Some couple of questions

[Panther]

@RedIndian:

Ok I got it. But not for the “Scramble-Rule”

Let’s say GB is attacked by Germany in Seazone 110 and decides to scramble. GB wins this battle, so the fighter will be back in the UK in the Non-Combat Move?
But Germany invades UK from Seazone 109 and wins the battle. So UK is captured by Germany in the Combat-Move and the scrambled fighter in seazone 110 can’t land in UK anymore. So where does it move from one space. From Seazone 110 or from the captured UK?

Or did I get it wrong and the scrambled fighter has already to land directly after the seabattle in 110. So it is already in UK when Germany invades the UK but it can’t participate in this battle, 'cause it has already done in 110?

Willkommen bei uns, RedIndian :-)

@rulebook:

After all combat is completed, each surviving scrambled
air unit must return to the territory from which it was
scrambled. If the enemy has captured that territory, the
unit can move 1 space to land in a friendly territory or
on a friendly aircraft carrier. If no such landing space is
available, the unit is lost. Surviving scrambled air units
land during that turn’s Noncombat Move phase, before
the attacker makes any movements.

So in your example, the scrambled figther returns at the very beginning of the attacker’s noncombat movement phase. The fighter is still at SZ 110 at that moment. As he cannot land on the airbase that he came from, he has a move of 1 space to land, starting from that seazone.

HTH :-)

[RedIndian]

Danke! Bin hier schon seit Jahren ;) (arent’t you at DAAK, too? I guess I know you from that page)

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Some other questions:

1. All troops have to retreat into the same seazone or land, right? (At least only to those places that one ship or landunit attacked from)

2. Can I reatreat alhtough I’ve won the battle? No, right? (The purpose is to clear the land free of enemies troops, so that another allied can capture it in his round)

3. Since all attacks happen at the same time, there is no chance to prevent your enemy/oponent from scrambling in the same turn by doing SBRs on his airfields, right?

4. Latest update: I’m quite confused. Is there a new one? Thought in global 1940 2nd ed alpha +3 (latest?) only 1 British Inf in Egypt , not 2 !?
   (I wanted to post a link, but I’m not allowed to -.-)

So thanks again!

Should be the last ones I had.  :-D

[Panther]

@RedIndian:

(arent’t you at DAAK, too? I guess I know you from that page)

No, that must be someone else.

@RedIndian:

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Well, 100%, as my answer is based just on the rules.

@RedIndian:

Some other questions:

1. All troops have to retreat into the same seazone or land, right? (At least only to those places that one ship or landunit attacked from)

Correct.

@RedIndian:

2. Can I reatreat alhtough I’ve won the battle? No, right? (The purpose is to clear the land free of enemies troops, so that another allied can capture it in his round)

When you have won, the battle is over. The attacker may retreat as long as he faces a valid enemy target (at the earliest after the first round of combat).

@RedIndian:

3. Since all attacks happen at the same time, there is no chance to prevent your enemy/oponent from scrambling in the same turn by doing SBRs on his airfields, right?

Almost correct. Scrambling takes place at the end of the attacker’s Combat Move Phase. SBR takes place in the following Conduct Combat Phase

@RedIndian:

4. Latest update: I’m quite confused. Is there a new one? Thought in global 1940 2nd ed alpha +3 (latest?) only 1 British Inf in Egypt , not 2 !?

Alpha+3 has been a predecessor of 2nd. Edition rules. The latest ruleset is the 2nd Ed. Ruleset.

HTH :-)

[RedIndian]

Ok thanks! :-)

So, 2 British Inf for Egypt or 1? (As I said, I can’t post a link here)

[RedIndian]

Ok I got it now.

2 for Europe and 1 for Global ;)

[RedIndian]

Ok here are another 3 :D

1. Convoy:

Example:
India captures French-Indo-China from Japan. Japan has surface warships in seazone 36. So is there a convoy-disruption taking place by the collect income phase of the Indian player (or GB Pacific)? Or not, 'cause it has been captured in this turn. So it is too early for taking this step?

In general: If you take control of an enemy territory (with min value of 1) that is adjacent to a seazone , that has a convoy symbol and it contains surface warships of your opponent, will there be a convoy disruption by the collect income phase of the player which just captured this territory in this turn?

2. USA : (US in first 3 rounds when not at war)

Beside the “No-China-Rule”
Are any ships and airplanes of the US allowed to go through seazones which are adjacent to Japan controlled islands? Yes, aren’t they? Unless they don’t park there/ end the movment adjacent to a Japan controlled island or territory, right?

