Great!
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
Thanks Panther & Simon! :-) I haven’t seen it happen yet, but one of our games is getting close to this situation.
-
… but if there is no harbour or airfield I wouldn’t think that was legal.
Indeed, as in this scenario the tactical bomber can’t SBR (it can only bomb air bases and naval bases).
-
I can confirm P@nther’s answer, as Krieghund has in the past affirmed that it is legal to send tacticals even when the bases are bombed out
-
Hi Krieg, I have not so much a rules question but an interest to know why a rule is the way it is… i.e. I want to know the reason for the rule.
The rule as quoted from the rule book:
It can also remain at sea with
the cargo still aboard (but only if the cargo remaining
aboard was loaded in a previous turn, was loaded this
turn in the Noncombat Move phase, or was loaded this
turn for an amphibious assault from which the transport
retreated).What is the thinking requiring a transport making an amphib attack to unload all its cargo? Like, if in attack mode it has to go all in? I don’t really think that makes sense. I am sure we could find historical examples of troops held back on the ships while others were sent crashing on the beaches.
Is there some janky game anomaly that arises if an attacker holds back some of the transported units?
Or is the reason as simple as keeping the combat/non-combat move distinction as clean as can be, i.e. all units making combat moves must attack?
Just curious.
-
Or is the reason as simple as keeping the combat/non-combat move distinction as clean as can be, i.e. all units making combat moves must attack?
This. If you want units to remain at sea until after the combat, they should be moved in noncombat movement.
-
Q1 European Rulebook p. 10 and 37: The US may declare war at the beginning of their Collect Income phase of the 3rd turn.
So can they then collect 25 IPCs bonus for their national objective on their 3rd turn, during that same collect income phase.Yes.
Well, I didn’t copy the conversation well.( It can be found on the first page of this thread). Krieg, you replied yes, but if the US declares war at beginning of collect income phase, wouldnt they b at war before they actually collect the income? -
I have a ton of little questoins that came up while playing (AAG40.2) and i doubt i can remember them all. Some aren’t 1940-related, but bear with me :-P
1. before USA and URSS declare war / are declared, can they activate pro-allies neutrals?
2. what if f.ex. URSS invades a neutral before being at war? If any allied power attacks a neutral minor power, all true-neutrals will become pro-axis, but if URSS (while neutral) invades a neutral minor power, what happens?
….
…
Someone posted no as answer to #1, but activating pro allied by an allie is a noncombat move done on the noncombat phase. Can someone please explain why it wouldnt be allowed when not at war if it isnt combat? -
Q1 European Rulebook p. 10 and 37: The US may declare war at the beginning of their Collect Income phase of the 3rd turn.
So can they then collect 25 IPCs bonus for their national objective on their 3rd turn, during that same collect income phase.Yes.
Well, I didn’t copy the conversation well.( It can be found on the first page of this thread). Krieg, you replied yes, but if the US declares war at beginning of collect income phase, wouldnt they b at war before they actually collect the income?That is the point!
They collect the 25ipcs bonus.
-
I have a ton of little questoins that came up while playing (AAG40.2) and i doubt i can remember them all. Some aren’t 1940-related, but bear with me :-P
1. before USA and URSS declare war / are declared, can they activate pro-allies neutrals?
2. what if f.ex. URSS invades a neutral before being at war? If any allied power attacks a neutral minor power, all true-neutrals will become pro-axis, but if URSS (while neutral) invades a neutral minor power, what happens?
….
…Someone posted no as answer to #1, but activating pro allied by an allie is a noncombat move done on the noncombat phase. Can someone please explain why it wouldnt be allowed when not at war if it isnt combat?
From page 15 of the Europe Rulebook:
Neutral Powers: When a power is not at war with anyone, it is neutral. Powers that begin the game neutral, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, aren’t initially part of the Allies or the Axis. The Axis powers are on the opposite side of these neutral powers, but they are not yet considered enemies. While a power remains neutral, it operates under even tighter restrictions. A neutral power can’t move land or air units into or through neutral territories. It can’t move units into or through territories or onto ships belonging to another power or use another power’s naval bases, nor can another power move land or air units into or through its territories or onto its ships or use its naval bases.
-
As for the why, probably to stop ussr from increasing its income through war acts, such as collecting allies like Persia
-
True. Claiming friendly neutrals is definitely a semi-aggressive act, as it represents enlisting that country in the war effort (which a neutral power is not yet a part of). The enhanced neutral power restrictions are also designed to represent the diplomatic stance of not antagonizing a belligerent power in an attempt to maintain neutrality.
