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

@simon33:

…
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:

@Krieghund:

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:

@simon33:

…
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:

@Krieghund:

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!

@simon33:

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.
…

@simon33:

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.

@PlasticAttack:

…
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.

@Gargantua:

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.

@PlasticAttack:

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.

@PlasticAttack:

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.

So there are P40.2 page-8 neutral territories and there are page-9 neutral territories, and they aren’t (entirely) the same thing.

Is this statement true:
“In A&A 1940 Global 2nd edition, air units can overfly any territory they choose to at any time with the exception of page-9 neutral territories?”
Understanding that,

• page-9 neutral territories consist of only those territories that were neutral single-territory “countries” at the start of the game (whether pro-Axis, pro-Allies, or strict neutrals, and that this list includes the Mongolian territories),

• and that players may be able to overfly even these page-9 neutral territories if certain additional conditions are met,

• –such as a friendly page-9 neutral territory that was moved into during a previous NCM phase, or

• –such as an unfriendly page-9 neutral territory or a strict-neutral page-9 neutral territory that was attacked (that is, entered) during a previous CM phase?

Oh, now I see there needs to be an additional restriction to my statement:

“Neutral Powers (which consist only of the US before it goes to war against any one of the three Axis powers, and the USSR which is neutral individually by theater), are also disallowed from flying air units into or through neutral territories (E40.2 p. 15)”, this rule presumably referring to page-8 neutral territories, not just to page-9 neutral territories (e.g., it refers to all territories that are neither friendly nor hostile).

And while a power is neutral, other players cannot overfly the neutral power’s territories either.

A neutral territory are the single nations and mongolia not controlled by any player
A neutral power is a player who isnt at war with anyone.
In the shan state example…the uk is at war with germany (axis) and japan is at war with china (allies) so they are not neutral because they fight. Even though they arnt fighting each other.
Because they are fighting they arnt neutral. Because they are in different alliances they are hostile land territories. Tada…treat it as hostile. I hope that clears it up.
Not to confuse you. I put land territory for a reason. Uk/japan can still share sea zones until dow.

^ That ignores the p8 definition of a hostile territory.

Let me try this again:

Air units cannot overfly . . .

• pro-Axis, pro-Allied, or strict-neutral territories that haven’t yet been entered by someone in a previous phase*, (P40.2 p. 9)

• nor the controlled territories of a neutral power, (E40.2 p. 15)

• nor can neutral powers overfly territories controlled by anyone but themselves. (E40.2 p. 15)

Otherwise, air units are permitted to overfly all other territories.

Does that cover it?

• • I’m disregarding Mongolia in this discussion, whether or not that would make any difference.

Sound like youve got it plastic

A fighter scrambles to an adjacent sea zone. While there, its airbase territory is captured by the opponent and it is left stranded. It’s now granted 1 movement point to reach a valid landing spot.

Question: Is this 1 allowable movement measured from the sea zone it is in, or is it measured from the territory its airbase was in?

–Thank you.

@PlasticAttack:

A fighter scrambles to an adjacent sea zone. While there, its airbase territory is captured by the opponent and it is left stranded. It’s now granted 1 movement point to reach a valid landing spot.

Question: Is this 1 allowable movement measured from the sea zone it is in, or is it measured from the territory its airbase was in?

–Thank you.

From the sea zone that it scrambled to

@Gamerman01:

From the sea zone that it scrambled to

Thank you. That is what I had assumed, but then I re-read the rule and I wasn’t sure anymore:

E40.2 p. 16: “After all combat is completed, each surviving scrambled air unit must return to the territory from which it was scrambled. If the enemy has captured that territory, the unit can move 1 space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier.”

(You could argue from this that the rulebook says the planes must return to the captured territory, and then it gets its 1 space to land.)

So thank you for the confirmation.