Kamakazes require the Allies to initiate combat in that zone. You get the option to deploy them at the end of an Allies combat move, before combat is resolved, and only then.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
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.
-
Well, I guess it was the frontier for the Japanese in this situation!!
I am joking guys :lol:
-
First off…damn there is a lot of redundant q & a in this thread. Can we clean up some? Just a thought.
China can noncom into UKs burma territory because china is @ war with japan and UK is @ war with germany.
If US & russia @ war with japan but not ger, us can non com in pac map of rus but not europe map. These seem contradictory.
If us @ war with japan and rus @ war with germany, can us non com every where in russia?
Thanx for the answers guys. I finally finished all 156 pages. -
First off…damn there is a lot of redundant q & a in this thread. Can we clean up some? Just a thought.
That’s been done. There’s nothing here that’s not either in the rules or the official FAQs.
China can noncom into UKs burma territory because china is @ war with japan and UK is @ war with germany.
If US & russia @ war with japan but not ger, us can non com in pac map of rus but not europe map. These seem contradictory.Not really. The Soviet Union has special rules due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan. If it’s at war with Germany/Italy but not Japan, it’s still treated as a neutral power on the Pacific map, and vice versa. See page 36 of the Europe Rulebook.
If us @ war with japan and rus @ war with germany, can us non com every where in russia?
No. If the USSR is not at war with Japan, it is still treated as a neutral power on the Pacific map, so no other power may move units into its territories there. The US, being no longer neutral, may however move units into Soviet territories on the Europe map, as the USSR is no longer neutral there. The key is that in order for a power to move units into the territory of another power, neither power must be neutral. The US isn’t neutral if it’s at war with anyone, but the USSR has the special conditions I mentioned above.
-
Sorry if this has been asked before. I blame the search function.
Japan has a couple of subs in SZ6 around Japan; all its kamikaze tokens still in play. USA has a battleship and some transports in range.
Question 1: if USA sends its transports+battleship in an amphibious against Japan (the island itself), will the subs participate in a sea battle if the Japanese player spends 1 kamikaze token?
Question 2: if Japan uses all kamikaze tokens against the battleship and destroys it, would there still be an amphibious landing? (regardless of the subs)Reasoning behind this question: if USA does not send the battleship, the transports would be unescorted and USA cannot ignore the subs in SZ6. If USA does send the battleship, the subs do not prevent unloading. Furthermore, USA may ignore the subs. But what do kamikaze tokens do - do they ‘create’ a Combat Phase, pulling in the subs as well?
EDIT: added question.
-
Sorry if this has been asked before. I blame the search function.
Use the Search function in the toolbar. The Google Search is next to useless.
Japan has a couple of subs in SZ6 around Japan; all its kamikaze tokens still in play. USA has a battleship and some transports in range.
Question 1: if USA sends its transports+battleship in an amphibious against Japan (the island itself), will the subs participate in a sea battle if the Japanese player spends 1 kamikaze token?Not if the USA player chose to ignore the subs. Kamikaze strikes by themselves don’t create a battle. (They occur before any battles.)
Question 2: if Japan uses all kamikaze tokens against the battleship and destroys it, would there still be an amphibious landing? (regardless of the subs)
Yes. The battleship was in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase, which fulfills the conditions for ignoring the subs (Kamikaze strikes occur at the beginning of the Combat phase). Since there was no battle, the subs aren’t pulled in, and there is nothing to prevent the landing.
-
Thank you Krieghund, excellent answer as always. :-)
Cheers,
Ozy -
Is there any possibility of an official rules update to close loopholes and improve things? Perhaps some small changes to rebalance towards the allies? My list would be:
- update SBR to make fighters A2 D2
- Close ANZAC DOW loophole - probably just make it not result in a state of war between Japan and UK
- Close rocket loopholes - just say that they need to be declared before SBR are rolled.
I suppose all of those things can be house ruled.
There’s probably a few more things but it seems the thing most people are interested in is game balance. The SBR change will help with that, but only a little. I’m inclined to think a bid is fair enough to resolve balance. Maybe allied play will advance and reduce bids.
-
Similar question as above. USA has a destroyer and a sub in 110. Germany attacks with 1 carrier and a bunch of planes and loaded transports. Is the amphibious landing on London allowed when the destroyer is dead while the sub is still there? Based on the sz 6 question above I assume yes, but not sure.
-
Sorry if this has been asked before. I blame the search function.
Use the Search function in the toolbar. The Google Search is next to useless.
Japan has a couple of subs in SZ6 around Japan; all its kamikaze tokens still in play. USA has a battleship and some transports in range.
Question 1: if USA sends its transports+battleship in an amphibious against Japan (the island itself), will the subs participate in a sea battle if the Japanese player spends 1 kamikaze token?Not if the USA player chose to ignore the subs. Kamikaze strikes by themselves don’t create a battle. (They occur before any battles.)
Question 2: if Japan uses all kamikaze tokens against the battleship and destroys it, would there still be an amphibious landing? (regardless of the subs)
Yes. The battleship was in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase, which fulfills the conditions for ignoring the subs (Kamikaze strikes occur at the beginning of the Combat phase). Since there was no battle, the subs aren’t pulled in, and there is nothing to prevent the landing.
So Japan can not prevent allied landing on Japan with subs and kamikazes only (in the case allies have surface warships). Japan has to have surface warships or air?
Suggested Topics
