To gamerman
@Gamerman01:
@Caesar:
So if Italy and Germany do not trigger Mongolia to join USSR, what happens if Germany controls a boarder USSR territory and Japan during non combat send a land unit into their allies territory?
The rule says “if Japan attacks any Soviet-controlled territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory”
Do you need access to a rulebook?
Why post any questions? Its in black and white.
No need to be impolite. There is no loophole here - it’s in black and white and very clear and direct.
P@nther is just awesome.
This project sounds very beneficial, don’t get me wrong, but the purpose of this thread is just to post your rules question and have it answered. It’s not meant to be like a “FAQ” sheet that answers all the questions you may have after reading the rulebook.
The thread has worked perfectly for this purpose. You have a question, you ask it, you get the right answer. If you get the wrong answer, a rules deputy or Krieghund himself comes along within hours, usually, and gets you the correct answer.
This is not directed at you, Mr. PlasticAttack, but at those over the months who complain about the voluminous nature of this thread. I’m just trying to explain that it’s not really designed for ease of reading, and redundant questions are FINE. We don’t expect people to read this thread from the beginning.
Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet? The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.
We ask a question. We get an answer. How many times have the various people in the know (including you) ask if we have a rulebook and produce the link.
We’ve read the rule book and needed clarification. Those replies are condescending in nature.
Then to add salt to it, you say thats what the FAQ is here for.
I think it’s perfectly normal for people whose work/words comprise the source material to have a strong interest in the final product.
and yet a boldface, multi-lined warning was also felt to be necessary, in two places no less.
People commonly do not bother to read the titles of documents, or introductory paragraphs, or even through to the end of a sentence they’ve started. Sometimes you need to compensate for that :lol:
Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet? The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.
Moderators, I beseech you, please rename this thread “Rolling Q&A Full of Redundancy (AAG40.2)”
Really stick it to those fancy websites!
In all seriousness, I love the fact that this is a place where you can also get answers to odd or otherwise infrequently asked questions and get an ironclad answer. Don’t give the unpaid experts who make that possible a hard time.
On page 64 of this FAQ thread, Krieghund gave this answer:
I can only find in the rule book that the Allies who are not at war with Japan can not fly over China
without declaring war (is considered an act of war by Japan)But Japan can fly over UK/French territories before they are at war with UK (or France), correct?
Yes.I don’t understand this answer: why is Japan allowed to fly over the territories of countries with which it is not yet at war?
P40 p.8 says:
“All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” below).”Is it because of this statement:
“The United Kingdom and ANZAC have a special relationship, and they are treated as one for political purposes. They are both at war with Japan’s allies, Germany and Italy, on the other side of the world, so they are not completely neutral.”
Yes, UK and ANZAC are at war (with Germany and Italy) all over the world at the beginning of the game, so they are not neutral powers like the USA and USSR are.
And . . .
"France’s capital has been captured by Germany. As a result, French territories are treated in the same way as any Allied territories whose capital is held by an enemy power (see “Liberating a Territory,” page 20).And p. 28:
“Air units can move through hostile territories and sea zones as if they were friendly.”And p. 36:
“Germany, Japan, and Italy make up the Axis. For the moment, the United Kingdom (including Canada), ANZAC, France, and China make up the Allies. The United States and the Soviet Union are neutral. During this period, many other countries tried to remain neutral as well. As the war became global, many neutrals were forced to join one side or the other.”Or is there some other governing rule?
I think you’ve got it - Japan is at war. UK is at war. Japan can always fly over UK territories. UK can’t fly over China without declaring war because that is considered an act of war by Japan. (Japan is not at war with the UK, they are trying to dominate China without Allied interference.)
It’s risky to even respond to someone who is so critical of people you don’t even know, but I do want to politely answer a couple of your questions.
@Bob77:
Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet?
No, it is not.
The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.
Well that’s them, and this is us. I guess the thread is misnamed.
We ask a question. We get an answer. How many times have the various people in the know (including you) ask if we have a rulebook and produce the link.
