, as the planes could no longer hit it.  If the sub did not submerge, the transport could retreat, assuming it had somewhere to retreat to (if not, it would be lost).

I agree with the thinking here that we should stick to OOB rules for at least a little longer. I don’t mind a few official changes here and there. I always use the errata and FAQ’s that are released after a game comes out due to misprints in the manual or an obvious balance problem (AAP). However, these sweeping changes are too much too fast. Its almost like a few influencial people screamed too early and no one else was able to say, “lets slow down and take a more methodical approach to the changes.”
It seems like we are being caught up in a rushing river and can’t get out. Alpha is evidence that the squeaky wheel gets greased.

I will stick to OOB rules until something official comes out and then evaluate it. If there are a few reasonable changes I will use them, but if it is anything like these Alpha changes, I most likely won’t. I never used LHTR for the same reason.

@cressman8064:

@Get:

can they build a Minor IC then upgrade it to a Major IC, since the rules do not state anything about upgrading it to a Major IC.

Upgrading a minor to major on foreign soil still counts as building a major, so with the new rules Korea is the only location Japan can build a major anywhere in the world.

Or Japan, assuming it falls and is retaken.