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

It’s legal.

@Krieghund:

It’s legal.

Ok… so, Larry confirmed this despite what he told Gargantua?

Not to be a pest, but as you can imagine, Gargantua jumped down my throat waiving Larry’s post in my face saying Larry declared it illegal.

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

@Karl7:

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.”  This move is made/contemplated all the time.  If Larry calls foul…. then, what?

@Karl7:

@Karl7:

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.”  This move is made/contemplated all the time.  If Larry calls foul…. then, what?

I mean, Krieg can you please check on this?  Can you please ask Larry with all respect and honor if this move is now illegal?  I submit the question humbly and with respect!  Thanks.

@Karl7:

@Karl7:

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.”  This move is made/contemplated all the time.  If Larry calls foul…. then, what?

That would be totally a bummer.  :|

@aequitas:

@Karl7:

@Karl7:

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.”  This move is made/contemplated all the time.  If Larry calls foul…. then, what?

That would be totally a bummer.  :|

Indeed. Actually, I am not too nervous about this, because it is highly unlikely, that a rule modification is behind that.

Why?

Actually the situation in question is not the consequence of “a move” but of some moves as elabroated before:

• UK’s turn including movement of a destroyer
• (Italy’s turn)
• ANAZAC’s turn including DOW (bringing UK into war)

So what a rule modification could lead to the scenario becoming illegal?

At this moment only three possibilities come to my mind:

1. Nations not at war may no longer share seazones
2. ANZAC’s DOW on Japan no longer automatically brings UK into war
or something like
3. ANZAC may no longer declare war on Japan in the special case that UK shares a seazone with Japan

How reasonable are those?

So maybe a misunderstanding of the scenario is behind the discussed irritation?

Everythig is highly speculative, of course…  :-)

There is no reason for ANZAC to DOW on Japan other than to exploit this loophole. Therefore, I submit that removing ANZAC’s ability to DOW on Japan would be perfectly reasonable and remove a loophole.

@simon33:

There is no reason for ANZAC to DOW on Japan other than to exploit this loophole. Therefore, I submit that removing ANZAC’s ability to DOW on Japan would be perfectly reasonable and remove a loophole.

Personally, I don’t consider this situation being a loophole, but simply a situation that Japan should be aware of and take into account.

Of course, maybe in general ANZAC’s ability to DOW on Japan is discussable - but I am not really a WWII expert to argue on that from a historical point of view.

@P@nther:

Personally, I don’t consider this situation being a loophole, but simply a situation that Japan should be aware of and take into account.

Exactly.

I checked with Larry, as requested.  As P@nther and I said, the move is legal.

The thing to realize is that right now Larry is deeply involved with War Room, as has been for a few years now.  As a result, he’s not as immersed in A&A as he might be.  (He indicated in his email response that he wasn’t 100% sure of his answer.)  Until this situation changes, your best course of action is to get your rulings right here.

Hello there.  I’ve been reading this whole thread as it is an excellent exercise in being proficient for knowing / learning the rule book.  Anyways was wondering if you were able to attack through a once hostile sea-zone as it occurs during an amphibious assault.  To be more clear could one use a portion of their navy to clear a hostile sea zone and then use the unused portion (on the same turn) to move through the once hostile sea zone and attack another sea zone?  Thanks for help!

@carsonbparker:

Hello there.  I’ve been reading this whole thread as it is an excellent exercise in being proficient for knowing / learning the rule book.  Anyways was wondering if you were able to attack through a once hostile sea-zone as it occurs during an amphibious assault.  To be more clear could one use a portion of their navy to clear a hostile sea zone and then use the unused portion (on the same turn) to move through the once hostile sea zone and attack another sea zone?  Thanks for help!

Welcome to the forum, carsonbparker,

the answer to your question is “no”.  All combat movement is done in the Combat Move Phase. Amphibious assaults take place during the Conduct Combat Phase when all battles are resolved. So there is no additional combat move after combat on the same turn.

Enjoy gaming :-)

@carsonbparker:

Hello there.  I’ve been reading this whole thread

That is serious commitment!

The rule book says “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it”

Because unfriendly neutrals immediately join the opposing alliance when attacked, does that mean that air units can fly through such a territory during combat movement in order to attack other territories, so long as the originally unfriendly neutral is also being attacked simultaneously?

I believe I’ve read before that this isn’t possible, and would only open up the option for subsequent turns … but I want to double check because of the word immediate.

Practical scenario:

Northwest Persia remains a pro-Allied neutral territory containing no units. Germany wishes to attack British-controlled Iraq. Could Germany send 1 air unit to Northwest Persia (thus ‘attacking’ it) and during the same combat movement send other aircraft to British-controlled Iraq (even if that requires them to fly over Northwest Persia)?

Secondary question:

Can a player technically ‘attack’ an empty territory with air units? The rules comment “Movement into a hostile space counts as combat movement whether that the space is occupied or not” seems to suggest that maybe it could qualify as an ‘attack’ (apologies in advance if I missed a more basic rule that addresses this explicitly … I’ve been on hiatus from G40 for awhile)

No, you can’t attack an empty territory with aircraft and you can’t fly over a neutral that hasn’t been previously attacked.  See also my guide for Mongolia and Neutrals, first post

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.45

Thank you sir  :-D

Back to the HostileSZ/transport loading “loophole” discussion, there is such a simple solution to it (leave the units on the Japanese transports during the interturn, with a huge fleet there for protection), why would it be considered an exploit or a problem?    Its only an annoyance when it surprises the other player, so in a friendly game, why not say, ok–remember you can’t load in a hostile SZ but for the purposes of this game, we’ll mount your 6 troops back up on the transports and I wont use this rule to my advantage, this time?

Whether this “exploit” was known to the designer or not isn’t that relevant, it would be much more relevant if it was somehow game-breaking but given the circumstances I don’t regard it as much of an exploit, given how easy it is to avoid…rather than changing the rules, shouldn’t you just change your play?

Right, it’s not much of a problem when everyone knows about it or the games are friendly.
But it made some people upset when the games weren’t friendly and it wasn’t known yet!

It does cost a UK destroyer and requires an unprovoked attack by ANZAC (UK can’t attack, can’t enter China, and doesn’t get their NO’s even though the Allies are making an unprovoked attack).

The whole reason this loophole was a sore spot with people is because of how maddening it is for Japan, how sneaky it is, how it apparently is unforeseen by the designers, and how it can wreck a game for someone who has invested hours in it already.  Imagine it happening to you when you didn’t know it was possible, and it’s a competitive game so your opponent won’t take it back.

I don’t think it’s a game breaker at all. It’s not nearly as silly as Japan being able to park their entire navy in Pearl Harbour before being at war with the US and the Americans can do nothing but treat them to a free piece of pizza.

This move with ANZAC happens very early in the game and is not something that is nearly as damaging to the opponent as the other one with Pearl Harbour. It’s not like they can land troops in Japan, they are just preventing the Japanese from loading their transports for one turn-at a cost of bringing the war to the UK and ANZAC without the Americans involved. Small potatoes. Japan gets most of the breaks to begin the game with on the Pacific side complete with 6 kamikaze planes so don’t begrudge the Allies or Karl simply because he knows the rules to the game. Learn to live with it Gargantua, Karl made a sweet move on you. Next time drop into Honolulu for a free slice and see how much he likes that.