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

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.

Hi AetV. The  two TTs retreat with the ground units on board .They can’t unload, whilst the Ft is alive (and it can’t be killed).  Scotland can’t be captured .

Thank you Wittmann :wink:

Looking for a few clarifications with regards to using an allied nations transports.

Question 1: On America Turn N, America moved loaded transports from SZ91 to SZ110 and conducted an amphibious assault on Normandy, leaving empty transports in SZ110 at the end of its turn.  How quickly can Great Britain get its ground units to Normandy via the American transports?

My current understanding is that British troops can be loaded on Great Britain Turn N, and subsequently unloaded on Great Britain Turn N+1, requiring America to leave the transports where Britain wants to unload from on America’s Turn N+1.

Question 2: This question is about your own troops on your own transports, but I want to be sure to clarify something before question 3.  A nation moves transports with no friendly warships into a completely empty sea zone with intentions of conducting an amphibious assault.  The enemy nation has a territory with an airbase touching this sea zone.  Is the enemy able to scramble planes to attempt killing the transport?  Question 3: Does it matter if the amphibious assault is targeting the territory holding the airbase or not?

I hope the answer to Question 2 is yes (and question 3 is no).  My current understanding is that it is, but more importantly my group has been playing with the rules this way for a little while and I hope we’ve been right all this time.

Question 4: This is the question where I’m most unsure.  America has some number of transports sitting in SZ91.  They are loaded with British troops.  On America’s turn these transports move to SZ95.  Is Great Britain able to unload its troops from America’s transports into an enemy territory (Northern or Southern Italy) in order to attack it?  Question 5: Assuming they can, are any Italian planes allowed to scramble?

I’m not sure how I feel about Question 5 in particular.  It seems like the answer to Question 4 is probably yes, but I may be surprised.  However, it seems weird to allow a situation where a British action on Britain’s turn could result in American units dying on Britain’s turn.  Granted, if there are any planes or boats in range of SZ95 on Italy or Germany’s turns, the transports effectively die for free then anyway, but there’s quite a big difference between them dying before or after their cargo has had a chance to unload and potentially take a territory.

Question 1:

Your understanding is correct.

@rulebook:

Transporting Multinational Forces: Transports
belonging to a friendly power can load and offload
your land units, as long as both powers are at war.
This is a three-step process:
1. You load your land units aboard the friendly
transport on your turn.
2. The transport’s owner moves it (or not) on
that owner’s turn.
3. You offload your land units on your next turn.

Question 2: yes
and
Question 3: no

See

@rulebook:

A quick reaction team of no more than 3 defending
fighters and/or tactical bombers (strategic bombers can’t
scramble) located on each island or coastal territory
that has an operative air base can be scrambled to
defend against attacks in the sea zones adjacent to those
territories. These air units can be scrambled to help
friendly units in adjacent sea zones that have come under
attack. They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious
assaults from adjacent sea zones, whether or not the
territory being assaulted is the territory containing the
air base. They may defend against the enemy ships
conducting the amphibious assault even if friendly ships
are not present. Air units belonging to powers friendly to
the attacked power may be scrambled by their owner if
the owning power is at war with the attacking power, so
long as the limit of 3 total air units is respected.

Question 4 and Question 5:

The British Units can invade Italy during Britain’s turn provided that Italy does not scramble.

@Official:

Scrambling
Q. Say the United Kingdom launches an amphibious assault from a US transport without any
supporting UK sea or air units in the sea zone, and then the defender scrambles. What
happens?
A. In effect, nothing happens. The US transport doesn’t participate in the sea battle because it’s not the
US’s turn. Since there are no attacking sea or air units, there is no sea battle. However, the sea zone
can’t be cleared of defending combat units, so the amphibious assault can’t proceed.

So, if the U.S. transport were loaded with ANZAC or French (lol) units and Italy purchased and deployed a boat in that sea zone, then the ANZAC units could not conduct the amphibious assault even without Italy scrambling due to ANZAC not being able to clear the boats from the sea zone, correct?

@nhgrif:

So, if the U.S. transport were loaded with ANZAC or French (lol) units and Italy purchased and deployed a boat in that sea zone, then the ANZAC units could not conduct the amphibious assault even without Italy scrambling due to ANZAC not being able to clear the boats from the sea zone, correct?

Correct, provided the “boat” is a warship.