Thanks Kreig, just one more question, or rather confirmation for me regarding scrambled fighters…since they are scrambled for defence I take it they cannot retreat from a sea battle that is going badly? thanks, mark.
That’s correct.
Can you scramble to more than one SZ from one airbase? As an example can UK scramble 1 fig to SZ 109 and 2 fig to SZ 110, or must all fig scramble to the same zone?
They may be split.
Is there a limitation on the number of times you can scramble during the course of a round ?
Exemple : could UK scramble against Germany, then Japan, then Italy on the same round ?
I know this situation is very unlikely, but just to be sure.
There is no such limitation.
The UK has a transport in Z96 and a fighter on Malta. If the Italians move through Z96 to Z98 to invade Egypt and they also attack Z96, can the fighter on Malta scramble and thus prevent the amphibious force from reaching Z98?
I do not believe so, I think the fighters / tactical bombers scramble during Conduct Combat Phase, not Combat Move Phase.
@Cmdr:
I do not believe so, I think the fighters / tactical bombers scramble during Conduct Combat Phase, not Combat Move Phase.
I think the same as Jennifer. Has to be final destination to scramble - pretty sure Krieg has said this before.
@Cmdr:
I do not believe so, I think the fighters / tactical bombers scramble during Conduct Combat Phase, not Combat Move Phase.
I think the same as Jennifer. Has to be final destination to scramble - pretty sure Krieg has said this before.
Jen and Gamerman01 are correct.
Can air units overfly territories that belong to a country they are not at war with yet during non combat move?
Yes, as long as there are no rules against the specific case.
I believe it was stated before that UK London and Calcutta could combine income for technology rolls.
Can they combine income to buy air and naval bases or Factories? The book discusses how “units” are place on the corresponding board. Facilities are mentioned in the units section but are not referred to as units.
I realize the answer is probably no, but I was curious about this as it would be advantageous in a few cases.
If this has been addressed, I apologize in advance for missing it.
Facilities are units. They must be purchased and mobilized separately by the UK economies.
Does scrambling against an invading amphibous assault negate bombardment by BB\CA in what would otherwise be an empty seazone?
Yes, as long as there are no rules against the specific case.
So Japan could overfly FIC from Yun to Siam if not at war with france.
@Emperor:
Does scrambling against an invading amphibous assault negate bombardment by BB\CA in what would otherwise be an empty seazone?
Yes.
@Emperor:
So Japan could overfly FIC from Yun to Siam if not at war with france.
Yes.
When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
4. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union. Theme: Recognized national emergency.When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
2. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan. Theme: Recognized national emergency.So the originally offending power still gets the bonus if the defending power takes back their lost territory (since the defending power has to declare war to do so)? If Japan declares war on Russia and takes Amur, then Russia gets the 12 IPC but in order for Russia to take Amur back and not just let Japan walk to Moscow unthreatened, they will also have to declare war on Japan, in which case Japan also now gets 12 IPCs as far as I can tell from these rules as written. Is that the intent?
No. Only the first power to have war declared upon it by the other receives the IPCs.
Okay, I think that’s better… but am I reading the rules wrong? It seems to me like it should say:
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following an unprovoked declaration of war by ______ on ________. Theme: Recognized national emergency.
It does, now. :wink:
Sorry to be difficult, but I just read something on the HGD Official Rules Clarifications thread:
If another power declares war on your power, your power is at war immediately, but only with the power that declared war on it. You must wait until your turn to make any declarations of war on other powers that were enabled by that declaration. For example, if Germany declares war on the United States, the United States is immediately at war with Germany, but it must wait until its turn to declare war on Italy.
This clarification makes good sense, but if this is the case, then the NO in question (IMHO) should not read “unprovoked”. Either one rule or the other needs to be published for clarification, but publishing them both is slightly inconsistent. To say “unprovoked” as you now do (per my suggestion :roll: :wink:) is misleading if the “defending” power is automatically at war with the offender. Perhaps you should instead simply remind the reader in the NO’s text of this fact of the rules so that there is no misunderstanding.??
I don’t see any inconsistency. If Japan declares war on the USSR, the two powers are immediately at war. However, the USSR has not yet formally declared war on Japan, which it may do on its next turn. This declaration would be provoked, thus it would not invoke the 12 IPC payment to Japan.
A formal reciprocal declaration of war is not required by the rules, as it makes no difference to gameplay. However, it is allowed, and therefore must be accounted for as a type of provoked declaration of war.
The wording sorta makes sense.
Italy declares war on Russia. Germany goes before Russia so it may choose NOT to declare and thus get its NO for that round. (Presumably Russia will declare war on Germany right after.)