3. USSR (first 3 rounds when not at war)

Is the USSR-player allowed to move landtroops into Northwest Persia during his nom-combat-move when he is neutral/not at war?
No, 'cause as a neutral nation, he is only allowed to do at war, right? (Distinction between Europe & Pacific map)

In general: Is any nation allowed to take controll of a friendly neutral territory in his non-combat-move?
No! Only if this nation is in a state of war, right?

[Panther]

@RedIndian:

Ok here are another 3 :D

1. Convoy:

Example:
India captures French-Indo-China from Japan. Japan has surface warships in seazone 36. So is there a convoy-disruption taking place by the collect income phase of the Indian player (or GB Pacific)? Or not, 'cause it has been captured in this turn. So it is too early for taking this step?

In general: If you take control of an enemy territory (with min value of 1) that is adjacent to a seazone , that has a convoy symbol and it contains surface warships of your opponent, will there be a convoy disruption by the collect income phase of the player which just captured this territory in this turn?

Convoy disruptions take place when the three conditions (rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 23) are met, during the Collect Income Phase. Controlling the territory determines one of the conditions (regardless of the point in the past when it had been taken).

@RedIndian:

2. USA : (US in first 3 rounds when not at war)

Beside the “No-China-Rule”
Are any ships and airplanes of the US allowed to go through seazones which are adjacent to Japan controlled islands? Yes, aren’t they? Unless they don’t park there/ end the movment adjacent to a Japan controlled island or territory, right?

Correct, “while it’s not at war with Japan, the United States may not move any units into or through China or end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japan-controlled territories” is the respective phrase in the Pacific 1940.2 rulebook, page 37.

@RedIndian:

3. USSR (first 3 rounds when not at war)

Is the USSR-player allowed to move landtroops into Northwest Persia during his nom-combat-move when he is neutral/not at war?
No, 'cause as a neutral nation, he is only allowed to do at war, right? (Distinction between Europe & Pacific map)

In general: Is any nation allowed to take controll of a friendly neutral territory in his non-combat-move?
No! Only if this nation is in a state of war, right?

Correct, as per page 9 of the (Pacific 1940.2) rulebook: “…However, a power that is at war may move land units into (but not through) a friendly neutral as a noncombat move…”

HTH :-)

[Ichabod]

@Caesar:

1: All planes are cargo on defense and will be sunk if the carrier is destroyed.

All planes are cargo on attack, not defense. Allied fighters on a different nation’s carrier participate in defense.

[RedIndian]

Ok thanks again ;)

[Kreuzfeld]

@P@nther:

@RedIndian:

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Well, 100%, as my answer is based just on the rules.

Well, Krieghund said you have to move from the seazone. He is a playtester, so when he says it, it is correct.

[Panther]

@Kreuzfeld:

@P@nther:

@RedIndian:

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Well, 100%, as my answer is based just on the rules.

Well, Krieghund said you have to move from the seazone. He is a playtester, so when he says it, it is correct.

Indeed, and when the questioner after that has a follow up question it is my standard not to answer with a simple “because Krieghund said so”, but to additionally deeper explain and prove the issue by the rules. Sometimes people want to learn about the background of a ruling.

[Kreuzfeld]

@P@nther:

@Kreuzfeld:

@P@nther:

@RedIndian:

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Well, 100%, as my answer is based just on the rules.

Well, Krieghund said you have to move from the seazone. He is a playtester, so when he says it, it is correct.

Indeed, and when the questioner after that has a follow up question it is my standard not to answer with a simple “because Krieghund said so”, but to additionally deeper explain and prove the issue by the rules. Sometimes people want to learn about the background of a ruling.

I see that, and I would do the same. However, I just discovered that reading the rules in the only logical way did not give the correct answer because “Krieg said so”. If you remember the thread where we talked about intentionally building too many troops, so you could chose what you wanted to place later.

[Panther]

@Kreuzfeld:

However, I just discovered that reading the rules in the only logical way did not give the correct answer …

I don’t agree here. Given from what I quoted and additionally explained here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40076.msg1672764#msg1672764
to me the answer is obvious simply from the rules. There is absolutely nothing in the rules covering the “1 space from the airbase - interpretation” IMHO, though questioning/discussing it is absolutely fine, of course. So my answer has been based on what is written in the rules and not on what could be read into the rules (that is not there). Pretty logical, IMHO. If you (or anybody) don’t read it this way - great - let’s discuss it. That is what we rules-guys are here for. We all learn from those discussions and thus improve the game.

