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

To piggyback that question with another: can a transport ignore a sub if it is accompanied by only a fighter that can’t hit the sub? I believe (and I don’t have them in front of me) that the rules state that the escort has to have an attack value. That rules out a carrier-only escort. But is the fighter a valid escort? It has an attack value, but could not hit the sub if there was to be a battle. Does that matter?

@Fortress:

To piggyback that question with another: can a transport ignore a sub if it is accompanied by only a fighter that can’t hit the sub? I believe (and I don’t have them in front of me) that the rules state that the escort has to have an attack value. That rules out a carrier-only escort. But is the fighter a valid escort? It has an attack value, but could not hit the sub if there was to be a battle. Does that matter?

I asked this same question over at HBG a little while ago.  You can find the question and answer here starting with my question on top (Ryguy): http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4280&start=1032

Basically, as the attacker you need to have an attack value that can actually hit the sub.  Since you aren’t attacking with a destroyer, the plane has no way to hit the sub and therefore if you go through with the attack the sub has no reason to submerge and it’s only a matter of time then before they roll a 1 and sink your transport.  You need to bring a surface warship with an attack value to have any chance of killing the sub and allowing for an amphibious assault.  You don’t even need to bring a destroyer since they defender can choose to submerge and you’re good to go, or he can choose to roll dice and you can destroy the sub.

Here’s the difference from your scenario: you were going up against a DD and a SS. So there definitely was going to be a naval battle. In this scenario, there is only a SS. In a naval battle, if nothing can hit the sub and the battle goes long enough without a retreat, the transport is going to be sunk. The question is, can the presence of a fighter (who HAS an attack value, albeit one that’s useless against a sub) allow the transport to ignore the sub as all naval units can?

In short, there will definitely NOT be a naval battle in any case. At issue is merely whether the transport will be allowed to combat unload - ie amphib assault - with only a fighter as its escort.

I just checked out the pacific edition 2 rulebook, and on page 13 it says that if only subs or transports are in the defending sea zone, as the attacker you can ignore them or choose to fight them (it’s in the little blue box on that page).

Furthermore, but more to your point, on page 15 it says that transports are not allowed to unload in a sea zone that has subs that were ignored UNLESS you have a at least one WARSHIP belonging to the attacking power.  Therefore if you only have a plane you cannot go through with the amphibious assault.

@Fortress:

Here’s the difference from your scenario: you were going up against a DD and a SS. So there definitely was going to be a naval battle. In this scenario, there is only a SS. In a naval battle, if nothing can hit the sub and the battle goes long enough without a retreat, the transport is going to be sunk. The question is, can the presence of a fighter (who HAS an attack value, albeit one that’s useless against a sub) allow the transport to ignore the sub as all naval units can?

It is my understanding that the fighter has an attack value and therefore may escort the transport despite its inability to sink the submarine.  I know for a fact I have used battleships and cruisers to “escort” transports past Submarines in the past - I may have been wrong doing it, but my reading of the rules is “with an attack value” and no mention of whether or not it can actually attack the submarine.

Historically speaking, I guaren-frackin-ty you if there was a fighter strafing the surface of the water trying to hit a surfaced submarine, it would most certainly have submerged to avoid the combat.  It is also my understanding that, since this is the case, the reason you need a destroyer to sink the submarine is becuase it is submerging and you have to find it - and that a submerged submarine may not continue to attack.  (it leaves the battle much like fighters can “retreat” from a battle, but dont actually leave the zone during the combat move phase.)

@cond1024:

I’m not quite sure how this would play out.  SZ 6 only has subs and ANZAC amphibious assaults Korea with a transport, cruiser and destroyer. Since only subs are there they are ignored, but Japan sends kamikazes and sinks both ANZAC ships. My question is can ANZAC still ignore subs and land troops or now that escorts are dead they can’t unload?  Also would kamikazes make it a sea battle so that now the subs can defend an take shots at my transport since my other surface vessels were sunk?

ANZAC can still ignore the subs.  The ANZAC warships were in the sea zone at the end of combat movement (kamikaze don’t strike until the Conduct Combat phase), so they met the escort requirement.  Kamikaze by themselves don’t initiate an actual battle, so the subs can still be ignored.

@Fortress:

To piggyback that question with another: can a transport ignore a sub if it is accompanied by only a fighter that can’t hit the sub? I believe (and I don’t have them in front of me) that the rules state that the escort has to have an attack value. That rules out a carrier-only escort. But is the fighter a valid escort? It has an attack value, but could not hit the sub if there was to be a battle. Does that matter?

The requirement is that a warship must be in the sea zone at the end of combat movement, so a fighter doesn’t qualify.  There is no requirement that the warship have an attack value, so a carrier will do.

Thanks, Krieg! Although, the second part of your answer is contradicted by page 32 of the rulebook under “no combat value” for transports:

“Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines.”

Since the sea zone is not free of enemy submarines, then the “unless” part of the rule doesn’t apply and the first part of the statement must be followed; that “Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value.”

Per the letter of that law, it doesn’t seem that a carrier-only escort through sub-infested waters is acceptable. Thank you for answering my question (and now I see it on page 16E and page 15P where it says “warship”. However, now I’m even more confused about the carrier inclusion based on what it says on page 32…

@Krieghund:

@cond1024:

I’m not quite sure how this would play out.  SZ 6 only has subs and ANZAC amphibious assaults Korea with a transport, cruiser and destroyer. Since only subs are there they are ignored, but Japan sends kamikazes and sinks both ANZAC ships. My question is can ANZAC still ignore subs and land troops or now that escorts are dead they can’t unload?  Also would kamikazes make it a sea battle so that now the subs can defend an take shots at my transport since my other surface vessels were sunk?

ANZAC can still ignore the subs.  The ANZAC warships were in the sea zone at the end of combat movement (kamikaze don’t strike until the Conduct Combat phase), so they met the escort requirement.  Kamikaze by themselves don’t initiate an actual battle, so the subs can still be ignored.

Thanks Krieg!

if a territory is empty. can you move an infantry to it then move a mech over it to another empty territory?

or to a battle with other ground units attacking it.

If an allied player attempts to amphibious assault from a sea zone that can activate kamikaze and the assaulting player only sends transports (no surface warships), is the literal reading of the rulebook that you can never attack non-surface warships correct?

I.E., you cannot kamikaze in this situation because a kamikaze attack cannot target transports.

I understand the balance of this rule is so that you cannot pick off transports out of a huge attack force, but should that hold for lone transports? Lone transports already can’t ignore submarines without a surface warship and they also activate scrambles, it seems weird that this would be the only optional defense not to allow this.

Cow: No. You do not “move over” other units.
All attacks are announced at the same time, so only a Mech paired with a Tk could blitz through an empty enemy territory to attack a second (occupied ) one.
A Mech could attack a territory two away only if the first one it moves through is Friendly(not Friendly Neutral).
All Combat Moves are done simultaneously.

Zanetheinsane: you are correct. Transports can safely move to any SZ zone in the knowledge they can unload without a Kamikaze disrupting them. I do not think it is a loophole in the rules: Larry meant it that way.
Might be something to do with the Japanese sense of Honour. (Perhaps it was only considered acceptable to target Warships and not defenceless Transports!)

Is it allowed to NCM a sub into a hostile sea zone ?

@Axisplaya:

Is it allowed to NCM a sub into a hostile sea zone ?

yes.  and you can NCM thru the seazone if there’s no enemy DD to stop it.  otherwise, if a DD is there, the sub stops in the hostile seazone.

Am I allowed to retreat into a sea zone containing a enemy submarine (and two of mine if it matters) or is retreat a kind of movement where you can not ignore the enemy submarine?

Yes, you can Mistergreen, as a Sub does not make the SZ Hostile. Only a Surface Warship does that. However, the SZ had to be Friendly at the beginning of the turn, so remember if there was an enemy Surface Warship there and you just sank it, you could not move there even if it now only contains an enemy Sub.

The rule says attacking sea units can only retreat to friendly sea zone at the start of a players turn.

P. 8 says only enemy surface ships make a sea zone hostile, so the retreat it ok, as I read it.

For germany’s egypt NO… will germany collect +5 for having an AA gun on egypt?