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

@oysteilo said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

End of British/Anzac 3: No war with japan

Why would any Allied Player NOT declare war on Japan during Round 3? There is no detriment to declaring war at this point and there are many positives. Don’t get it??? :shrug:

Right. Unless… The allied player wanted the attack on USA so that round 4 they can do the ANZAC DOW after blocking Japan transports, but that’s far-fetched. Especially with NO’s and everything.

Map?

I mean, I can’t think of any other reason off-hand

@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Yes, subs can be ignored during combat movement and noncombat movement nor do they block loading or unloading of transports. (page 13, bottom paragraph)

The exception is amphibious assaults - by transport(s) only - over sub(s) that are in the destination sea zone (unescorted transports can go over subs in other seazones on the way) are not allowed. You just need one escorting warship (which could just be a sub) to overcome this, and you can still ignore the defending subs. (page 16 under transports)

What if you initate combat in the SZ in question, eg move a DD in to attack the sub? Can the transport still ignore the sub and load during CM? I assume not, since the SZ is not friendly anymore?

@myygames As long as you are loading you can ignore the sub.

Attacking units don’t make the SZ hostile.

Thanks, guys! I had that wrong in my mind, solves some issues for me!

Just noticed that my rules don’t have the bit about the Friendly Neutrals only moving out of Neutral status at the end of the NCM. Interesting, must have been added later.

Got a player asking if China can enter Burma before UK and Japan are at war. You would think they can’t, but I can’t find any rule that prohibits China from entering Burma before Japan/UK war status (looked in the FAQ that I have, too)

It looks like all the rules regarding China/UK/Japan and at war issues are that Allies entering or flying over China is considered an act of war by Japan, but not vice-versa.

Am I missing something? It seems wrong that China and UK can share a territory when UK is not at war with Japan. Thanks

@gamerman01

No, you don’t miss anything.

China and UK are allied from the beginning of the game. The Burma (and Kwangtung)-exception allows Chinese movement into (only) these (allied) UK territories. That is the rule that is part of the “China Rules” and this is totally independent from any status of war/political situation between UK and Japan or whomever, as you pointed out correctly.

So this actually isn’t a rules question but rather a question of “game design”, that maybe @Krieghund has an answer to.

@gamerman01 There is nothing unusual about this situation. Neither China nor UK is neutral, as China is at war with Japan and UK with Germany and Italy, so they are free to occupy each other’s territories. However, as you pointed out, UK (or any other Allied power) can’t move into China unless at war with Japan. This is because Japan doesn’t want any interference in its affairs by European powers, but Chinese forces moving out of China are not a concern.

Thanks a lot guys, your speed is amazing.
I haven’t played enough games the last 4-5 years, I had forgotten the part about UK being at war (with Germany/Italy) and being allied with China from the beginning. Then it’s not weird, gotcha.

Have a great day -

It is legal but it shouldn’t be IMO.

Situation: At the beginning of the UK turn, a US transport sits in SZ 110 with one UK land unit loaded on it during a prior turn. SZ 110 is adjacent to both United Kingdom and Normandy Bordeaux territories, both of which are allied owned. United Kingdom has an additional UK land unit in it. At least one of the two UK land units mentioned is an infantry.

Question: During the same UK non-combat phase, can the UK land unit starting in United Kingdom load onto the US transport whilst the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into Normandy Bordeaux?

Bonus Question 1: If the answer above is “yes”, would it still be “yes” if the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into United Kingdom?

Bonus Question 2: If the answer to the first question is “yes”, would it still be yes if neither of the UK land units were infantry? (is the spirit of the rules that loading always happens first and hence would not be allowable because two non-infantry units would be aboard the transport together, or could the offload be seen as happening first?)

@contango said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Question: During the same UK non-combat phase, can the UK land unit starting in United Kingdom load onto the US transport whilst the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into Normandy Bordeaux?

The rules say that allied units must remain on the transport for a round before offloading, even if the transport doesn’t have to move, strongly implying that the transport “moves within the sea zone” during the ally’s turn between the moving power’s turns. Applying that principle disallows a move such as this.
Yes, but loading must occur before offloading, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.

Bonus Question 1: If the answer above is “yes”, would it still be “yes” if the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into United Kingdom?