I only do that when I seriously doubt that you have a rulebook. There are people who try to play these games without one, and they just ask everyone else a ton of questions. I was not rude to ask if they have a rulebook because I meant it sincerely.
We’ve read the rule book and needed clarification. Those replies are condescending in nature.
Then to add salt to it, you say thats what the FAQ is here for.
Again, we don’t know that you’ve read the rulebook. Sometimes the questions indicate that you (visitors to the site in general, that is) haven’t. All moderators and official answer guys here try to give respect to all. Forums between complete strangers are ripe for misunderstandings.
I sincerely asked that person if they had a rulebook because I wasn’t sure they did, and if they would have said “no”, I was going to provide a link to a rulebook for them. You saw condescension where there was none.
Risky to respond to me. Ha. You two didnt have a problem being critical of me and my posts. Oh no! The strangers talking weirdness. Check the last few posts you and panther posted on pg 159. No problem being critical there.
Poor plasticattack. What did you guys do to make him pull his hard work?
I guess the thread is misnamed.
I also have made that observation.
I also am confused by the above quoted answer from Kreighund. You cannot overfly a territory which which you are neutral with AIUI. If UK and Japan are not yet at war, Shan State for example is neutral to Japan, therefore, Japan cannot overfly it. Where is my logic going wrong?
UK being at war in Europe is a reason why it would be allowed to activate neutrals (i.e. if there was a first turn neutral crush by the Axis, UK could activate Afghanistan) or step on allied territories, I don’t see how it changes the overflight rule?
Moderator’s action
Its not meant to be a FAQ sheet? The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.
Moderators, I beseech you, please rename this thread “Rolling Q&A Full of Redundancy (AAG40.2)”
Really stick it to those fancy websites!
In all seriousness, I love the fact that this is a place where you can also get answers to odd or otherwise infrequently asked questions and get an ironclad answer. Don’t give the unpaid experts who make that possible a hard time.
The name of the thread is 1940 FAQ! Go to any web site and read the FAQ. It is a list of questions and answers. It is not a rolling q&a full of redundancy.
Well that’s them, and this is us. I guess the thread is misnamed.
I guess the thread is misnamed.
I also have made that observation.
….
In this context I remembered Krieghund’s statement in a similar context about this thread:
…
The other one is local, and is unfortunately named. Calling it “FAQ” makes it sound official, but I would have called it “Q&A”. This is not to say that the answers there aren’t correct, but there shouldn’t be anything there that’s not also in the official rules.
In short, everything you need should be in the rulebooks and FAQs. Anything you find anyplace else should simply be clarifications.
So, inspired by the latest irritations about naming and content of this thread I have changed the title accordingly to
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
…
I also am confused by the above quoted answer from Kreighund. You cannot overfly a territory which which you are neutral with AIUI. If UK and Japan are not yet at war, Shan State for example is neutral to Japan, therefore, Japan cannot overfly it. Where is my logic going wrong?UK being at war in Europe is a reason why it would be allowed to activate neutrals (i.e. if there was a first turn neutral crush by the Axis, UK could activate Afghanistan) or step on allied territories, I don’t see how it changes the overflight rule?
Maybe this clarification by Krieghund on a similar issue might help understanding:
By the way, I noticed … that you used the term “neutral with Germany” as regards to the USSR. This is incorrect, as “neutral” is actually an absolute term which means that a power is not at war with anyone. In the situation we’re discussing here, the USSR is at war with Italy and not at war with Germany. It is no longer neutral because it’s at war with at least one power, so any rule regarding neutrality no longer applies to it, even in relation to power with which it’s not yet at war. (The situation is a bit more complicated with the USSR, as it’s in the unique position of being able to remain neutral on one side of the map while no longer being neutral on the other, but the general principle still applies on each map.) Viewing the situation in this light may make things more clear.
So UK is not “neutral to Japan”. They are simply not at war at that moment.
