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

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

While I agree with your interpretation, it doesn’t really clear it up with this wording, unfortunately. I could see, as my fellow player does, that this could mean the remaining units on the battle board may retreat to any of the territories THEY attacked from. He does keep his units segregated, as to determine in your example, which territory is eligible for retreat.

I have found my hard copy second edition rule books simply add the word, “original” to “attacking territories”. Not sure why the online version doesn’t have that. One word clears it right up!

Oh boy. I think your friend is looking for a way of interpreting the rules differently to what they were intended. i.e. being difficult. If he doesn’t like the rule, just play a house rule.

The word “original” appears in the latest version of the Rulebook, which is on the Avalon Hill Rules Page.  Where are you finding a download that’s a different version?

@Krieghund:

The word “original” appears in the latest version of the Rulebook, which is on the Avalon Hill Rules Page.  Where are you finding a download that’s a different version?

Axisandallies.org Rules and downloads
https://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/axis-allies-europe-1940-second-edition/

Quite prevalent, as you can see above, Midnight_Reaper quotes the version without the word “original”, my downloaded version didn’t have it, my original conversation partner had the version without, as well.

Well then, I guess everyone needs to be sure to get the latest version, as I linked above.  :-D

In any case, the word “original” is a clarification - it’s not strictly necessary.  The rules don’t direct you to keep track of which units came from each territory, as they do for segregating seaborne and overland units in an amphibious assault.  Since this information would be necessary to determine a retreat route if retreat were based on surviving units, and the rules also don’t specify that an attacking unit must be surviving in order to establish a retreat route, we can logically assume that any attacking unit will do.

Scenario:  One German sub in sz

Can UK amphibious assault in that seazone if they can bring fighters but no ships?

–-

I’m assuming its a yes, but IF the sub chooses to join combat, the sub gets to shoot and can destroy one transport for each hit it scores, correct?

No. You need to have an attacking warship (including a sub) to ignore a submarine when doing an amphibious assault.

@weddingsinger:

Scenario:  One German sub in sz

Can UK amphibious assault in that seazone if they can bring fighters but no ships?
–-
I’m assuming its a yes, but IF the sub chooses to join combat, the sub gets to shoot and can destroy one transport for each hit it scores, correct?

@simon33:

No. You need to have an attacking warship (including a sub) to ignore a submarine when doing an amphibious assault.

To me the scenario reads as if weddingsinger tries to avoid to ignore the submarine (thus avoiding to bring a warship) by “engaging” it with fighters only.
The problem here is that this does not create a sea battle to take out the sub as the fighters have no valid target.

So an amphibious assault can only take place by ignoring the submarine (requiring an escorting warship as simon33 pointed out) or by engaging the enemy submarine and clearing the seazone from the enemy submarine (destroy it or force it to submerge) in a sea battle (requiring a warship, too).

@Rulebook:

Step 1. Sea Combat
If there are defending surface warships and/or
scrambled air units, sea combat occurs. If there are
only defending submarines and/or transports, the
attacker can choose to ignore those units or conduct sea combat.

…

Land combat can only take place if there was no sea battle or
the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy units
except transports and submarines that submerged during the
sea battle.

I had this Situation on an online game a few days ago:

Me Germany attacking sz109 with two SS and two TT’s, amphibing Scotland and freeing Wallace.
Totally overseeing the French Ftr wich is still stationed there, Merde.
French Ftr scrambles but misses 1st Round. Triple a allows me to retreat from 109 but leaving my Groundtroops there (Sco.).

Q: Was this leagal for Germany?
Do the ground units also retreat?
Or did triple a handled it correctly, by letting G TT’s retreat and still letting the ground units amphib Sco.?

Thank you for your response in advance.