There were four different playtesting groups, and none of them discovered it. Of course, when you’re concentrating on the big picture, sometimes details escape you. Was it a problem in your game?
No. Russia was driving mech and tanks toward Egypt as fast as possible, but didn’t end up being fast enough. He could have landed air there and prevented an attack on Egypt or forced DOW on Russia before I wanted, but it didn’t happen. It’s an issue, though, and those who have recently posted here have very eloquently detailed the issues.
Sometimes the most clearly stated rule still gets questioned, especially if it clashes with people’s preconceptions.
Yes, I’m sure.
The short answer is becuase Larry wanted it that way. I’ve never asked him why. I would assume it’s for game play reasons. This question has been raised often enough to warrant inclusion in the FAQ.
Excellent! That’s what I wanted to hear. Thank you very much. What I read about, was something about ferrying services as far back as the 50’s, and maybe the 40’s - not sure, but it’s a whole different matter ferrying thousands of enemy personnel across the 21 miles. I could see allowing a power to cross if they control both sides, but understand that simplicity may have won out, here. It does need to be in the FAQ as you said, I think.
If I may be so bold, generally things that happen in the European theater only affect the European theater and vice versa with Russia, so I can’t see that “egypt plane” move as being legal. If being at war with Japan doesn’t allow the USSR to collect their wartime NO, and if being at war with Japan doesn’t allow them to attack Germany/Italy and if being at war with Japan doesn’t let Russia invade European neutrals then it shouldn’t let them move into a European “ally” until at war in Europe. As for historically… if you remember Russia had a pact with Germany and until Germany broke it with their invasion of the USSR I don’t really think that Britain regarded Russia as anything close to an ally. Also, Russia fought the Japs in real life too, and I don’t think that the brits cozied up to them in Europe then either.
So if the examples at the start of the post don’t convince you, then I think the historical reality of the time, which the designers took such pains to include with the “political situation”, should certainly answer that question. Britain and Russia were not allies until the war with Germany broke out and I don’t think anything that happened in the pacific would have made that any different.
I agree completely. The more I think about this, the more I think it will be addressed in the errata. At least I’ll push for it.
@WILD:
Yeah but a Soviet DOW on Japan does allow Russia to invade the Euro neutrals (Krieg already ruled on this), that’s kinda why there’s even a discussion about also allowing Russia into all its allies tt’s (or ships) when only at war w/Japan (rules don’t make it illegal). Testers didn’t see this coming, and Krieghund is thinking about which way to go.
Invading neutrals is a little bit different than moving units into another power’s territories. We definitely saw that and allowed it to happen. After all, the USSR invaded several Eastern European countries as part of its agreement with Germany.
If I may be so bold, generally things that happen in the European theater only affect the European theater and vice versa with Russia, so I can’t see that “egypt plane” move as being legal. If being at war with Japan doesn’t allow the USSR to collect their wartime NO, and if being at war with Japan doesn’t allow them to attack Germany/Italy and if being at war with Japan doesn’t let Russia invade European neutrals then it shouldn’t let them move into a European “ally” until at war in Europe. As for historically… if you remember Russia had a pact with Germany and until Germany broke it with their invasion of the USSR I don’t really think that Britain regarded Russia as anything close to an ally. Also, Russia fought the Japs in real life too, and I don’t think that the brits cozied up to them in Europe then either.
So if the examples at the start of the post don’t convince you, then I think the historical reality of the time, which the designers took such pains to include with the “political situation”, should certainly answer that question. Britain and Russia were not allies until the war with Germany broke out and I don’t think anything that happened in the pacific would have made that any different.
I agree completely. The more I think about this, the more I think it will be addressed in the errata. At least I’ll push for it.
@WILD:
Yeah but a Soviet DOW on Japan does allow Russia to invade the Euro neutrals (Krieg already ruled on this), that’s kinda why there’s even a discussion about also allowing Russia into all its allies tt’s (or ships) when only at war w/Japan (rules don’t make it illegal). Testers didn’t see this coming, and Krieghund is thinking about which way to go.
Invading neutrals is a little bit different than moving units into another power’s territories. We definitely saw that and allowed it to happen. After all, the USSR invaded several Eastern European countries as part of its agreement with Germany.
I have no problem w/Russia being able to invade the neutrals while still neutral (to Euro axis). Furthermore I don’t think it should have to declare war on Japan to do it (it is kinda corny). War w/Jap would have nothing to do with the Euro neutrals. Actually if Russia went to war w/Jap it might not tie up the resources to invade the Euro neutrals.
Just let Russia invade the neutrals it wants to no strings attached.
Getting back to Russia being able to put units into its allies tt or ships before its at war w/ a Euro axis (or a common enemy) will most likely be dis allowed (and I’m good with that). I’m simply pointing out some of the places that Russia can get, and the effect they could have if it is allowed. Like def Egypt, India, Scotland, or England itself. It could halt a J3 India crush, stop Italy from getting Egypt, or force Germany to abort a Sea Lion (which is risky anyway). If these scenarios were not play tested w/this in mind, it should be disallowed IMO because it sways the out come of the fore mentioned battles.