@P@nther:
…
I also am confused by the above quoted answer from Kreighund. You cannot overfly a territory which which you are neutral with AIUI. If UK and Japan are not yet at war, Shan State for example is neutral to Japan, therefore, Japan cannot overfly it. Where is my logic going wrong?UK being at war in Europe is a reason why it would be allowed to activate neutrals (i.e. if there was a first turn neutral crush by the Axis, UK could activate Afghanistan) or step on allied territories, I don’t see how it changes the overflight rule?
Maybe this clarification by Krieghund on a similar issue might help understanding:
By the way, I noticed … that you used the term “neutral with Germany” as regards to the USSR. This is incorrect, as “neutral” is actually an absolute term which means that a power is not at war with anyone. In the situation we’re discussing here, the USSR is at war with Italy and not at war with Germany. It is no longer neutral because it’s at war with at least one power, so any rule regarding neutrality no longer applies to it, even in relation to power with which it’s not yet at war. (The situation is a bit more complicated with the USSR, as it’s in the unique position of being able to remain neutral on one side of the map while no longer being neutral on the other, but the general principle still applies on each map.) Viewing the situation in this light may make things more clear.
So UK is not “neutral to Japan”. They are simply not at war at that moment.
I think I might be seeing where confusion enters:
@Pac:
Moving into a neutral territory is considered a combat move,
and any combat must be resolved during the conduct combat
phase (see “Combat Move,” page 12). Before the neutral
territory can be taken control of by the invading power, all
of the neutral’s standing army units must be eliminated. Air
units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.
You are telling me that this “neutral” refers to a neutral territory, which is different to a territory belonging to a neutral power. It also means that this concept of “neutral territory” is different to the status of a territory referred to on p8:
@Pac:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you ar at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a
power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see
“The Political Situation,” below). Neutral territories, such as
Central Mongolia, have white borders and do not have any
power’s emblem on them. Most such territories also have
a unit silhouette with a number, which indicates how many
infantry units the territory will generate to defend itself when
its neutrality is violated. The Himalayas are impassable and
may not be moved into or through by any units.
Wow, how tortured!
Wow, how tortured!
No, just rules from the rulebook:
@Rulebook:
An important concept to understand is the difference
between a neutral territory and a neutral power.
…
neutral territories begin the game not being controlled by
any power.
…
If UK and Japan are not yet at war, Shan State for example is neutral to Japan, therefore, Japan cannot overfly it. Where is my logic going wrong?
Shan State is controlled by UK, so can’t be a neutral territory!
@P@nther:
Shan State is controlled by UK, so can’t be a neutral territory!
By the definition on p8, it is a neutral territory on Japan’s combat movement! However, for the purposes of air units flying over, it isn’t. I think that is very tortured.
P40 p.8 says:
“All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” below).”
Perhaps we’re reading this last line differently. Is it suppose to read as . . .
Neutral: a territory that is not controlled by any power, or a territory that is controlled by a power with which you are not yet at war.
or as . . .
Neutral: a territory that is not controlled by any power, or a territory that is controlled by a power that belongs to the other alliance, an alliance with which you are not yet at war.
E.g., is the phrase “on the other side” merely a parenthetical quality of “power”, or is it the target of the phrase “with which you are not yet at war”. For the sentence on p. 8, as written, is ambiguous and can be read either way.
(I consistently read it the first way; it appears those who give rule answers read it the second way.)
I dont know. My grammer has never been the greatest. You could be at war with the alliance, but not the power…yet. Say you are germany, beginning of g1. You are at war with the allies. Specifically uk/france. Ussr is a neutral POWER with which you are not at war.
Neutral: a territory that is not controlled by any power ( true neutrals pro neutrals), or a territory that is controlled by a power that belongs to the other alliance, with which you are not yet at war (us/ussr. uk/anzac/france vs japan. Ger/italy vs china.
I hope that helps.
…
I don’t understand this answer: why is Japan allowed to fly over the territories of countries with which it is not yet at war?
