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

@Soulblighter:

If I have 2 german infantry on an italian transport. I move the italian transport on the italian turn. Can I do an amphibious assault on the german turn using a single infantry and move the second infantry during the ncm phase?

Tested in triple A and triple A does not allow it. So I am assuming it is a no.

Right, it’s a no, because once a transport unloads, it is DONE for the turn.

Can you do a landing with an inf and an AAA (which you loaded in a previous turn)?

@calvinhobbesliker:

Can you do a landing with an inf and an AAA (which you loaded in a previous turn)?

A noncombat movement landing, yes.  They would have to go to the same territory.

You can never move AAA during the combat movement phase, however.  So you can’t take over an empty enemy territory with an infantry and AAA together, during the combat movement phase.

@Gamerman01:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Can you do a landing with an inf and an AAA (which you loaded in a previous turn)?

A noncombat movement landing, yes.  They would have to go to the same territory.

You can never move AAA during the combat movement phase, however.  So you can’t take over an empty enemy territory with an infantry and AAA together, during the combat movement phase.

Hmm, the rulebook says they can move during the combat move iff they’re being carried by a transport, but there’s no reason to move a transport during the combat move if you’re not going to do an amphibious assault with it, right? Unless you want to use it as fodder for a sea battle you expect to win barely?

OK, well the way I think of it, it’s the transport moving - the AAA is riding on the transport.

You can use a transport in the combat movement phase to do an amphibious assault that has an AAA previously loaded on it (earlier turn) and you could be unloading the infantry in an amphibious assault and necessarily leaving the AAA gun on it, so that is how you could possibly be “moving” an AAA gun during the combat movement phase.

Transports can’t be used as fodder in sea battles, so that doesn’t really make sense.  Again, a transport laden with an infantry and AAA gun (the AAA would have to have been previously loaded, and could not legally be loaded this turn) could be moved in the combat movement phase in order to amphibiously assault with the infantry.

Also, a transport could be moved in the combat movement phase in order to avoid combat with enemy surface warships that the transport was sharing a zone with at the beginning of the turn.

Oh right, I forgot about transports escaping combat…

Are you allowed to assault with one infantry and leave the AAA on (until noncombat)? In general, if you have 2 units on a transport, can you unload one during combat and unload the other in noncombat or not even unload the other at all in that turn?

Yeah, I thought the transports could be used as fodder if the last enemy units manage to kill all your units plus extra transports, but I think that’s impossible, since you’d need at least as many units as them to kill all of them in the first place, and so they wouldn’t get to your transports.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Oh right, I forgot about transports escaping combat…

Are you allowed to assault with one infantry and leave the AAA on (until noncombat)?

Yes.  That’s possible when the AAA was loaded in an earlier turn.  HOWEVER - the AAA is stuck on the transport and can NOT unload in noncombat, because that transport already unloaded earlier in the turn (the infantry in amphibious assault in the combat movement phase)

In general, if you have 2 units on a transport, can you unload one during combat and unload the other in noncombat or not even unload the other at all in that turn?

First, after a transport unloads, it is DONE, as I said previously.  You can NEVER unload one in combat and the other in non-combat.

You CAN unload only one unit out of two in an amphibious assault ONLY when one or both units were loaded previously.  This is because the rule requires that if you picked up units in a combat move and then conduct an amphibious assault, ALL units that boarded in the combat move MUST unload and participate in the amphibious assault.

So there is a reason to leave units on transports at the end of your turn.  Many times players leave one unit on a transport, so that they can pick one unit up and drop it off in amphibious assault while leaving the previously loaded one on board so the opponent can’t kill it on the newly taken territory.

I have another question about neutrals and scrambling.

Suppose Persia is neutral.  Japanese troops successfully invade Eastern Persia.  Japan also declares war on Persia and announces it will make an amphibious landing there after clearing a British fleet in z80.  However the attack on z80 fails and no Japanese units actually make landfall on Persia.  Can allied planes now attack the Japanese troops in Eastern Persia and land in Persia?

@variance:

I have another question about neutrals and scrambling.

Suppose Persia is neutral.  Japanese troops successfully invade Eastern Persia.  Japan also declares war on Persia and announces it will make an amphibious landing there after clearing a British fleet in z80.

You don’t declare war on a neutral territory - there is no such thing.  You just attack them.

However the attack on z80 fails and no Japanese units actually make landfall on Persia.  Can allied planes now attack the Japanese troops in Eastern Persia and land in Persia?

No, allied planes can’t land in Persia because Persia is still neutral.  It was never attacked.  Planes can land in Persia after this because an attack was declared on Persia by Japan (the ground units would have been placed on Persia during the combat movement phase to show the intent of amphibiously assaulting pending the naval battle) As far as whether allied planes can attack Japanese units in East Persia - as long as the Ally is at war with Japan, sure.  They would have to declare war first if they are not already at war with Japan.

Persia is no longer neutral because an amphibious assault attack was declared against it (see the ruling on the previous page), so Allied planes could land there.  Everything else Gamerman said is correct.

Thanks again gamerman and krieghund.  I think i have my head around neutrals now  :-)

@Krieghund:

Persia is no longer neutral because an amphibious assault attack was declared against it (see the ruling on the previous page), so Allied planes could land there.  Everything else Gamerman said is correct.

Yeah, Panther caught it for me and sent me a PM and you corrected me before I could correct myself  :-)

That ruling still hasn’t registered with me… Hope I get used to the idea before it affects me in a game  :-)

Russian units in Suiyan are attacked by Japan.

Suiyan Borders Mongolia.

Does this activate Mongolia?  Or is Mongolia only affected when Russian troops attack Japanese territories bordering Mongolia?

Mongolia is not activated because Suiyan is not a Russian controlled territory.

If Russia attacks a Japanese controlled Chinese territory bordering Mongolia, then Mongolia will become strictly neutral.

@Gargantua:

Russian units in Suiyan are attacked by Japan.

Suiyan Borders Mongolia.

Does this activate Mongolia?  Or is Mongolia only affected when Russian troops attack Japanese territories bordering Mongolia?

You need to read the Mongolia rules on page 39 of the rulebook.

Doesn’t matter that Russian units are attacked by Japan - it must be a Russian-controlled territory that is attacked by Japan that prevents Mongolia from ever allying with the Soviet Union the rest of the game.  Since Chinese territories can never be controlled by the Soviet Union, Japan can always attack any of the Chinese territories bordering Mongolia without affecting Mongolia - no matter if there are Russian units in them.

Same with Russia attacking Japan - the rulebook says Japan-controlled territories bordering Mongolia, or Korea.  So Russia can attack Japanese units in China without affecting Mongolia as well.

@Gamerman01:

@Gargantua:

Russian units in Suiyan are attacked by Japan.

Suiyan Borders Mongolia.

Does this activate Mongolia?  Or is Mongolia only affected when Russian troops attack Japanese territories bordering Mongolia?

You need to read the Mongolia rules on page 39 of the rulebook.

Doesn’t matter that Russian units are attacked by Japan - it must be a Russian-controlled territory that is attacked by Japan that prevents Mongolia from ever allying with the Soviet Union the rest of the game. Since Chinese territories can never be controlled by the Soviet Union, Japan can always attack any of the Chinese territories bordering Mongolia without affecting Mongolia - no matter if there are Russian units in them.

I think you mean immediately activating Mongolia here.

@Gamerman01:

Same with Russia attacking Japan - the rulebook says Japan-controlled territories bordering Mongolia, or Korea.  So Russia can attack Japanese units in China without affecting Mongolia as well.

Just to clarify, Russia can freely attack Japanese units in internal China, but not the Chinese territories adjacent to Mongolia or Korea, unless somehow Germany or Italy captured them first.

ColonelCarter, I understand that you are trying to help, but

You’re wrong, I did not mean “immediately activating Mongolia” - I meant what I said.  This language of “allying with the Soviet Union” is straight from page 39 of the rule book, word for word.

I think you were right to try and clarify my statement about Russia attacking Japanese units in China, but you actually didn’t clarify, you made it worse.  However, you did succeed in bringing it to my attention - I will clarify it now.

Regarding Chinese territories bordering Mongolia -

Russia can’t attack Japanese units in Chinese territories bordering Mongolia without consequence, because these Japanese units would normally be in Japanese controlled territories.  However, as you pointed out, if you actually had the strange situation where Germany or Italy controlled the Chinese territory that borders a still strict neutral Mongolia, Russia could attack that territory which could even have Japanese units in it without consequence because it is not Japanese controlled.

It’s just what the rulebook says: Russia can’t attack Korea or any Japanese controlled territory that borders Mongolia without consequence - that is, if Russia does attack Korea or a Japanese controlled territory bordering Mongolia before Japan has invaded a Russian controlled territory bordering Mongolia, then Mongolia will remain neutral and not ally itself with the Soviet Union (for the rest of the game, which is clear if you read the sentence that comes before this)

Some time ago I posted a summary of Mongolia and Neutrals rules - perhaps you or someone else may find them helpful:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.15

Alright, your clarification is much more clear.

But for the first part, your statement is contradictory.
@Gamerman01:

it must be a Russian-controlled territory that is attacked by Japan that prevents Mongolia from ever allying with the Soviet Union the rest of the game.

Either you mean “causes Mongolia to be placed under control of the Soviet Union” using rulebook terminology for the second part (my assumption), or you mean “a Japanese-controlled territory that is attacked by Russia” for the first part (possibly what you thought you wrote).

Great, now we’re getting somewhere -

It’s so confusing sometimes.  I think I know how to respond to your latest post, after thinking about it again.

I believe I was correct in saying Russian-controlled territory attacked by Japan prevents Mongolia from allying with the Soviet Union.

If Japan jumps the gun and attacks, say, Amur before Russia has violated “the pact”, then Mongolia will never join Russia in the manner described on page 39 (standing army units placed on the board using Soviet pieces and Soviet control markers placed on Mongolia).

The last sentence on page 39 uses the language of “Mongolia will remain neutral and not ally itself with the Soviet Union” which is why I used it too.  Others may call this “activation” of Mongolia - it is the same concept.  We are talking about the same thing.