If the setup was historically accurate, the Baltic States would be neutral and Bessarabia part of neutral Romania; this would give the Russians something to do R1. Also, Persia should be Pro-Axis giving them something to think about on their southern border.
But I don’t think Soviet units should EVER be allowed to share territory with other Allies. Even when at war ships can share the same sz, but not fight together. Similarly I’d allow US/UK units to land in Russia on NCM, but not defend with them if the tt is attacked. Stalin simply didn’t want to share the glory with anyone else. He’d take your money but he wouldn’t plough your path for you. He didn’t even help the Polish partisans in the Warsaw uprising.
To balance, the same thing should apply to Japan in regard to German and Italian units and tts, as there was practically no military cooperation between Japan and the Euro Axis.
In other words Japan and the USSR should be considered to have allies only in the sense that they have enemies-in-common with other powers. They are still members of the two great alliances for game victory purposes, but are essentially fighting different wars. Some monetary aid to Russia from the West is authentic, but then Germany got huge non-military aid from Russia until it decided to invade the place…
How does that work? If Z125 has 2 British DD’s and a Russian SS, and Germany attacks it, it can say it just wants to attack one and ignore the other? What about in a Russian territory? If Germany kills the Russian units and there are 2 british ftrs, does Germany capture the territory?
How does that work? If Z125 has 2 British DD’s and a Russian SS, and Germany attacks it, it can say it just wants to attack one and ignore the other? What about in a Russian territory? If Germany kills the Russian units and there are 2 british ftrs, does Germany capture the territory?
Yes, Calvin, you always ignore sea units of powers with which you are not at war.
You are not allowed (page 15 sidebar) to attack a territory with ground or air units of a power with which you are not at war. That’s the issue here. If Russia lands a plane in London, Germany must declare war on Russia to attack London.
I thought that’s why you were making a beeline for Egypt with your Russian tank in our game! I also half expected you to land a plane in Egypt to exploit the rule. Guess you didn’t know about it, to even exploit it. :-)
See, Krieg? The reason it wasn’t an issue in my game was because calvin didn’t realize how this rule worked. :lol:
How does that work? If Z125 has 2 British DD’s and a Russian SS, and Germany attacks it, it can say it just wants to attack one and ignore the other? What about in a Russian territory? If Germany kills the Russian units and there are 2 british ftrs, does Germany capture the territory?
Yes, Calvin, you always ignore sea units of powers with which you are not at war.
You are not allowed (page 15 sidebar) to attack a territory with ground or air units of a power with which you are not at war. That’s the issue here. If Russia lands a plane in London, Germany must declare war on Russia to attack London.
I thought that’s why you were making a beeline for Egypt with your Russian tank in our game! I also half expected you to land a plane in Egypt to exploit the rule. Guess you didn’t know about it, to even exploit it. :-)
See, Krieg? The reason it wasn’t an issue in my game was because calvin didn’t realize how this rule worked. :lol:
No, it’s because I needed that mech and tank in London and I didn’t want to risk planes
Sorry, I meant Russia-not London
If a ftr’s carrier is destroyed on the opponent’s combat move, it must land one space away. Do they decide where to land before or after the noncombat moves of the attacker?
Not 100% sure, but I think the def ftr would land after all combat is complete, and before the aggressors non combat moves.
If a ftr’s carrier is destroyed on the opponent’s combat move, it must land one space away. Do they decide where to land before or after the noncombat moves of the attacker?
Yes, the owner of the fighter decides.
AAE40 rulebook pg.29>AirCraft Carriers>second to last paragraph on Carriers.
If a ftr’s carrier is destroyed on the opponent’s combat move, it must land one space away. Do they decide where to land before or after the noncombat moves of the attacker?
Yes, the owner of the fighter decides.
AAE40 rulebook pg.29>AirCraft Carriers>second to last paragraph on Carriers.
That’s not what I was asking. I’m asking if they decide before or after the attacker’s noncombat move
If a ftr’s carrier is destroyed on the opponent’s combat move, it must land one space away. Do they decide where to land before or after the noncombat moves of the attacker?
Yes, the owner of the fighter decides.
AAE40 rulebook pg.29>AirCraft Carriers>second to last paragraph on Carriers.
That’s not what I was asking. I’m asking if they decide before or after the attacker’s noncombat move
And that question is answered in the paragraph I refered to.
I have a question regarding landing fighters on a newly built carrier. I read through this thread and did not see it previously answered.
This was the situation in our game the other night. German had built some transports in sea zone 113 and did not protect them with any surface ships. The only way that UK could possibly destroy them was to build a carrier and fly a fighter from London to sea zone 113, and then land the fighter on the newly built carrier outside of London in sea zone 110. Is this a valid move? I thought it was, but the line in the rules that we found would seem to indicate otherwise, and the group voted me down.
“Any air units that are not in an eligible landing space by the end of the Noncombat Move phase are destroyed (note that this can include a sea zone in which a new carrier will be placed during the Mobilize New Units phase” -pg 28 AAE.
