Quick rules question

[Auswanderersland]

japan owns carolinas, has 2 troops 3 fig on island.

america takes carolina island waters, but no amphibious assault.
non combats 4 transports loaded with anzac troops.

on anzac turn they attack from trans with no bs/cru

Does Japan get to scramble and auto kill us trans?  how does this work?

[creeping-deth87]

Nations can never attack together so the US transports would not be valid targets for the Japanese fighters. The combat will end when you would either kill all of the ANZAC units or the ANZAC player retreats.

[ColonelCarter]

@Auswanderersland:

japan owns carolinas, has 2 troops 3 fig on island.

america takes carolina island waters, but no amphibious assault.
non combats 4 transports loaded with anzac troops.

on anzac turn they attack from trans with no bs/cru

Does Japan get to scramble and auto kill us trans?  how does this work?

If Japan scrambles and ANZAC has no sea/air units to fight the sea battle, the transports are prevented from offloading, but not destroyed. The battle would end with essentially nothing happening.
If Japan doesn’t/can’t scramble, the units can conduct the amphibious assault.

[SubmersedElk]

There is no sea battle on ANZAC’s turn in that scenario, so there’s nothing to scramble against. You can’t scramble against an opponent’s fleet without a combat move into the adjacent SZ.

[Auswanderersland]

@creeping-deth87:

Nations can never attack together so the US transports would not be valid targets for the Japanese fighters. The combat will end when you would either kill all of the ANZAC units or the ANZAC player retreats.

ANZAC can retreat back to transports?

[Krieghund]

@ColonelCarter:

If Japan scrambles and ANZAC has no sea/air units to fight the sea battle, the transports are prevented from offloading, but not destroyed. The battle would end with essentially nothing happening.
If Japan doesn’t/can’t scramble, the units can conduct the amphibious assault.

This is correct.

@Auswanderersland:

ANZAC can retreat back to transports?

No.

[Auswanderersland]

thanks much!

[ColonelCarter]

@SubmersedElk:

There is no sea battle on ANZAC’s turn in that scenario, so there’s nothing to scramble against. You can’t scramble against an opponent’s fleet without a combat move into the adjacent SZ.

You can scramble against amphibious assaults however, whether there are combat units or not.

[SubmersedElk]

@ColonelCarter:

@SubmersedElk:

There is no sea battle on ANZAC’s turn in that scenario, so there’s nothing to scramble against. You can’t scramble against an opponent’s fleet without a combat move into the adjacent SZ.

You can scramble against amphibious assaults however, whether there are combat units or not.

It’s not that there are no combat units; in the context of the ANZAC combat move, there are no units at all in the sea zone.

[SubmersedElk]

Ah never mind my previous comments, Kriegshund has it correct. There’s a special rule just for this scenario:

“An attacking land unit can assault a coastal territory
from an ally’s transport, but only on the turn of
the attacking land unit’s owner.  All of the normal
requirements for transports offloading in a sea
zone must still be met by the attacking power (see
“Special Combat Movement, Transports”, page 16),
and any scrambled air units will prevent the landing
if they cannot be destroyed”

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf (page 21)

On page 16 it permits a scramble to resist amphibious attacks:

“They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious
assaults from adjacent sea zones”