Risk taught us when we were young that Irkutsk and Yakutsk are like the North and South Dakota of Soviet Russia. Have you not visited the region of Kamchatka before–by traveling on a bold line via Alaska? We all know that bold lines can support gigantic armies.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
Yes
-
-
Yes
but only if the attacking units and transport survive the battle
There is no sea battle. The rule behind the given scenario is about the enemy submarines being ignored by the attacker:
@rulebook:
However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at
least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase. -
so sub is a warship too?
-
so sub is a warship too?
Sure, see
@rulebook:
Sea Units
Battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and transports move, attack, and defend in sea zones. They
can’t move into territories. For the sake of these rules, the following are surface warships: battleships, carriers, cruisers, and
destroyers. Transports are not warships. Submarines are warships, but they are not surface warships. -
Got a G40 2nd edition home rule, need an opinion. Me and my cousins decided that it doesn’t make sense that AAA can’t fire during strategic bombings so we started to role 1 die for each AAA present. Is this sensible?
-
Got a G40 2nd edition home rule, need an opinion. Me and my cousins decided that it doesn�t make sense that AAA can�t fire during strategic bombings so we started to role 1 die for each AAA present. Is this sensible?
In G40, ICs and facilities have inbuilt AA instead of needing to position an AA gun in the territory. I personally think this rule change has gone in the wrong direction. The problem with one earlier rule is that an AA Gun still fired on escorting fighters. That was a bit unfair.
-
The built-in AA for facilities means there is always AA fire against strategic bombers on bombing runs. I’m wondering if you guys were unaware of this rule? With an AA shot against every single strat bomber on every run, it would be excessive to add AAA units to the defense.
-
During the non-combat move phase, may air units fly over a territory that was friendly neutral but made allied during the same phase?
For example, Itlay moves a ground unit into Iraq to take control of it. May Italy also fly over Iraq in the same non-combat move phase? (but land elsewhere)
The rules say you may not fly over a friendly neutral, but also say that moving a land unit into the territory ends its neutrality.
There’s also this phrase which talks about not moving “through” friendly neutrals, but could be taken as referring to land units specifically:
“They can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power that is at war” -
During the non-combat move phase, may air units fly over a territory that was friendly neutral but made allied during the same phase?
For example, Itlay moves a ground unit into Iraq to take control of it. May Italy also fly over Iraq in the same non-combat move phase? (but land elsewhere)
No, because:
@rulebook:
A power may not attack a friendly neutral nor fly air
units over it. However, a power that is at war may move
land units into (but not through) a friendly neutral as a
noncombat move (see “Noncombat Move,” page 21). This
moves the territory out of its neutral status at the end of the
Noncombat Move phase.
…HTH :-)
-
@P@nther:
During the non-combat move phase, may air units fly over a territory that was friendly neutral but made allied during the same phase?
For example, Itlay moves a ground unit into Iraq to take control of it. May Italy also fly over Iraq in the same non-combat move phase? (but land elsewhere)
No, because:
@rulebook:
A power may not attack a friendly neutral nor fly air
units over it. However, a power that is at war may move
land units into (but not through) a friendly neutral as a
noncombat move (see “Noncombat Move,” page 21). This
moves the territory out of its neutral status at the end of the
Noncombat Move phase.
…HTH :-)
i thought that only anzac can land planes on dutch lands in ncm
-
…
i thought that only anzac can land planes on dutch lands in ncm
This case is different: Holland is not a friendly neutral, so this scenario actually is unrelated to Tizkit’s question.
Every Ally may land planes on Dutch territories in NCM provided those territories have not been captured by the Axis and have been friendly from the beginning of the turn. It is only UK and Anzac that may bring land units into friendly Dutch territories during NCM to take control.
Please see this clarification of Dutch rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.msg1115406#msg1115406
-
@P@nther:
…
i thought that only anzac can land planes on dutch lands in ncm
This case is different: Holland is not a friendly neutral, so this scenario actually is unrelated to Tizkit’s question.
Every Ally may land planes on Dutch territories in NCM provided those territories have not been captured by the Axis and have been friendly from the beginning of the turn. It is only UK and Anzac that may bring land units into friendly Dutch territories during NCM to take control.
Please see this clarification of Dutch rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.msg1115406#msg1115406
but what about Italy and Iraq, are they the same like ANZAC and Dutch?
-
@P@nther:
…
i thought that only anzac can land planes on dutch lands in ncm
This case is different: Holland is not a friendly neutral, so this scenario actually is unrelated to Tizkit’s question.
Every Ally may land planes on Dutch territories in NCM provided those territories have not been captured by the Axis and have been friendly from the beginning of the turn. It is only UK and Anzac that may bring land units into friendly Dutch territories during NCM to take control.
Please see this clarification of Dutch rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.msg1115406#msg1115406
but what about Italy and Iraq, are they the same like ANZAC and Dutch?
No, they are not. Iraq is a pro-axis neutral. So the respective rules apply.
In Tizkit’s scenario Italy moves land units into Iraq during NCM to control IRAQ (and “activating” IRAQ’s units for Italy). Italy cannot land air units there until next turn’s NCM phase. -
Unless Iraq has been previously unsuccessfully attacked by the Allies.
-
Unless Iraq has been previously unsuccessfully attacked by the Allies.
In that case Tizkit’s scenario could not have occurred:
During the non-combat move phase, may air units fly over a territory that was friendly neutral but made allied during the same phase?
For example, Itlay moves a ground unit into Iraq to take control of it. May Italy also fly over Iraq in the same non-combat move phase? (but land elsewhere)
-
I see what you’re saying. The question would not have arisen in that scenario - you could just fly over it regardless of it being claimed in the NCM.
-
@P@nther:
Every Ally may land planes on Dutch territories in NCM provided those territories have not been captured by the Axis and have been friendly from the beginning of the turn. It is only UK and Anzac that may bring land units into friendly Dutch territories during NCM to take control.
Please see this clarification of Dutch rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.msg1115406#msg1115406
Just to be clear, any Allied power at war may move land units into uncaptured Dutch territories, but only UK and ANZAC may take control of them by doing so.
-
@P@nther:
Every Ally may land planes on Dutch territories in NCM provided those territories have not been captured by the Axis and have been friendly from the beginning of the turn. It is only UK and Anzac that may bring land units into friendly Dutch territories during NCM to take control.
Please see this clarification of Dutch rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.msg1115406#msg1115406
Just to be clear, any Allied power at war may move land units into uncaptured Dutch territories, but only UK and ANZAC may take control of them by doing so.
Yes, as “Dutch territories are treated in the same way as any Allied territories whose capital is held by an enemy power …, with the exception of the guardianship of United Kingdom and ANZAC…” (rulebook, Pacific 1940.2, page 9).
-
This is kind of weird, and I think I’m just missing the obvious, but is this allowed?
Germany declares war on Russia turn two and takes Ukraine turn three.
Japan stays neutral to the West but attacks Russia and takes Yunnan. On turn two a Japanese bomber parks in Yunnan. On turn three Japan bombs Stalingrad and lands in German-controlled Ukraine.
Later on turn three, the UK wants to attack the poorly defended bomber in Ukraine with air units.First of all, can Japan land in German-controlled territories (or Italian for that matter) as long as Japan is at war with the Soviets (and so is the European axis power)?
Second, does the UK have to declare war on Japan in order to attack a Japanese bomber in Ukraine? Not that it really matters anyway.
Suggested Topics
