The 30 IPC Rule

@lotuk said in US IPC Bonus (Looking for Affirmation):

But why wouldn’t the US then also get the 30 IPC bonus income for holding western US at the start of their turn? (getting 60 bonus IPC).

The 30 IPCs for controlling Western United States, unlike the one-time bonus for an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, is from a National Objective. It, like all National Objective income, is collected in the Collect Income phase (at the end) of the power’s turn.

The rules for declaring war state that it’s technically not required if they declared war on you “as the two powers are already at war” (see below extract from page 11). Though I feel like this must excludes the US and they must “declare war” during their combat move despite already being at war?

No, it’s not necessary.

@Rammstein:

Does this mean that ANZAC can “take” the territory with Fighters? Or it can simply land them there for defense and the territory remains Dutch? For that matter, must UK and ANZAC be at war with Japan in order to “take” the Dutch territories at all?

They must use land units to take the territory and they don’t have to be at war to do so

Yoper:

“But spelling mistakes are different from people actually having troubles understanding certain ideas or concepts in the rules.”

Yes, they are different, but both fall under the jurisdiction of the editor(s).  That being said, I agree that “Trying to put forth a rule (like the political rules in AAP 40) in a way that is clear to all is a tough task.”

From what I’ve read, it seems that people should also apply some common sense - especially those who’ve been playing A&A games for many years.  I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve read of someone wanting a clarification - only to wonder why it needed to be clarified in the first place.

As to the spelling mistakes… well that’s just plain shoddy workmanship.  No, it doesn’t effect gameplay, and I’m still going to have fun playing the game. But if people are shelling out a fair amount of money for a game - they expect a higher quality product, one that doesn’t have spelling errors (which is something that might be expected from a garage based game publisher - not a major manufacturer).  And there is the element of presentation as well, in this kind of medium, it’s important.  And c’mon, consider the demographic of your buyers… we’re talking about guys (mainly) that go through great lengths such as painting the pieces, inventing pages of optional rules, making new maps etc.  Of course spelling mistakes are going to leap out at the average A&A enthusiast!

You stated, “I would like you (or anyone else) to give me a list of all the spelling mistakes in the rulebook.”  I’m not about to be an unpaid editor/proofer, but the point is that if there is one… that’s one too many.  It’s not that difficult to publish something without spelling mistakes - its done everyday.  And a lot of these publications don’t even have the benefit of more than one editor. Perhaps I’m a bit retentive in regard to the spelling issue, but I am obviously not alone in this stance.

BTW - I too don’t think anyone should be pointing fingers at the wardog or Larry Harris, it’s not like they design and produce the whole game themselves…

@Jagdtiger:

Excuse me if this has been covered somewhere before, but I’m a newbie on this forum, and cant seem to find it.  
Question:  On turn J1 or J2…Japan has not and does not DOW anyone.  If the Japanese attack an un-occupied(never occupied by UK or ANZAC) Dutch territory, the UK and ANZAC consider that an act of war.  Because of this would the US be able to declare war on Japan on US1 or US2?  Answer:  I say no, because Japan did not declare war on UK or ANZAC.  But it is kinda fuzzy and I can see a possible argument for the other side of this…ie…Japan committed an act of war.
Thanks
C

Japan must declare war on UK/ANZAC to invade a dutch colony.  Upon declaring war with UK/Anzac the US immediately declares war on Japan.

You can only invade a dutch colony without provoking US involvment if UK or Anzac attack Japan first.

Thanks guys! I appreciate it.  Lol i do feel like a chimp now! Lol!

@allboxcars:

OK “quick” question: does the US earn the NO while neutral?

yes

20,6,6,6

That’s workable. Anything would be better then 1 DD see’s everything right out of the box. You could even house rule something like that into AA50, just make it part of the radar tech. 1 for 1 until you get advanced radar(tech) then 1 DD see’s all subs. Its even kinda how the radar tech works. You fire AA guns @ 1 until you develop radar giving your AA guns a kill @ 2. Early in the game subs could easily out number DD’s, but you would still get limited detection. I might have to try this next game.

This would also work when air units & DD attack subs. Matched up 1 for 1. Excess subs would be allowed to submerge, unless the power w/DD & air units also has radar. At that point subs could not submerge til the DD is destroyed, just how it is now

Come on give subs more bite! :evil: