Several Questions/Clarifications

@kcdzim:

…

But yes, ANY territory that has a unit of a power you’re not at war with requires a declaration to attack.  Neutral units are NEVER displaced from a territory.  If russia has a unit in a UK space, Germany MUST declare war on russia if they want to attack that UK territory.

Note: This is not a statement of fact, but the below descriptions and arguments refer to the rules out of box in order to present a reasoned argument on why it would be nice to revisit earlier rulings on this matter. I hope they are read as a respectful and modest effort to appeal for a review of the situation as it exists in current gaming. I apologize if this post seems rude, it is not my intent.

If you are referring to page 15 AAE40 rulebook, blue side box, 3rd paragraph beginning with “Combat:”, first sentence: “A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.”; then:

I would argue that this stipulation and limit of combat regards only the US and USSR per the first paragraph, first sentence, under the title “Powers that Begin the Game Neutral” : “Powers that begin the game neutral, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, aren’t initially part of the Allies or the Axis.”

As Germany, Japan, and Italy all begin the game at war, and are thus not “Powers That Begin the Game Neutral” they are not limited by this “Combat” stipulation in the third paragraph.

Basically I read it as US and USSR may not attack a territory controlled by or containing units belongings to a power (Japan, Italy, or Germany) with which it is not at war.

To conclude, it is rational to interpret a situation in which the Germans attack London with a USSR fighter stationed there as on “observer” and thus would not participate in combat. This unit would not be destroyed and would be able to fly out on their next turn.

I personally would further argue that it is not permissible for the “European Neutral” USSR to move into a European power’s territory or a European neutral per the second sentence under the Political Situation USSR description on page 33 AAE40 while no European axis player (Italy or Germany) has not declared war. It would be permissible to move into a Pacific Neutral or into a Pacific powers territories as they are not mandated to be Neutral in the Pacific and we can infer the USSR may declare war on Japan in the Pacific per the 3rd sentence which prohibits USSR from moving into China while not at war with Japan.

In effect, it is reasonable to conclude the USSR can be both a Neutral power and a power at war, at the same time, but not on the same board. Using UK-Europe and UK-Pacific as an example of such board specific rule distinctions(page 32 AAE40 top of right column), it is reasonable to discriminate USSR’s war status based on board location. Unless European axis powers declare war first, USSR must be a Neutral power on the European board. It may be a power at war on the Pacific board however.

I realize that this issue has been addressed already, and rulings have been made. I just wanted to present a reasoned argument for a revision of these prior rulings based on the framework of the existing rules out of box.

Personally, I believe this is more reasonable and avoids unnecessary confusion by keeping the USSR out of European territories it does not control while not at war in Europe.

Thank you for your consideration.

@JamesAleman:

If you are referring to page 15 AAE40 rulebook, blue side box, 3rd paragraph beginning with “Combat:”, first sentence: “A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.”; then:

I would argue that this stipulation and limit of combat regards only the US and USSR per the first paragraph, first sentence, under the title “Powers that Begin the Game Neutral” : “Powers that begin the game neutral, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, aren’t initially part of the Allies or the Axis.”

As Germany, Japan, and Italy all begin the game at war, and are thus not “Powers That Begin the Game Neutral” they are not limited by this “Combat” stipulation in the third paragraph.

Basically I read it as US and USSR may not attack a territory controlled by or containing units belongings to a power (Japan, Italy, or Germany) with which it is not at war.

To conclude, it is rational to interpret a situation in which the Germans attack London with a USSR fighter stationed there as on “observer” and thus would not participate in combat. This unit would not be destroyed and would be able to fly out on their next turn.

Nice try, James.  However, the sections on combat and declaring war are intended to apply to all powers, not just those that remain neutral.  The language used indicates this, but it could have been made more clear, now that I look at it from this perspective.

@JamesAleman:

I personally would further argue that it is not permissible for the “European Neutral” USSR to move into a European power’s territory or a European neutral per the second sentence under the Political Situation USSR description on page 33 AAE40 while no European axis player (Italy or Germany) has not declared war. It would be permissible to move into a Pacific Neutral or into a Pacific powers territories as they are not mandated to be Neutral in the Pacific and we can infer the USSR may declare war on Japan in the Pacific per the 3rd sentence which prohibits USSR from moving into China while not at war with Japan.

In effect, it is reasonable to conclude the USSR can be both a Neutral power and a power at war, at the same time, but not on the same board. Using UK-Europe and UK-Pacific as an example of such board specific rule distinctions(page 32 AAE40 top of right column), it is reasonable to discriminate USSR’s war status based on board location. Unless European axis powers declare war first, USSR must be a Neutral power on the European board. It may be a power at war on the Pacific board however.

I realize that this issue has been addressed already, and rulings have been made. I just wanted to present a reasoned argument for a revision of these prior rulings based on the framework of the existing rules out of box.

Personally, I believe this is more reasonable and avoids unnecessary confusion by keeping the USSR out of European territories it does not control while not at war in Europe.

Thank you for your consideration.

This is being considered, along with other options.

Krieg, for clarification when Russia is not yet at war w/Euro axis, but is at war w/Japan (I know it is subject to change in the future, and I hope it does). Theoretically Russia can get a ftr/tac on a UK carrier on R2. UK could move the carrier it has w/in range or build one. If Germany or Italy attack the UK carrier w/Russian air unit on it do we follow the at sea or on land rules.

1. treat it as a naval unit and ignore the Russian air unit allowing it one movement point to get to safety in noncombat (No DOW).
2. treat it like cargo and it is trapped on a damaged carrier, or goes down if carrier is sunk (No DOW).
3. treat it as hostel like an at war friendly ftr on carrier (or a ftr on a land tt) allowing it to def in the air (needing an axis DOW), and after words the ftr follows normal rules if it survives.

If the Axis power declares war on USSR, option 3; otherwise, option 1.

Is it possible for a tank to blitz after an amphibious assault to an empty territory?

No.  Land units may not move before loading onto a transport or after unloading from one.

I think it is clear, that a nuetral nation cannot bolster the defense of another nation. So Russia cannot land a plane on London.

If Russia is at war with Japan, but not Germany, than Russia can help Britain with Japan only. Not Germany. This would be the only rational choice in keeping with the spirit of the game in the absence of a clarification for the Global game, where Russia can be at war and also nuetral.

Eddie

@WILD:

Krieg, for clarification when Russia is not yet at war w/Euro axis, but is at war w/Japan (I know it is subject to change in the future, and I hope it does). Theoretically Russia can get a ftr/tac on a UK carrier on R2. UK could move the carrier it has w/in range or build one. If Germany or Italy attack the UK carrier w/Russian air unit on it do we follow the at sea or on land rules.

1. treat it as a naval unit and ignore the Russian air unit allowing it one movement point to get to safety in noncombat (No DOW).
2. treat it like cargo and it is trapped on a damaged carrier, or goes down if carrier is sunk (No DOW).
3. treat it as hostel like an at war friendly ftr on carrier (or a ftr on a land tt) allowing it to def in the air (needing an axis DOW), and after words the ftr follows normal rules if it survives.

@Krieghund:

If the Axis power declares war on USSR, option 3; otherwise, option 1.

Good to know, thanks. (subject to change based on possible future revisions RE: Russia)

If Russian units are on a British transport and a German force kills the transport, do the Russians die? Does Germany have to declare war on Russia to kill the transport?

It would seem to me that Russia could not use a british transport in Europe. Though it is as war with Japan it still cannot violate any nuetrality rules with Germany. Putting an infantry unit on a UK transport to defend it against a German attack most certainly violates nuetrality. Although not an explicit rule in the Global due to it not being that specifically covered, it most certainly is an implicit rule.

Otherwise the Russian troop would have to be willing to die without forcing Germany to declare war. Germany is attacking the transport not the Russian troop.

Of course the Soviet units die - they are cargo.  Germany need not declare war on the USSR in order to attack UK ships.  The Soviets take their chances when they board a ship that’s in danger of being sunk by an enemy.