@Grandmaster-Bert
nice like the artwork :) Seems as if the unit names are a tad too dark but it all looks good
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
Good catch, Seth
You caught an error on page 32Now all you have to do is get used to the fact that a carrier is adequate escort for a transport over an enemy sub :-) :wink:
-
Can you conduct an attack that will require air units to fly over Spain during noncombat movement in order to land (Gibraltar is the only possible landing zone and there are no alternate flight paths) during the same turn in which Spanish neutrality is broken (by an attack on Spain)?
I have seen answers about combat movement, but wasn’t clear about noncombat movement under these circumstances.
-
yes you can fly over in noncombat, just not in combat (unless it is to attack spain).
-
PG11
Once any formerly neutral territory becomes controlled by a major power, the rules regarding neutral territories no longer apply to it. It�s treated like any other territory, with the exception that it has no �original� controller (even if it was initially biased toward one side or the other).
PG11 as well
Air units can�t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it. When a neutral territory is invaded, it�s no longer considered neutral and immediately becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it.
Even an “unsuccessful” attack on Spain would have created a valid flight path for my bombers to land in Gibraltar. If it helps, think of it in naval terms. You have aircraft on carriers that range out to attack something even though on the combat phase there is a blocking fleet/unit that would prevent the carrier from picking up the aircraft. As long as you clear it or make the attempt to clear the blocking unit, said move is valid. I could have in theory just attacked Spain with an infantry and this would have been fine as Spain would have become axis and the restrictions governing movement over neutrals would no longer apply.
-
Basically I was covered whether I took Spain or not.
-
Right. As soon as a neutral is attacked, it immediately joins the other side, which means that during the noncombat movement following the combat move that was the attack on said neutral, aircraft can freely fly over the attacked neutral (bad way to say it - actually, it is no longer neutral at all, because it was attacked.). And then all powers from both sides can fly over that attacked neutral for the rest of the game. It has joined one of the sides and is no longer neutral.
Unfortunately, Triple A does not track this. You can do it with game notes or something.
You can NOT freely fly OVER the neutral during the combat movement phase that you are FIRST attacking that neutral for the very first time, as Bold said.
-
So the an attack requiring a NCM flyover can be executed so long as you know that when NCM starts it will become a flyover-able territory? (because it isn’t flyover-able when the attack is actually launched)
-
I believe you guys … just want to be sure I understand the mechanics since it seems like there is no flight valid flight path during the combat movement phase even if you know that one will exist after the combat movement phase.
-
It’s the same thing when you’re clearing a SZ so carriers can pick up the fighters/tacticals. And it’s the same thing when you buy a carrier to give your air a valid landing spot. In the combat move phase there’s not a current valid landing spot. But there will be once the carrier is built or the blocker is cleared and the carriers can move somewhere to pick up the roving air.
-
Ah, I see what you’re saying
Tricky…Well, because you know for sure the flight path will be legal when the non-combat phase comes, it would be legal, yes.
I’ll look for something in the rule book about combat movement and planes to check the exact language again, for you.
-
Page 29 under air units
Paraphrasing,
That player just has to be able to demonstrate that there is a possible way for the aircraft to land safely at the end of the turn. Page 30, this could include “a combination of combat moves”.
Since an attack on a neutral guarantees it will join the other side no matter the dice result, the aircraft would be able to fly over it in noncombat movement, so such combat movement is allowed.
-
PG29-30
You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. 30 This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier.
There’s more on PG30 about assuming the attack will succeed, following through with building the carrier or moving the carriers to pick up said aircraft, and such.
But I think the crucial wording here is ‘afterward’. You don’t need a current valid landing zone, you just need to demonstrate that the air will have a possible valid landing spot after the battles have been conducted. Since attacking the neutral means I will have a valid route to land regardless of whether Spain fell or not. But that’s just my reading of the rules and I’ve been wrong recently about the rules in a case where the words seemed to say one thing but really didn’t.
-
Thanks everyone … sorry I’m thick sometimes :-D
-
so such combat movement is allowed.
Hooray
Ah, I see what you’re saying
Tricky…Well, because you know for sure the flight path will be legal when the non-combat phase comes, it would be legal, yes.
I’ll look for something in the rule book about combat movement and planes to check the exact language again, for you.
I’m good for a trick or two every once in awhile. :evil:
Now I just have to deal with the axis gaining all those neutrals. :oops:
-
Yeah, you’re right on this one Seth
Like you, I also say pg 29-30 is a good explanation for this situation, that rules out any doubt.
-
@seththenewb:
PG29-30
You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. 30 This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier.
this has got to be my favorite rule in the game. I can attack 40 battleships with a single submarine, use that to claim I will win, and use that claimed win to send a fighter to its certain death just to kill off 4 dozen undefended transports. =^_^= (this, to my knowledge, has always been a rule in axis and allies games with the possible exception of classic, though I think in classic as well. I just LOVE IT because of the hubris you know that submarine commander has!)
-
Before the attack power from the carrier was removed, you could even send in 1 carrier to clear the zone with its attack power of 1 and no surprise strike capability.
So the captain of the aircraft carrier would have even MORE hubris
-
Before the attack power from the carrier was removed, you could even send in 1 carrier to clear the zone with its attack power of 1 and no surprise strike capability.
So the captain of the aircraft carrier would have even MORE hubris
Yes, but I was thinking more along the lines of needing the carrier to move 2 spaces to retrieve the planes. but yes, 3 out and 1 back is valid too. Course, even I wouldn’t do anything as weird as that, I usually used/use this rule to justify suiciding planes behind enemy lines (saving the carrier and declaring it will be there to retrieve the attacking planes) and then just moving the carrier where I want it cause the planes are dead now.
-
My point was merely that sending an AA50 carrier at the big navy has even less chance of winning than a single sub
But once again you have read so much more into it…. :-P
-
My point was merely that sending an AA50 carrier at the big navy has even less chance of winning than a single sub
But once again you have read so much more into it…. :-P
Yes, about 50% less in any given round. I agree, but I was thinking more of the sheer number of times I’ve sent fighters to their certain doom using a carrier as an excuse (even sometimes BUILDING a carrier which later doesn’t have to go there) for allowing them to go. In those cases, I’m not really sending my carriers to their own deaths. lol. Destroyers (submarines as necessary) even cruisers if I have to.
Suggested Topics