This phasing is confusing to me. I know that right above this line it says that ‘Landing doesn’t actually occur until the Mobilize New Units phase’, but then it follows that by saying that air units are destroyed if they are not in an eligible landing space at the end of noncombat move. I would appreciate a clarification.
Great game and rulebook otherwise so far. We loved it.
I have a question regarding landing fighters on a newly built carrier. I read through this thread and did not see it previously answered.
This was the situation in our game the other night. German had built some transports in sea zone 113 and did not protect them with any surface ships. The only way that UK could possibly destroy them was to build a carrier and fly a fighter from London to sea zone 113, and then land the fighter on the newly built carrier outside of London in sea zone 110. Is this a valid move? I thought it was, but the line in the rules that we found would seem to indicate otherwise, and the group voted me down.
“Any air units that are not in an eligible landing space by the end of the Noncombat Move phase are destroyed (note that this can include a sea zone in which a new carrier will be placed during the Mobilize New Units phase” -pg 28 AAE.
This phasing is confusing to me. I know that right above this line it says that ‘Landing doesn’t actually occur until the Mobilize New Units phase’, but then it follows that by saying that air units are destroyed if they are not in an eligible landing space at the end of noncombat move. I would appreciate a clarification.
Great game and rulebook otherwise so far. We loved it.
Well, the definition of “eligible landing space” includes a sea zone where a carrier will be built in the Mobilize new units phase
Well, the definition of “eligible landing space” includes a sea zone where a carrier will be built in the Mobilize new units phase
Calvin’s right. It’s in the rulebook. Page 28 under “aircraft carriers”, last sentence on the page
Oh - it’s the one you quoted in the first place!
They put the parenthetical remark in the wrong sentence. Move it back to the sentence that says “Landing doesn’t actually occur until the Mobilize New Units phase, so air units and carriers must end their movement in the same sea zone (note that this can include a sea zone in which a new carrier will be placed during the Mobilize New Units phase)”
Makes more sense now, doesn’t it? I see how the way it was written could be confusing. But the “group” totally hosed you by voting it down, and now you can tell them that! :-D
Welcome, Darth! We’re glad you’re enjoying the game.
Calvinhobbesliker is correct. The air unit must be “in an eligible landing space” by the end of noncombat movement. That means that it must be in the space in which it will eventually land, though it will not actually touch down until the next phase. If the space in which it ends its movement is not an eligible landing space (it is not a territory that has been friendly since the start of the turn or a sea zone which contains or will contain a friendly carrier with landing space), the air unit is destroyed at that time. By definition, a sea zone in which a carrier will be mobilized may provide an eligible landing space.
here is a situation that happened in our game: UK1 a transport unloaded 2 infantry in persia to activate the 2 pro allied infantry. Q1 who gets the 2ipc? UK europe (since it is on the europe side of the board, or UK India since they activated it.) Q2 who now controls the transport and the 4 infantry now standing on persia? is it UK India who activated it, or, UK europe because it is on there side of the board. This led to much confusion. What happens if a group of UK from each side of the board were to meet in the middle of the board ?? Can either side take controlof these units :???
here is a situation that happened in our game: UK1 a transport unloaded 2 infantry in persia to activate the 2 pro allied infantry. Q1 who gets the 2ipc? UK europe (since it is on the europe side of the board, or UK India since they activated it.) Q2 who now controls the transport and the 4 infantry now standing on persia? is it UK India who activated it, or, UK europe because it is on there side of the board. This led to much confusion. What happens if a group of UK from each side of the board were to meet in the middle of the board ?? Can either side take controlof these units :???
Here’s the rule: if the territory is on the Europe board, it goes to London. If it’s on the Pacific board, it goes to calcutta.
here is a situation that happened in our game: UK1 a transport unloaded 2 infantry in persia to activate the 2 pro allied infantry. Q1 who gets the 2ipc? UK europe (since it is on the europe side of the board, or UK India since they activated it.) Q2 who now controls the transport and the 4 infantry now standing on persia? is it UK India who activated it, or, UK europe because it is on there side of the board. This led to much confusion. What happens if a group of UK from each side of the board were to meet in the middle of the board ?? Can either side take controlof these units :???
That’s only part of his question, Calvin.
Dude, the UK acts as one - they don’t move separately. The only thing that’s separated is the money on hand and the incomes. UK controls all UK units on the board, and they move as one!
here is a situation that happened in our game: UK1 a transport unloaded 2 infantry in persia to activate the 2 pro allied infantry. Q1 who gets the 2ipc? UK europe (since it is on the europe side of the board, or UK India since they activated it.) Q2 who now controls the transport and the 4 infantry now standing on persia? is it UK India who activated it, or, UK europe because it is on there side of the board. This led to much confusion. What happens if a group of UK from each side of the board were to meet in the middle of the board ?? Can either side take controlof these units :???
That’s only part of his question, Calvin.
Dude, the UK acts as one - they don’t move separately. The only thing that’s separated is the money on hand and the incomes. UK controls all UK units on the board, and they move as one!
Yeah, I missed that part.
does a german sub in z125 negate the russian NO? is a sub considered a “warship”?