I consider it most important that the questioner at the end of the discussion accepts and understands the result - whatever is needed to achieve both is fine.
I know we have no dissent on this.

So many rules have been discussed in the past, especially during the development towards 1940.2. As the rules/FAQs are written down now, this is also a result of this discussion process. Personally I am optimistic, that there are only very few issues that are not covered by the rules/FAQ and need or needed a ruling.
But the interpretation of words will always lead to discussions - and that’s just fine.

[Kreuzfeld]

@P@nther
I was thinking about the whole buying and switching thread, and was trying to be coy about it :)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39954.15

If I am being serious, When it comes to rules, I believe in playing the rules as written, not intended. That is how laws work, that is how rules should work. If the rules are wrong, they should be amended in an errata, maybe in an FAQ, and certainly not in a random post in a random forum thread. Reading and arguing about intent of rules just lead to a mess in my experience. People will tend to understand the rules as is best for them, without realizing that is what they are doing. People will not remember what their position was last time the rare situation came up.

[Panther]

I see our standpoints are very close. :-)

I just think that the rules and FAQ as of now are very clear. That is what allows for answering most of the rules questions by quoting from the rules/FAQ.
And in the past the discussion in random threads often has brought additional issues and clearness to the rules/FAQ.

But you are not wrong … we have sort of a proverb here saying about “Ask five lawyers and you will get six different answers”.
I am not blaming lawyers here, actually lawyers said that to me. It’s just about having different interpretations of written law/rules.

[Krieghund]

@Kreuzfeld:

However, I just discovered that reading the rules in the only logical way did not give the correct answer because “Krieg said so”. If you remember the thread where we talked about intentionally building too many troops, so you could chose what you wanted to place later.

I take it then that you don’t consider the official FAQ to be part of “the rules”?

[Kreuzfeld]

If you are talking about the links below, then I consider them part of the rules. They have an Errata part, and some clarifying questions.

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_Pacific_1940_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/aaeurope1940_2ndedition_faq.pdf

The trouble comes when you are talking about the forum threads below is that they are difficult to find and not as official. If I buy a game, I expect the errata to be available on the game’s homepage. It is unlikely that I would know that there exists this forum called harrisgamedesign where the designer of the game have written an additional errata. In the thread below, the first post was last edited in 2011. I actually do now know if there are any more clarifications hidden in any of the more than 300 pages of posts in the three threads.  Even the first post in one of the treads says that the FAQ is temporary, until the alphaproject is done. I dont know if it is done yet, and having to now think about 1 set of rules, 2 FAQ lists and more than 400 posts would make any rulelawyer go mad. So i decide instead that I only consider offically published rules and erratas on the Avalon Hill home page as official rules.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4278
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.0
https://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4280

[Krieghund]

I agree that the rulebooks and FAQs comprise the “official rules”.

The other links you gave are not “official” rules sources for the 2nd edition.  The ones for Harris Game Design are for the development of the Alpha rules, which were the precursors of the 2nd edition rules, and are no longer official.  The other one is local, and is unfortunately named.  Calling it “FAQ” makes it sound official, but I would have called it “Q&A”.  This is not to say that the answers there aren’t correct, but there shouldn’t be anything there that’s not also in the official rules.

In short, everything you need should be in the rulebooks and FAQs.  Anything you find anyplace else should simply be clarifications.

[Panther]

@Kreuzfeld:

If you are talking about the links below, then I consider them part of the rules. They have an Errata part, and some clarifying questions.

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_Pacific_1940_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/aaeurope1940_2ndedition_faq.pdf
…
So i decide instead that I only consider offically published rules and erratas on the Avalon Hill home page as official rules.

Personally, I have never referred to anything else than these, when speaking of “(official) FAQ”.

[RedIndian]

Hey guys I have another question:

Similar to the “Scrabmle” rule.

Seems to happen not often, but just if.

SBR-defending-units are losing their territory. As they have already participated in combat, they are not allowed to defend the territory.
So can these former “Interceptors” used as casualties during the following combat of the territory (SBR has already been taken) or are these units completely passive?

Are they destroyed or do they have also the ability to move 1 space during NCM?

Hope you got it.

Thanks!!!