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

[seth4god]

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.

[wheatbeer]

Thanks everyone … sorry I’m thick sometimes  :-D

[seth4god]

@Gamerman01:

so such combat movement is allowed.

Hooray

@Gamerman01:

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:

[gamerman01]

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.

[Jennifer]

@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!)

[gamerman01]

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

[Jennifer]

@Gamerman01:

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.

[gamerman01]

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

[Jennifer]

@Gamerman01:

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.

[mgonzo777]

Let’s say a minor IC gets upgraded to a major IC. Can you place more than 3 units on the same turn it gets upgraded?

And thanks Boldfresh and Gamerman01 for the answer to my Japan major IC in China question.

[gamerman01]

@mgonzo777:

Let’s say a minor IC gets upgraded to a major IC. Can you place more than 3 units on the same turn it gets upgraded?

No, you must wait until next turn.  Kind of like building a new one.

And thanks Boldfresh and Gamerman01 for the answer to my Japan major IC in China question.

Any time - you’re most welcome

[mgonzo777]

thanks again

[JDOW]

Hey there, another question.

Assuming you block a fleet with destroyers.

Can the attacker attack with air flying over the blockade while attacking the blocking destroyers with e.g. ships and the move carriers to the planes once the blockade is cleared to give them a landing space? In case the blockade holds the air would be lost (assuming no other landing space)

However can a blockade being circumvented by that?

Thanks and regards,
Tobias

[gamerman01]

@JapanDOWRound1Fan:

Can the attacker attack with air flying over the blockade while attacking the blocking destroyers with e.g. ships and the move carriers to the planes once the blockade is cleared to give them a landing space? In case the blockade holds the air would be lost (assuming no other landing space)

Yes, you certainly can.

And you need only send one unit with attacking power to attack the blockade to make it legal.

Example:
Your opponent has 8 bombers sitting on Libya.
You have 10 USA fighters/tacs on Morocco, which is 3 spaces from Libya
You do not control Tunisia or Tobruk, so your planes must land in Z96.
Your opponent has 3 destroyers in Z96, and a huge fleet in Z92.
Your fleet is in Z91, and you have 5 or more USA carriers (Allied carriers can’t help you since they can’t move on this USA turn, of course) (Also, you must have 10 landing places for your USA planes if you’re sending all 10 out - guest Allied fighters sitting on the carriers would prevent your USA planes from landing on them this turn)

You want to attack the 8 bombers, and you legally can.
Assuming no other air in range or boats that can strike Z96, you must

1. Send at least 1 plane at Z96 to attack the 3 destroyers
2. Send at least 1 boat with attack power or 1 plane to attack Z92 (probably send a sub)

Then you can send up to 9 planes from Morocco to attack the 8 bombers on Libya.  Any surviving airplanes from Z96 and Libya will be destroyed after your sub loses the battle in Z92, but you have legally attacked Z96 and Libya because had the sub won in Z92, you could have sent 5 carriers to Z96 to pick up any surviving airplanes.

Note that when the blockade is small (like a destroyer) and you succeed in breaking it, you MUST send however many carriers are necessary to pick up any surviving aircraft.  That is, during the noncombat phase you must pick up all airplanes if possible.  If it’s not possible because you failed to clear the blockade, well…. too bad for those brave pilots.  No carrier is coming.

[JDOW]

Thanks a lot for that very great example, this scenario exceeded my imagination so far while illustrating greatly what this can mean. I guess in games with less experienced opponents such moves will create a lot of astonishment :)

[JDOW]

@Gamerman01:

If it’s not possible because you failed to clear the blockade, well…. too bad for those brave pilots.  No carrier is coming.

This made my smile and a little bid sad ;)

[gamerman01]

Happy to help - I enjoy explaining stuff - I’m a teacher

Happy gaming

[gamerman01]

Refer to the bottom of page 29 and top of page 30 in the 2nd edition Europe manual, under “air units” for the rules we just discussed.

[Commando Brado]

You can’t fly over true neutrals, correct?

[boldfresh]

@Commando:

You can’t fly over true neutrals, correct?

Yes and no.  Gamer will fill you in when he wakes up  :wink: