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

@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.

Any time, thanks

Just to be sure, the FAQ says:

Q. Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships. If at some
point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I
ignore the subs and end the battle?
A. No. Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them
when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them. When you attack a sea zone, you
attack all of the units belonging to powers with which you are at war in that sea zone.

Does this apply also if the defending unit making the sea zone hostile is a defending ftr?

I.e. if I move in with fleet into zone w/enemy subs only and defender scrams, but I kill his fighter the first round, can I ignore remaining enemy subs?  I am thinking not, but want to be sure.

@Karl7:

Just to be sure, the FAQ says:

Q. Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships. If at some
point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I
ignore the subs and end the battle?
A. No. Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them
when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them. When you attack a sea zone, you
attack all of the units belonging to powers with which you are at war in that sea zone.

Does this apply also if the defending unit making the sea zone hostile is a defending ftr?

I.e. if I move in with fleet into zone w/enemy subs only and defender scrams, but I kill his fighter the first round, can I ignore remaining enemy subs?  I am thinking not, but want to be sure.

No, once the battle is joined, you must fight it through to the usual conclusion: e.g., one side retreating, all of one side being killed or submerging, etc.

(Not an official answerer, but I’m confident in this one, having recently read through the first 100 pages of this Q&A thread.)

Because the fighters scramble, ALL enemy, non neutral units become involved in the battle.

On a similar vein to the questions about Neutrals and movement.  From what I am reading;  if the US is at war with Japan, and USSR is not.  USA can land planes in Pacific Russian territories.  Say bombers, from west USA attack Sz 6 and land in Amur.  It’s total legal?

No restrictions saying a party at war can’t land in a party not at war’s territory?

The same could be said for the British bomber - it could attack a baltic fleet and land in russia without consequence?

Powers Not at War with One Another When two powers on opposite sides are not yet at war with one another, they operate under some special conditions and restrictions.

Movement: A power�s ships don�t block the naval movements of other powers with which it�s not at war, and vice versa. They can occupy the same sea zones.

Combat: A power can�t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war. If a power at war attacks a sea zone containing units belonging to both a power with which it�s already at war and a power with which it�s not at war, the latter power�s units are ignored. Those units won�t participate in the battle in any way, and a state of war with that power will not result.

Comments anyone?  Please prove me wrong, because I’ve long been under the assumption you couldn’t land in territories that were not at war.

Further to this point guys - from what I can see Russia can land it’s fighter in Scotland round 1.  Nothing wrong with it, and attack against it would be DOW.  I know the chinese can land their fighter in Burma.

The only power that has any real restrictions is USA, or powers entering China.

I think many of us have been playing on an alpha era assumption/rule that this was illegal.  It’s not so anymore… ?

No restrictions here boys

Political Situation: The Soviet Union begins the game at war with no one. The Soviet Union may not declare war on any European Axis power before turn 4 unless first declared war upon by a European Axis power or London is captured by an Axis power. It may declare war on Japan at the beginning of the Combat Move phase of any of its turns.

Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see ‘Powers Not at War with One Another‘) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.