Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@lennardf said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@panther OK there it is in my manual too… thanks for clarifying.

Unless I’m missing something the Sneaky Carl was never a valid move.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34014/the-sneaky-carl

I think you are mixing up three different things.

The Sneaky Karl is valid due to the fact that you place an UK DD in sz 36 where usually a IJN stack with TTs is sitting there ( most of the time unloaded).
UK pac remains frienfly , while Anzak declares war on Japan.
The sz is now hostile at the beginning on Js turn.

The Sub Hack.
works like this:
An enemy sub is placed in a sz containig unloaded TTs.
The opponent has now to choose to:
A) fight the Sub, but this denies to load and unload in NCM, or
B) don’t fight the Sub and perform an amphib assault elsewhere.

Or the scenario you described and this was successfully explained and answered allready.

[gamerman01]

Isn’t there a C) leave the zone (that has the enemy sub) in the combat movement phase? In this case the transport cannot pick up ground units before leaving unless it goes and unloads them on a hostile territory else where. This is possible because with only a sub, that sea zone is not hostile. The transport can’t load units and come back to orginal seazone and conduct amphibious assault without an accompanying warship though, because subs prevent lone transports from unloading amphibious assault in its zone (without an accompanying warship)
Looking at this today, I think I was confused, so strike it.

[gamerman01]

@aequitas-et-veritas said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

The Sub Hack.
works like this:
An enemy sub is placed in a sz containig unloaded TTs.
The opponent has now to choose to:
A) fight the Sub, but this denies to load and unload in NCM, or
B) don’t fight the Sub and perform an amphib assault elsewhere.

Or the scenario you described and this was successfully explained and answered allready.

You find your transports are in a zone with enemy subs at the beginning of your turn, right?
You can ignore the sub for movement purposes. So you also have options
C) Leave the transports there. You will need to have warships there at the end of your turn or the enemy subs can sink all your transports when their turn comes around.
D) You can ignore the subs during the combat movement phase, there will be no combat (you will not lose your transports) and you can non-combat move the transports and pick up and drop off ground units as desired, including from the coastal territories adjacent to where the transports started.

The sub does not make the zone hostile, so the rules on pages 13-14 do not apply.
The sub can be ignored for movement purposes, and does not create combat during the combat movement phase.

Page 32 under submarines, “doesn’t block enemy movement”

If I’m understanding the question and situation correctly.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Correct @gamerman01 , the Sub Hack forces you to make a decission on wheter to attack or not attack the Sub in order to go with the following consequences.
This applies especially if you have this situation in a convoy zone where you have to choose to attack the sub and therefore can’t NCM load/offload your TTs or let it sit there, load and offload as you wish and deal with convoy dmg.

I do frequently use the Sub Hack in my League games as Allies and as Axis Player.

[gamerman01]

Gotcha, thanks, sounds like we’re on the same wavelength then. If you want to attack the sub, the transports have to leave in combat movement phase if you want to move ground units with them, and then you have to go for amphibious assault somewhere, yes, as you said

[jkeller]

@krieghund Hello so am told you are the final answer when it comes to rule interpretations! By the way thank you so much for your work on this incredible game. It has brought me countless hours of entertainment. I have a question for you. Let’s say there is a destroyer built in sea zone around Japan by an American IC in Korea and there is a large Japanese fleet there (in same sea zone) including transports. I know the Japanese transports cannot load from Japan in combat movement due to the presence of the destroyer. Assuming the Japan fleet stays put including the transports and wins the sea battle, can Japanese land units then load onto the transports ( but not offload) from Japan during noncombat?

[Krieghund]

@jkeller said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@krieghund Hello so am told you are the final answer when it comes to rule interpretations! By the way thank you so much for your work on this incredible game. It has brought me countless hours of entertainment.

That’s good to know!

@jkeller said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

I have a question for you. Let’s say there is a destroyer built in sea zone around Japan by an American IC in Korea and there is a large Japanese fleet there (in same sea zone) including transports. I know the Japanese transports cannot load from Japan in combat movement due to the presence of the destroyer. Assuming the Japan fleet stays put including the transports and wins the sea battle, can Japanese land units then load onto the transports ( but not offload) from Japan during noncombat?

No, they cannot. They were involved in combat, so they are not eligible to act during noncombat movement. From page 22 of the Pacific Rulebook (Phase 4: Noncombat Move):

Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or offload cargo, unless they loaded, moved, offloaded, or were involved in combat during the Combat Move or Conduct Combat phase.

