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”?
is a sub considered a “warship”?
a sub is a warship, just not a surface warship
does a german sub in z125 negate the russian NO? is a sub considered a “warship”?
Ships are all 6 naval units. Warships are all ships except transports. Surface warships are all warships except subs
does a german sub in z125 negate the russian NO? is a sub considered a “warship”?
So, yes. All it takes is a sub. A lot easier to stop the NO that way, isn’t it!? :-D
Thank you guys so much for the clarification. It really helps to move the parenthesis to before that sentence.
Thank you guys so much for the clarification. It really helps to move the parenthesis to before that sentence.
No problem. We were just used to the rule from previous rulebooks, so that’s why we knew what to look for.
Which straits/canals do you need permission to go through if you’re neutral with respect to the owner?
All of them.
All of them.
If Italy controls Egypt and UK controls Jordan, can a Japan not at war with UK go through the Suez canal? If it wants to go through it, does it need only UK’s permission, or both UK’s and Italy’s permission?
Can italy go through a British controlled Suez canal if UK gives permission?
And when you ask permission, you have to say exactly what you want to move, right?
If Italy controls Egypt and UK controls Jordan, can a Japan not at war with UK go through the Suez canal? If it wants to go through it, does it need only UK’s permission, or both UK’s and Italy’s permission?
No one can go through it, as it’s not controlled by either side.
Can italy go through a British controlled Suez canal if UK gives permission?
No, because they’re at war with each other.
And when you ask permission, you have to say exactly what you want to move, right?
That’s up to the players involved.