While the above answer is “no”, it would be “yes” in this case. Since the two units loaded from and offloaded to the same territory, it would be OK. Of course, the only reason I can think of to do that is to trade an infantry for another unit type (or vice versa). Needless to say, the unit not on the transport must load before the unit already on the transport offloads, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.
Yes.

Bonus Question 2: If the answer to the first question is “yes”, would it still be yes if neither of the UK land units were infantry? (is the spirit of the rules that loading always happens first and hence would not be allowable because two non-infantry units would be aboard the transport together, or could the offload be seen as happening first?)

This would not be allowed at all, as loading must occur before offloading.

@krieghund

We are discussing this in our community groups.

How do you reach the conclusion that the “transport moves within the SZ”. This is also not relevant to the analysis of the other limitations in the rules.

Unit 1 UK infantry is loaded on US transport on Turn 8.

On Turn 9,
US transport then moves, or does not move
Unit 2 UK infantry (a different unit) is loaded on US transport from UK or Canada.
Unit 1 UK infantry is dropped in non combat into normandy from the US transport
Unit 2 UK infantry remains on the transport.

Units did not move before they loaded (transport could, or not)
Loading and Unloading occurred in the proper order
Transport did not participate in both combat and noncombat actions.
Unit 1 has spent the required turn on board the transport before unloading.

Two units can be loaded from different territories in the same turn. Here, they could be loaded from the same, or different territories as long as the tt move / load —unload (ends turn) protocol is followed.

The two units did not unload into different territories. They loaded from any territories (different or same) on different turns.
Only the unit that has spent the interturn on the transport unloads during noncom, ending the turn of all 3 units.
Unit 2 UK infantry remains on board.

Each rule has been followed.

Thanks Kreig!

@taamvan said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@krieghund

We are discussing this in our community groups.

How do you reach the conclusion that the “transport moves within the SZ”. This is also not relevant to the analysis of the other limitations in the rules.

Unit 1 UK infantry is loaded on US transport on Turn 8.

On Turn 9,
US transport then moves, or does not move
Unit 2 UK infantry (a different unit) is loaded on US transport from UK or Canada.
Unit 1 UK infantry is dropped in non combat into normandy from the US transport
Unit 2 UK infantry remains on the transport.

Units did not move before they loaded (transport could, or not)
Loading and Unloading occurred in the proper order
Transport did not participate in both combat and noncombat actions.
Unit 1 has spent the required turn on board the transport before unloading.

Two units can be loaded from different territories in the same turn. Here, they could be loaded from the same, or different territories as long as the tt move / load —unload (ends turn) protocol is followed.

The two units did not unload into different territories. They loaded from any territories (different or same) on different turns.
Only the unit that has spent the interturn on the transport unloads during noncom, ending the turn of all 3 units.
Unit 2 UK infantry remains on board.

Each rule has been followed.

Thanks Kreig!

Dam. I’m gonna need a lawyer soon ! Lol

@taamvan OK, I’ve discussed this with Larry. I have apparently erred on the side of “realism”. While my answer made sense from that point of view, it over-complicates the rules in play. To keep the rule simple, moving units using an ally’s transport is in effect the same as moving them with your own, with the exceptions that a) they must be offloaded on a later turn than when they were loaded, and b) the transport moves on its owner’s turn, if at all. I will amend my answers above accordingly.

@krieghund

I appreciate the conversation and answer, and look forward to further discussions, questions, and someday–a game with you.

I’ve never seen it done, but can you build a minor factory on New Zealand? Is New Zealand an “Island” as defined in the game?

The rulebook states:
Industrial complexes can’t be built on islands (see “Islands,” page 8 ) (this is on page 24, 4th paragraph of the Pacific rulebook under “Industrial Complexes and Bases (Facilities)”.

On page 8, I find:
“An island or island group is a single territory surrounded entirely by one or more sea zones. A sea zone can contain at most one island or island group, which is considered one territory.”

Technically speaking, on the game board New Zealand is not “surrounded entirely by one or more sea zones”, as the bottom portion of New Zealand runs into the bottom of the edge of the game board.

So what’s the intent? Could someone build a factory on New Zealand?

I’d love an authoritative answer from Krieghund, if he has time.

Thanks!