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

[gamerman01]

@wittmann:

The attacker cannot retreat , if all defending units have been eliminated.

He meant all defending units with a combat value. (all non-transports)

Similarly, you cannot retreat from AA guns only - they are destroyed and the attacker must take over the territory with everything that’s there.

[V. Manstein]

May Japan attack Persia (pro allies neutral) whithout declaring war on England?

[Panther]

@V.:

May Japan attack Persia (pro allies neutral) whithout declaring war on England?

Yes, there is no such connection between attacking an unfriendly neutral and declaring war on a power in the rules.

[The Pripet Martian]

Soviet sub and cruiser attack German cruiser and transport in SZ 113. Germans scramble two fighters. Soviets score two hits in the first round of combat, eliminating enemy cruiser and one fighter. Germans miss. This raises a couple of questions:

1. The remaining German combat unit (a fighter) can’t hit the Soviet sub, so is the German transport now considered “defenseless” and immediately eliminated, or do the Soviets have to kill the fighter first?
2. If the transport is immediately eliminated, can the Soviets retreat prior to a second round of combat with the remaining fighter?

[Panther]

@The:

Soviet sub and cruiser attack German cruiser and transport in SZ 113. Germans scramble two fighters. Soviets score two hits in the first round of combat, eliminating enemy cruiser and one fighter. Germans miss. This raises a couple of questions:

1. The remaining German combat unit (a fighter) can’t hit the Soviet sub, so is the German transport now considered “defenseless” and immediately eliminated, or do the Soviets have to kill the fighter first?
2. If the transport is immediately eliminated, can the Soviets retreat prior to a second round of combat with the remaining fighter?

So in a second round of combat a German fighter and transport are attacked by a Russian submarine and cruiser.
Autodestruction of a defenseless transport takes only place if “in a sea battle… the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking”.

As long as there is a German fighter, the German transport won’t be autodestroyed.
However hits of the German fighter can only be assigned to the Russian cruiser.
Hits of the Russian submarine can only be assigned to the German transport.

The Russians may retreat as long as there is a defending unit “that can … fire at a valid target”.
As the German fighter may fire at the Russian cruiser, this condition is given.

[The Pripet Martian]

@P@nther:

@The:

Soviet sub and cruiser attack German cruiser and transport in SZ 113. Germans scramble two fighters. Soviets score two hits in the first round of combat, eliminating enemy cruiser and one fighter. Germans miss. This raises a couple of questions:

1. The remaining German combat unit (a fighter) can’t hit the Soviet sub, so is the German transport now considered “defenseless” and immediately eliminated, or do the Soviets have to kill the fighter first?
2. If the transport is immediately eliminated, can the Soviets retreat prior to a second round of combat with the remaining fighter?

So in a second round of combat a German fighter and transport are attacked by a Russian submarine and cruiser.
Autodestruction of a defenseless transport takes only place if “in a sea battle… the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking”.

As long as there is a German fighter, the German transport won’t be autodestroyed.
However hits of the German fighter can only be assigned to the Russian cruiser.
Hits of the Russian submarine can only be assigned to the German transport.

The Russians may retreat as long as there is a defending unit “that can … fire at a valid target”.
As the German fighter may fire at the Russian cruiser, this condition is given.

If I’m reading this right, the German transport would be considered defenseless, were it not for the presence of the Russian cruiser? In other words, had the Soviets attacked with sub only and scored a hit in the first round, killing the German cruiser…the scrambled fighters couldn’t hit the sub (and vice versa), so the transport would be eliminated, AND…with only fighters remaining in the SZ, the Russian sub could not retreat?

Glad I’m sitting down, as I feel a bit lightheaded.  :-D

[simon33]

Correct.

[weddingsinger]

@The:

If I’m reading this right, the German transport would be considered defenseless, were it not for the presence of the Russian cruiser? In other words, had the Soviets attacked with sub only and scored a hit in the first round, killing the German cruiser…the scrambled fighters couldn’t hit the sub (and vice versa), so the transport would be eliminated, AND…with only fighters remaining in the SZ, the Russian sub could not retreat?

Glad I’m sitting down, as I feel a bit lightheaded.  :-D

The key to remember is you need unassigned hits to destroy the transport.  In your scenario you didn’t have any hits left to sink the cruiser, so you’d have to either retreat or stay for another round of combat.

[valtteri771]

What are the current national objectives for 1940 global?

[Panther]

@valtteri771:

What are the current national objectives for 1940 global?

Those stated in the rulebook. Too much to quote it here so please see:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28703.0

[Zhukov44]

Having a bit of a rules dispute over how the TripleA program interprets the change from neutrality to allied b/w powers.

The scenario is Japan declares on UK on J2.  Russia and Japan are already at war.  On USA2, USA declares on Japan/Germany/Italy.

Should USA be able to land planes in Russia or other Allied territories on this turn (USA2) or have we been playing the game wrong up until now?

[Zhukov44]

Just for clarification, the case that USA can’t land air in Russia would be based on quotes from the rulebook like this

"No air units can land in any territory that was not friendly
at the start of your turn, including any territory that was just
captured or converted from a friendly neutral by you this turn. "

and the assumption that USA declares prior to the Combat Move phase, which is after the start of the turn.

So which is it?  Does Russian territory immediately become friendly when it becomes allied to the USA?

Have we been playing wrong if we are allowing USA to land stuff in Africa or London or Russia after they declare in this scenario?

If we interpret it this way, it would also be illegal for Russia to move units into China on the same turn they declare on Japan.

Without clear language in the rules one way or another, we’re going to need an official ruling on this one.

[simon33]

You’re right, this issue prevents moves such as the yunnan stack strategy, which have been accepted up until now.

No problem for land units, only air units are the issue.

I want a clarification from krieghund. Or perhaps we could just add a rule to bm to permit this?

[Panther]

@rulebook:

Noncombat Move

Where units can land
Air Units: An air unit must end its move in an eligible landing space. Air units can land in any territory that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the start of the current turn.

The issue arises because of the USA starting as neutral power, not allied with anyone, other than other powers starting already belonging to an alliance.

Declaring war in general occurs at the beginning of the Combat Move phase:

@same:

War must be declared
on your turn at the beginning of the Combat Move
phase, before any combat movements are made,
unless otherwise specified in the political rules.

So at the start of the US turn, the Soviet territory is not friendly (=allied) to the USA.
It becomes friendly only later during (at the beginning of) Combat Move Phase.

See the discussion starting from here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.msg1796255#msg1796255

[Panther]

@simon33:

You’re right, this issue prevents moves such as the yunnan stack strategy, which have been accepted up until now.

In case by “Yunnan stack strategy” you mean landing UK (air) units in Yunnan, this is completely unrelated.

UK and China begin the game being allied. So Chinese territories are friendly to UK (and vice versa) from the beginning of the game.

However there is an additional requirement in the Political Situation part of the rulebook:
“When not yet at war with Japan,…, the United Kingdom may not move units into or through China.”

So when UK declares war on Japan, Japanese territories become hostile to UK. Chinese territories still are friendly, as they have been from the beginning of the game - but the additional special requirement of UK being at war with Japan is now fulfilled. So now UK finally may move units into China.
And UK can land air units there during the same turn it declares war on Japan, because Chinese territories have been friendly from the beginning of the game (and UK’s turn).

That is a totally different scenario.

[simon33]

Yes, quite. Although by the Yunnan stack, I refer to the USSR flying planes to Yunnan USSR1, normally including some planes which have been bid.

Just one more thing. There is still a potential way this can be allowed within the rules. That’s if allied powers are still friendly powers before war is declared. As far as I can see, the manual never declares anything either way on this point.

[MeinHerr]

Since at the outset of the game, China is at war with Japan…. USSR flying in planes is fine…  (just like  US fighters landing in Gibralter after Japan has just attacked…) … although they were neutral before, the territory they land in is controlled by a power already at war…  (my take on it)

[Panther]

@simon33:

There is still a potential way this can be allowed within the rules. That’s if allied powers are still friendly powers before war is declared. As far as I can see, the manual never declares anything either way on this point.

That is a really good point, Simon. Yesterday on the Github-discussion I asked something similar, when I said:

@panther2:

Now the question is:

Can a Soviet territory be considered friendly from the beginning of the US-turn which is started with the US being neutral and in which the US joins the Allies by DOW’ing on Axis powers?

or enhanced

Can allied powers’ territories be considered friendly from the point of view of a power starting its turn neutral and joining those Allies during the same turn?

This indeed has been never clarified - and when I asked Krieghund about the US/SU issue yesterday, we did not discuss these (your and mine above) questions.
If neutral powers really could consider later-allied territories as friendly I of course would change my answer to Zukhov44’s rules question immediately.

I will PM Krieghund again to ask him to consider these questions.

[Deimos]

I don’t know if this has been asked before but after searching online and the rulebook I can’t find an answer to this.

I, as Germany, have a submarine convoying the US player in sz 101. On his turn he builds a destroyer. Now on my following turn, may I move the submarine away from the hostile sea zone during combat? How about during noncombat?

Thanks,
Deimos

EDIT:
To elaborate, the rulebook states that if a submarine ends its combat movement in a sea zone with a destroyer, combat will occur, so the latter is probably not viable. I’m mainly concerned with whether I can move out of the sea zone during combat. I don’t see how it would make sense that I can escape if there is another battle I’m going to, but not if there isn’t. In fact, I don’t see why I should be locked in the sea zone in any case. I needed that sub!  :-(

[Krieghund]

This is an interesting question.  My gut reaction was the same as P@nther’s - that the territories of a friendly power would not be friendly while your power is neutral.  This makes sense from a point of view of the dictionary definition of “neutral”, but not everything in war makes sense.  Let’s look at the relevant rules.

According to the definition of “friendly territories” on page 8 (Europe Rulebook), they are “controlled by you or a friendly power”, while the definition of ‘neutral territories" indicates that they’re “not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war”.  Further, the definition of “neutral powers” on page 15 states that powers on the opposite side of neutral powers are not yet enemies, but it doesn’t say that powers on the same side are not yet friends.  This seems to lump territories controlled by a power on your side while you’re neutral into the “friendly” category (though you’re explicitly prohibited from going there while neutral).  This is reinforced by with the explicit restrictions on the movement of neutral powers’ units (rather than simply declaring all other powers’ territories neutral while you’re neutral).

The upshot is that the territories of a friendly are technically friendly while your power is neutral, but they’re pretty much treated as neutral for all practical purposes.  However, they do meet the requirement of being friendly since the start your turn once you’re at war.

From a thematic point of view, while the US or USSR might be officially neutral, the old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” still applies, unofficially.  While a neutral power can’t do anything to provoke a power on the other side, such as openly aiding another power, it can still be prepared to join the war at a moment’s notice.  This took a little digging to sort out, and it is a little counter-intuitive, so it’s easy to come to an incorrect conclusion when “shooting from the hip”.  I didn’t think through all of the ramifications of this situation yesterday when P@nther asked me about it.  Sorry for any confusion this may have caused!