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

That is wrong. AAA has got that wrong. You cannot place until the turn after you caoture a territory, even a Neutral one .

If you do not a have a legitimate place to put a newly built unit , the spent IPCs are returned to you. If there is somewhere , you have to place it.

@weddingsinger:

Two questions:

Triple A appears to allow us to build a factory on the same turn as taking a Pro-neutral, such as the UK flipping Persia for the 1st time.  Is this correct?  So UK1 you could occupy Persia and build a mIC?

If you can’t place or choose not to place something you bought, it just sits until the turn you choose to place it?  Or the ipcs come back?  Or it vanishes?

You can’t do that per the rule book. Rule book supersedes whatever happens in triplea. There actually is a caveat in triplea that says it’s up to the players to know and follow the rules.

I’ve been away from the game for awhile, and I think I forgot something.

German destroyer and transports in 113. I believe Russia can non-com a sub into 113? If so, Germany wants to use those transports for non-com loading in 110, and unloading in 112… Is there any way to attack that sub, and still use the transports for non-com? I know you can ignore the sub, and I know the transports can move out of the 113 to avoid being involved in the combat. But can they avoid combat and also use their remaining movement to complete their desired non-com mission? If they sit in 113 while Germany attacks the sub, they must remain there, unable to move or load in non-com, correct?

Correct except that the transports can’t leave SZ113 to avoid the combat. Only if they are conducting an amphibious assault somewhere else.

Thanks, Simon.

When you liberate an ally’s territory while their capital is captured, the territory control, and IPC’s gained, goes to the liberator until the ally’s capital is liberated.

How does this work with the UK split income? For example, London has fallen, but Calcutta is still sending units to battle in the Middle East, and British forces are still battling in Africa.

Well if in that case UK units retake Egypt from the Axis, no income is collected for Egypt. Also if there were an IC on Egypt, no one could build out of it. So you have to get someone else to take the territory if you want the benefit.

Sad

@simon33:

Correct except that the transports can’t leave SZ113 to avoid the combat. Only if they are conducting an amphibious assault somewhere else.

They can leave to avoid the combat.  They just can’t load units unless they’re also doing an amphibious assault.

@simon33:

Well if in that case UK units retake Egypt from the Axis, no income is collected for Egypt. Also if there were an IC on Egypt, no one could build out of it. So you have to get someone else to take the territory if you want the benefit.

I am fully aware of this, but could be good to further explain the special case with the split british/uk economy

1. If London is down India can just collect on the pacific map, all other british areas are not collected, such as Africa

2. If India is down, I believe London will collect west India, correct? How does this make any sense when London can not collect say Borneo? (or any other pacific area) West India must have a special case as it can be collected on both maps for both India and London?

3. Why cant the British/UK collect on both maps when all other nations can?

@Krieghund:

@simon33:

Correct except that the transports can’t leave SZ113 to avoid the combat. Only if they are conducting an amphibious assault somewhere else.

They can leave to avoid the combat.  They just can’t load units unless they’re also doing an amphibious assault.

May I ask why? The SZ isn’t hostile because it only has an enemy submarine. No enemy surface warships so the rules about sea units starting in a hostile SZ don’t apply; or do they?

2. If India is down, I believe London will collect west India, correct?

No.

America has a fighter and air base on Guam. Japan sends one transport with one infantry and one artillery into the surrounding sea zone to conduct an amphibious assault. A Japanese fighter joins them.

1. Am I correct that during the combat move phase Japan must declare whether the fighter is staying in the sea zone to defend a possible scramble or joining the land battle in Guam?

2. Am I correct that America can scramble to defend against the amphibious assault despite there being no sea battle in the zone?

3. If there were not an amphibious assault, would America still be able to scramble?

4. If my first two assumptions are correct, what happens in the scenario in which Japan commits its plane to the land battle and America scrambles? My assumption is the transport and it’s cargo are destroyed for free, the Japanese fighter conducts land battle against no defending units and wins, the territory is not captured due to Japan having no available land units. At the end of combat, America’s scrambled fighter freely lands back on Guam, and the Japanese plane must find a place to land.

Similiar-ish to above:

Germany has two transports starting from sea zone 112.  They each load ground units.  One moves to SZ 111 and the other to SZ 119.  UK has just 1 fighter in Scotland, which it scrambles.  Ireland is still neutral.

In this scenario, I assume the following:

1. The fighter chooses exactly one sea zone to scramble into.

2. The fighter destroys the transport in that sea zone.

3. The other transport drops off its land units in Scotland and captures it (wins combat against 0 defenders).

4. At the end of combat, the UK fighter is destroyed.  Only Scotland borders SZ111 and that has just been captured by Germany.  Scotland and Ireland border SZ119, but the fighter can’t land in either of those squares.