…
I see the potential irritation caused by the definitions on page 8 and page 9. And I must admit that I have been a bit mislead at the end of the discussion that followed, too.
Anyway, the argumentation should not be about “flying over neutral territories!”.
It is much easier:
It is nowhere in the rules that air units may not fly over neutral territories.
The rules say: “Air units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.”, page 9.
Japan can’t fly over Sweden as Sweden is neutral.
Japan can fly over Shan State, as UK is not neutral.
I dont disagree. Plastic seemed confused on the definition of neutral. I was trying to break it down for him.
Thank you for the replies, everyone.
This is where I am confused:
E40.2 p.8:
All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” page 9).
Let’s look at things from Japan’s point of view at the start of the game.
UK territory is not friendly. (Japan doesn’t control it, and the UK is certainly not a friendly power.)
UK territory is not hostile. (Japan is not yet at war with the UK, so by definition UK territory isn’t hostile.)
So by process of elimination, UK territory is Neutral, since p.8 says all territories have to be in one of these three states.
And then you say
It is nowhere in the rules that air units may not fly over neutral territories.
The rules say: “Air units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.”, page 9.
Japan can’t fly over Sweden as Sweden is neutral.
Japan can fly over Shan State, as UK is not neutral.
I’m feeling a little like baby Groot trying to understand the triggering mechanism of an atomic bomb . . .
It is nowhere in the rules that air units may not fly over neutral territories.
Okay…
The rules say: “Air units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.”
Errr….doesn’t this rule say that air units can’t fly over a neutral?
(And even when they’re attacking a neutral, air units aren’t flying over it–they’re flying into it, so “air units are not allowed to fly over neutral territories”, right?)
Or are you making a distinction between a “neutral” and a “neutral territory”? (And if so, what is your definition of a neutral and your definition of a neutral territory?)
Or compare the quote from above . . .
“All territories exist in one of three conditions: Friendly … Hostile … Neutral.”
With . . .
“An important concept to understand is the difference between a neutral territory and a neutral power. … While some of these powers begin the game neutral, neutral territories begin the game not being controlled by any power.” (E40.2 p. 10)
Or by being controlled by “a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war”, right?
“Each neutral territory is treated as a separate entity.”
Except for those territories that are controlled by a power with which you are not yet at war, right? (since they too are “neutral territories”)
Or is the rulebook trying to use the term “neutral territory” in two different ways on two different pages? (always a surefire way to achieve clarity)
I am Groot.
Great debate! After reading all the rules, and all the interpretations; my opinion is that Japan and UK can NCM air over each others territories.
Germany can fly bombers straight over russia if russia is at war with Japan! Wow. When you break all the language down, that’s what it boils down to.
This is probably why the specific inclusion of the rule about UK having to DOW before flying over China is listed.
Germany can fly bombers straight over russia if russia is at war with Japan!
The Soviet Union has theatre-specific neutrality, so not necessarily.
If the Soviet Union is at war of the Pacific map, but not on the Europe map, then I’d assume Germany could only fly over the Pacific territories.
And then you say
It is nowhere in the rules that air units may not fly over neutral territories.
The rules say: “Air units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.”, page 9.
Japan can’t fly over Sweden as Sweden is neutral.
Japan can fly over Shan State, as UK is not neutral.I’m feeling a little like baby Groot trying to understand the triggering mechanism of an atomic bomb . . .
It is nowhere in the rules that air units may not fly over neutral territories.
Okay…
The rules say: “Air units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.”
Errr….doesn’t this rule say that air units can’t fly over a neutral?
The rule you quoted on page 9 is in the section on Neutral Territories. While it says “neutral”, it means “neutral territory” within the context of the section.
Or are you making a distinction between a “neutral” and a “neutral territory”? (And if so, what is your definition of a neutral and your definition of a neutral territory?)
Yes. That same rules section also points out the difference between a neutral power and a neutral territory, as P@nther mentioned earlier.