-
Situation:
Japan has an AB in Siam w. 4 Ftr’s there. The IJN with two CV’s is also parked in sz 37 off of Malaya.
On Japans CM, 4 ftr’s starting from that AB heading to India and performing an Airstrike, meaning, they only attack the ground Units there (1x Ftr,2x TacB and a Marine).Burma is UK controlled and a DD as blocker in sz 38 as well as a CR in sz 41 are under attack.
Q: Is the CM of the Japanese Ftr’s leagal or not?
-
@aequitas:
Situation:
Japan has an AB in Siam w. 4 Ftr’s there. The IJN with two CV’s is also parked in sz 37 off of Malaya.
On Japans CM, 4 ftr’s starting from that AB heading to India and performing an Airstrike, meaning, they only attack the ground Units there (1x Ftr,2x TacB and a Marine).Burma is UK controlled and a DD as blocker in sz 38 as well as a CR in sz 41 are under attack.
Q: Is the CM of the Japanese Ftr’s leagal or not?
Siam to India is 3 movement and they have 5 with the airbase. They could land in Yunnan or Shan State if controlled by Japan at start of the turn.
You mention carriers and UK destroyer so I’m guessing Japan does not control Yunnan or Shan State.
If you are relying on the carriers, the attack is legal because the carriers could pick up any surviving aircraft in Z41 (or Z40 or Z78) which is 2 spaces from India. I’ll stop here, because I’m not sure if I’m understanding your situation. Please ask follow up questions if necessary, thanks. Or provide a screen shot maybe, that would help a lot -
@aequitas:
Situation:
Japan has an AB in Siam w. 4 Ftr’s there. The IJN with two CV’s is also parked in sz 37 off of Malaya.
On Japans CM, 4 ftr’s starting from that AB heading to India and performing an Airstrike, meaning, they only attack the ground Units there (1x Ftr,2x TacB and a Marine).Burma is UK controlled and a DD as blocker in sz 38 as well as a CR in sz 41 are under attack.
Q: Is the CM of the Japanese Ftr’s leagal or not?
I suspect it’s legal, but I’d have to see all planes and landing spaces. Indeed - the carriers with combats could NCM off india and allow a landing.
Ceylon could also be a valid landing space if it’s been taken previously.
-
@aequitas:
Situation:
Japan has an AB in Siam w. 4 Ftr’s there. The IJN with two CV’s is also parked in sz 37 off of Malaya.
On Japans CM, 4 ftr’s starting from that AB heading to India and performing an Airstrike, meaning, they only attack the ground Units there (1x Ftr,2x TacB and a Marine).Burma is UK controlled and a DD as blocker in sz 38 as well as a CR in sz 41 are under attack.
Q: Is the CM of the Japanese Ftr’s leagal or not?
Siam to India is 3 movement and they have 5 with the airbase. They could land in Yunnan or Shan State if controlled by Japan at start of the turn.
You mention carriers and UK destroyer so I’m guessing Japan does not control Yunnan or Shan State.
If you are relying on the carriers, the attack is legal because the carriers could pick up any surviving aircraft in Z41 (or Z40 or Z78) which is 2 spaces from India. I’ll stop here, because I’m not sure if I’m understanding your situation. Please ask follow up questions if necessary, thanks. Or provide a screen shot maybe, that would help a lotJapan could only NCM to SZ78 or SZ40 if it clears SZ41 (or perhaps SZ38). So long as Japan is attacking one of those SZs, the attack is legal. If no attack is made, the CVs have no possibility of catching the planes so the attack is illegal if no land based landing site is possible.
-
You’re right, Simon, I was even anticipating the question that Z41 was occupied, but I overlooked that in his scenario!
Do you understand this combination of answers, then, AeV? A screenshot would be very helpful.
-
You guys rock and i would never expect less from you, then your great support everytime.
The problem is also solved.
My AB was overlooked by the opponent :-D.
-
@aequitas:
You guys rock and i would never expect less from you, then your great support everytime.
The problem is also solved.
My AB was overlooked by the opponent :-D.Who builds an airbase in that Cambodian jungle :P
-
Well, I guess it was the frontier for the Japanese in this situation!!
-
@aequitas:
You guys rock and i would never expect less from you, then your great support everytime.
The problem is also solved.
My AB was overlooked by the opponent :-D.Who builds an airbase in that Cambodian jungle :P
ME!
It is not that obvious and hidden. Good for surprise attacks.
Suggested Topics
