U.S.A NAVY

@Aaron_the_Warmonger:

@simon33:

Dutch are allies. You don’t need to convert these territories to uk or Anzac control to land fighters on them. The fighters can be landed the same turn as the troops.

Are you sure?  looking at the rules i see under Dutch Territories in the pacific rulebook that They are treated as friendly to allies except for UK/ANZAC guardianship.  under friendly neutrals it says you may not attack a friendly neutral or fly air units over it, but may move land units onto it in noncombat.

I assume friendly meant friendly neutral.  So we assumed that until the dutch territory has been controlled since the start of your turn by an ally, you can’t land on it.  I would love some clarification on this if anyone has it (preferably with a rule’s citation!)  thanks everyone!

I’m sure. Dutch aren’t friendly neutral. Although the rulebook doesn’t make this as clear as I would like. Most convincing bit is here:
@Pac:

These two powers also have an arrangement with the
Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured
by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch
territories in the Pacific.

@Baron:

@Caesar:

@Bob77:

Nope. Facility aa only fires at the bombers directly attacking it. Unit aa guns only fire if their territory is being attacked.
Side note, it would be cool if aa could chose to defend air or ground combat. Like german 88s being used as anti tank guns and 20mm being used against infantry and lite vehicles. Oh well. Back to the game.

Right but AnA will never have a version where each unit has its own attack against certain units. I do think about AA guns should have the ability to shoot at infantry on defense. Each nation in WWII AA guns could be aimed at the ground and I am sure you can find evidence of everyone doing it at some point.

AnA will never try to have a unit that can do better or worse against different units. IE fighters rolling a 3 against other fighters but a 1 against a battleship and G40’s rules for fighters on strategic bombing doesn’t count.

Submarines (and Destroyer somehow vs Sub) and AAA got special targeting. And these units saw various changes.
I saw no outright evidence against more room about special targeting. Do you ?

Guest said in Minor Threat's Alpha+3.9 (Global 1940) COMPLETE! Setup Charts:

Wow, these are super, muchos gracias :-D

And now KICKS SELF FOR NITPICKING
-United States card: NOs #1 and #4 the word ‘Sovereignty’ spelled wrong (extra ‘i’)
-UK card: UK (London) operations: the phrase ‘exclusively only’ seems redundant, just ‘exclusively’ would do (same on India card)
-UK card: the word ‘Canadian’ spelled wrong (extra ‘n’)
-Japan card: NO #1 the word ‘resource’ spelled wrong (second ‘s’ instead of a ‘c’)
-ANZAC card: wording of NO #2 seems weird ‘Strategic cornerstone - to far East British Empire’. Does this miss the words ‘Malaya considered’?

KICKS SELF AGAIN

Beside these little wording mistakes, they are still great and stick to the latest updates and rules!

While I checked my stuff again I found something but I am not quite sure if there is a benefit when you will change it:

It is not necessary but you could add the (2) for all anti-aircraft gun at DEFENSE… they only occur when Radar is researched…
Fighter Attack (4) when Jet Fighters
Submarines --> Super Submarines (3)
Heavy Bombers Roll 2 Dice (but not easy to show this while not causing confusion)
Etc…

and maybe on the turn sequence to add the polictics move “to declare war”

Just suggestions, no need! As said above, maybe you should leave it like it is… The player should use a Research Board, so that they can see which technology they got… hopefully they do not forget it during the game ;)

Will these ever be updated for second edition?  They are too great to be forgotten.

@Darby:

Ran into the question

Thought about reducing Bombers vs Naval Units
( I thought hitting on a one was good )
but should they still cost 12?

It did not seem right …but selling them for Tac Bomber or fighter cost seemed wierd
So rather then reducing price I thought about augmenting something else.

Came up with:

Cost: 14
Attack: 4 / 1 vs Naval units
Defense: 1
Range: 6
Takes 1 hit to reduce attack by 2 / and cannot proceed with an SBR
Takes 2 hits to destroy

The whole idea of limiting bombers to a one against ships at sea is to be a little more realistic. With bombers leaving an air base they have seven moves. With the limited number of sea zones on AA maps the bombers destroying fleets in the middle of the ocean just does not work. My thinking is the OOB rules for bombers attacking everything on the map at a four are broken. Just tweaking the rules a little makes the game a little better and no change in the cost is needed. The bomber is still a valuable asset at twelve IPCs.

@djarnen:

So… in the case that UK takes Rome, while London is held by the Germans, the money from Rome would not go to Calcutta, because its on the Europe side of the board ?

Then let ANZAC take Rome, they know how to use that money, man.

@Frank:

But I have to say I like the Alpha set up much better.

It is incredible how much better it makes the game from both sides.

@13thguardsriflediv:

In Global, if Japan invades FIC, is it at war with France?

It must declare war on France before doing so.

@The:

really. I have always played where you can just take it from them.

Yes, really.