[jkeller]

@krieghund Thank you so much for the quick response!

[jkeller]

i still dont have a good grasp of these sea rules in this version. Can transport load in combat move with a sub in the sea zone? can it offload in a seazone with a lone sub?

[gamerman01]

Yes, subs can be ignored during combat movement and noncombat movement nor do they block loading or unloading of transports. (page 13, bottom paragraph)

The exception is amphibious assaults - by transport(s) only - over sub(s) that are in the destination sea zone (unescorted transports can go over subs in other seazones on the way) are not allowed. You just need one escorting warship (which could just be a sub) to overcome this, and you can still ignore the defending subs. (page 16 under transports)

[ussgordoncaptain]

Are land units with 2 move allowed to Non-Combat move onto friendly neutral through a friendly neutral that was captured this turn.

Ex, let’s imagine that west india had a mech infantry in addition to the regular infantry, would you be able to move the indian infantry to east persia then move the mech to persia? What if it was only a single mech? Could you take east persia+Persia on a single NCM?

[Panther]

@ussgordoncaptain

By the rulebook (Europe 1940 2ed, page 10):
“Friendly neutrals … … They can be moved into (but
not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a
power that is at war (see “Noncombat Move,” page 22).
This moves the territory out of its neutral status at the
end of the Noncombat Move phase”.

So the answer is “No”.

You’d need to move the mech infantry and the regular infantry at the same time.
The mech infantry can’t “move through”.

[ussgordoncaptain]

Can German troops Enter Italian controlled eastern poland while germany is not at war with russia (and therefore collect the 5 IPC national objective)

thanks Panther

[simon33]

@panther said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@ussgordoncaptain

By the rulebook (Europe 1940 2ed, page 10):
“Friendly neutrals … … They can be moved into (but
not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a
power that is at war (see “Noncombat Move,” page 22).
This moves the territory out of its neutral status at the
end of the Noncombat Move phase”.

So the answer is “No”.

You’d need to move the mech infantry and the regular infantry at the same time.
The mech infantry can’t “move through”.

Can I just ask a follow on question here. I know all combat movement happens simultaneously, but does the same apply for NCM? So what stops one unit from claiming the friendly neutral while another unit moves 2 through the territory after the first unit claimed it?

Would appear to be a loophole but I don’t see why it doesn’t apply.

[Panther]

@simon33 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@panther said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@ussgordoncaptain

By the rulebook (Europe 1940 2ed, page 10):
“Friendly neutrals … … They can be moved into (but
not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a
power that is at war (see “Noncombat Move,” page 22).
This moves the territory out of its neutral status at the
end of the Noncombat Move phase”.

So the answer is “No”.

You’d need to move the mech infantry and the regular infantry at the same time.
The mech infantry can’t “move through”.

Can I just ask a follow on question here. I know all combat movement happens simultaneously, but does the same apply for NCM? So what stops one unit from claiming the friendly neutral while another unit moves 2 through the territory after the first unit claimed it?

Would appear to be a loophole but I don’t see why it doesn’t apply.

The neutral territory is neutral until the end of Noncombat Move Phase (see quote above).
So let’s assume an Infantry and a Mech enter the “first” neutral territory ‘together’. The Mech would not be able to “continue” its move as it may not go through the first territory, that still is neutral (until the end of NCM).

[Panther]

@ussgordoncaptain said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Can German troops Enter Italian controlled eastern poland while germany is not at war with russia (and therefore collect the 5 IPC national objective)

thanks Panther

Yes, as Eastern Poland - being Italian at that time - is friendly to Germany.

[oysteilo]

Japan/USA/British/ANZAC question

End of round2: No war
End of Japan 3: No war
End of USA 3: USA declares war on japan
End of British/Anzac 3: No war with japan

Japan 4. Will a british/Anzac destroyer block a japan attack on USA or can Japan ignore it and not declear war on British/ANZAC?

HMMMM, I think yes, they may

[gamerman01]

Japan can ignore it because Japan is still not at war with UK/ANZAC

[oysteilo]

@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Japan can ignore it because Japan is still not at war with UK/ANZAC

good to get it confirmed! (and good to see you back in business)

[gamerman01]

Thank you! Feeling good.
I hope you’re not terrorizing your opponent TOO much with that.