5. As an additional assumption, if Germany also deployed to SZ109, the fighter from Scotland could scramble into 109, and then even if Scotland is captured, the UK fighter could land in London.

And as a more general question…

If a fighter from Scotland scrambles into 109, I believe it can land in United Kingdom if Scotland is captured.  However, if Scotland is not captured, could the fighter which scrambled from Scotland into SZ109 still choose to land in the United Kingdom?

Yes
Yes
No
Yes, providing that the fighter rolls a hit. It isn’t an auto kill and if the fighter misses, the transport can retreat.

Correct in next post

Scrambled fighters must return to their origin if possible.

@simon33:

@Krieghund:

@simon33:

Correct except that the transports can’t leave SZ113 to avoid the combat. Only if they are conducting an amphibious assault somewhere else.

They can leave to avoid the combat.  They just can’t load units unless they’re also doing an amphibious assault.

May I ask why? The SZ isn’t hostile because it only has an enemy submarine. No enemy surface warships so the rules about sea units starting in a hostile SZ don’t apply; or do they?

From the FAQ:

Q.  If some of my units begin my turn in a sea zone with enemy submarines and/or transports and I decide to attack them, can I move some or all of my units out of the sea zone in combat movement to avoid having them participate in the combat?
A.  Yes.  Even though the sea zone is not hostile (it contains no enemy surface warships), you can still move units from the sea zone in combat movement to escape combat if you’re attacking there.  However, you must still respect the rules for moving units in the Combat Move phase to escape combat.

Sorry, I didn’t get it:
let’s say, at Scotland there’s only 1 Ftr. Via sz 111 there’s 1 Trn (with 1 Inf) attacking and via sz 119 there’s 1 Trn (with 1 Inf) attacking (because of… whatever reason). In case of scramble against one of this Transports, this Transport’s gotta be destroyed (assuming Ftr hits). Now: does the other Trn unload it’s Inf to Scotland and destroys the Ftr because of taking Scotland and there’s no other landing space (Ireland still neutral and no carrier nearby)?

Regards,
H.

Landing succeeds and fighter is destroyed.

If fighter misses, the other transport can retreat.

Thank you very much, Simon.

Retreat rules clarification.

I thought this was a simple original rule, but someone else’s interpretation isn’t easy to debunk. I also found some important wording discrepancies between my Second Edition hard copies that came with my games, and the downloadable Second Edition rules I found online!

When attacking from multiple territories with overland units, are all origination territories eligible retreat destinations for the entire battle, or must at least one unit survive, that attacked from that territory, to qualify it as a valid retreat destination?

Simple example. I attack a territory with 1 artillery from territory A, and 1 infantry from territory B. After one round of combat, only my artillery remains. May I retreat to A or B, or only A?

@Mill:

Retreat rules clarification.

I thought this was a simple original rule, but someone else’s interpretation isn’t easy to debunk. I also found some important wording discrepancies between my Second Edition hard copies that came with my games, and the downloadable Second Edition rules I found online!

When attacking from multiple territories with overland units, are all origination territories eligible retreat destinations for the entire battle, or must at least one unit survive, that attacked from that territory, to qualify it as a valid retreat destination?

Simple example. I attack a territory with 1 artillery from territory A, and 1 infantry from territory B. After one round of combat, only my artillery remains. May I retreat to A or B, or only A?

You may retreat to A or B, your choice. Rule book quote:
@Axis:

The attacker (never the defender) can retreat during this step. Move all attacking land and sea units in that combat that are on the battle strip to a single adjacent friendly space from which at least 1 of the attacking land or sea units moved. In the case of sea units, that space must have been friendly at the start of the turn. All such units must retreat together to the same territory or sea zone, regardless of where they came from.

So, the question seems to me to be about the line, “Move all attacking … units in that combat that are on the battle strip to a single adjacent friendly space from which at least 1 of the attacking … units moved”. This line means that if you attack from A to F, you must retreat from F to A. It also means that if you attacked from A, B, C, and D to F, you may retreat all of your units from F to your choice of A, B, C, or D. It doesn’t matter where the units were originally, just that at least one of the units that were present at the start of the fight came from A, at least one from B, and so on.

Example of why this is: Say you attack with two infantry from A, two infantry from B, and a bomber from E into F. You lose three infantry in the first round and decide to retreat. Where did the remaining infantry come from, A or B? It doesn’t matter, you can retreat to either A or B.

Does that clear things up?

-Midnight_Reaper