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

[oysteilo]

its asked before…

@Panther @simon33 @gamerman01 @MrRoboto

Japan controls Philippines, but has no land or air units there,

There is a defending japanese sub in the sea zone (sz35)

USA attacks with 2 destroyers, a bunch of planes and a transport carrying a mech

Both destroyers are dead by kamikaze

what happens? Can the mech capture philippines or does the sub prevent it?

Unsure if the kamikaze is a sea battle or not

[gamerman01]

The sub prevention is for combat move only.

You are in the combat phase. Both destroyers are gone, so you have loaded transport vs. sub. Sub gets a shot, and if it misses, the transport retreats because the attacker has no chance against that sub now

[gamerman01]

Kamikazes do create a sea battle - one kamikaze stops all bombardment

[oysteilo]

so philippines are under japanese control and transport and mech has to retreat? after a failed sub defense shoot

[gamerman01]

The transport can’t possibly beat a sub, so the mech will never be able to land. Best case scenario for attacker is getting the hell out after a sub miss

[gamerman01]

That is the power of kamikaze!!! :fearful:

[gamerman01]

eh - kamikazes plus submarine, that is. The kamikazes alone can’t stop the landing since they can’t hurt transports, of course

[oysteilo]

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

That is the power of kamikaze!!! :fearful:

I did right then!

[Myygames]

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

The sub prevention is for combat move only.

You are in the combat phase. Both destroyers are gone, so you have loaded transport vs. sub. Sub gets a shot, and if it misses, the transport retreats because the attacker has no chance against that sub now

I was also wondering about this scenario.

My interpretation would be that the US player can chose to ignore the sub in the CM. This is possible due to surface warships present. US DD are then sunk in the Combat phase.

I would assume the sub is still ignored. Is this incorrect? @gamerman01 ?

[pacifiersboard]

@Myygames

I think that combat is created by kamikaze rather than the attacker.

[gamerman01]

No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle.

[gamerman01]

@Krieghund said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:

@surfer said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:

BTW, how is the scramble any different than kamikazi? Neither are in play at the time of combat movement. There is no combat in either case–only the defender’s option to combat.
I would think if you could avoid combat from scramble, then you should be able to avoid combat from kamikazi.

Krieghund’s reply:

A scramble forces a sea battle, while a kamikaze strike does not. A kamikaze strike is a single attack against a single unit, not a full-blown battle.

[Myygames]

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

No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle.

Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)

Sub plus kamikaze is still powerful though…

[gamerman01]

@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]

Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)

Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ)

[oysteilo]

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

@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]

Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)

Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ)

not a silly question then! Hahaha

[ampdrive]

@Krieghund Assuming that I have a friendly sea zone,can I offload from my ally’s transport on my combat move and then, during my non-combat move, load more units onto the same transport?

[Krieghund]

@ampdrive No. Using your ally’s transport doesn’t exempt it from the rule that a transport may not load in the same turn after offloading.

[ampdrive]

@Krieghund Thank you for the timely reply.I thought,just maybe,this was a way to more efficiently utilise US transports with UK land units in sz 110.

[gamerman01]

Man, I don’t remember ever coming across this.

I scoured the rulebooks but couldn’t find, also the FAQs

You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.

It appears to me that you don’t have to say whether you’re actually attacking the sub(s) until you decide to roll that battle, that sea zone. (So you never need to declare ahead of time, just decide when you get to that sea zone)

Is this correct? Surely I missed something somewhere.

Triple A (which we never trust, like P@nther has in his signature) makes you say whether you are attacking transports/subs before any dice are rolled.

[gamerman01]

I realize you can’t move units in the combat movement phase that are not going to conduct combat.

However, in this situation a destroyer was escorting a transport over subs, so the destroyer must be moved in combat movement. Then does that destroyer have the option of attacking the subs, and does the player get to wait until getting to that battle in the conduct combat phase to actually decide to attack or not?

I know you can ignore subs in the combat movement phase, but do you have to declare that you’re not going to attack them? I can’t find that you have to declare in advance.

Can’t wait to hear this answer.