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

@Chicochico:

Here’s another. Like my question 6, except during the non-combat movement turn; can i move my carries and then launch the loaded fighters to land somewhere else?

What you do with your fighters/tactical bombers is your own concern, mister.  :wink:  Yes, as long as the fighter has “legal” range to land elsewhere, or to get to your carrier, you can shuffle them around as you see fit.

You could, say, send a fighter 3 spaces to go attack something - NOT move the carrier but land the plane 1 space away from the battle and pull in 2 planes from 5 spaces away (with an Air Base on the original space) to land on your carrier.

What you cannot do is move a plane 6 spaces that started on an aircraft carrier.  They get 4 spaces (+technology if you have it) for all combat and non-combat moves (combined total movement) and they need a valid landing area (carrier or territory that started friendly on your turn.)

After reading the sec Ed rule book I have a couple of questions regarding the paratrooper tech.
1. It says they are subject to AAA fire like other planes, so many question is are the specifically targeted or are they just one of the possible hits that can be taken if the defender roles a 1.
2. Can you use allied airbases to launch your attacks?  So can the US launch from England AB? If you can’t use allied airbases than paratroopers is pretty much useless for the US.

@cond1024:

1. It says they are subject to AAA fire like other planes, so many question is are the specifically targeted or are they just one of the possible hits that can be taken if the defender roles a 1.

You roll the total number of dice required and then any hits can be assigned by the player who owns the units.

@cond1024:

2. Can you use allied airbases to launch your attacks?  So can the US launch from England AB? If you can’t use allied airbases than paratroopers is pretty much useless for the US.

No. The tech only applies to your own airbases. However, if the US has a forward airbase (a captured one or one built on captured territory), it can use them.

@Cmdr:

@ghr2:

IF italy declares war on russia, takes a russian territory, is reinforced with a german non-com (germany does not declare) and russia does not dow on germany, can russia still collect from 125 if there are no axis ships there?  and can russia counter the italians while ignoring the germans?

@Fortress:

yes for the money, as ussr is at war. no for the counter-attack; they need to declare war on germany to kill germans.

A)  Why would Russia not DOW Germany at this point?  You cannot collect for SZ 125 if you are not at war, and Germany is collecting an NO from not being at war with you.
B)  All allied units defend together - this is how it has been since Classic.

I think the question was if Italy declares war on Russia and Germany puts a sub in z125, could Russia collect the Murmansk NO by simply not declaring war on Germany (knowing Germany will not DOW Russia to get the wheat NO).  The answer is that Russia can’t get the Murmansk NO if at war with Italy and there is an axis warship in z125.  So you’re right; the sensible thing for Russia to do is deny Germany the wheat NO by declaring war on them.

Hypothetical scenario: I have a sub, destroyer and cruiser. Adjacent to my units is a lone cruiser and one sea zone behind that is a defenseless transport. Can I simultaneously attack the cruiser with my destroyer and cruiser while sending my sub under that fight to kill the transport or does the sub stop because there is a battle? I know the sub could go under the cruiser regularly (but not a destroyer), just curious whether my attacking said cruiser with different units invalidates that move. Thanks.

The Sub can attack the AP as it ignores the Cruiser, as no Destroyer is present in its SZ. . You can fight both battles.

@Ziggurat:

Hypothetical scenario: I have a sub, destroyer and cruiser. Adjacent to my units is a lone cruiser and one sea zone behind that is a defenseless transport. Can I simultaneously attack the cruiser with my destroyer and cruiser while sending my sub under that fight to kill the transport or does the sub stop because there is a battle? I know the sub could go under the cruiser regularly (but not a destroyer), just curious whether my attacking said cruiser with different units invalidates that move. Thanks.

Long Answer: Since there is no defending destroyer to block you, you may move the submarine through the sea zone during combat movement - even though you are attacking the ships in that sea zone with OTHER UNITS.  Just as you could fly fighters over the battle to attack the transport, if you had some available and the desire to do so.

Short Answer:  Yes.

Great, thank you very much.

When an Anti-Air gun is already loaded on a transport with an infantry unit and that transport takes places in an amphibious assault, what happens with the AA? Is it stuck on the transport until you can unload it next turn?

My interpretation was that it can’t unload because it can’t take place in the combat move and you can’t unload the transport during the non-combat move because it unloaded during the assault. Is this correct? Or can you unload units during the non-combat move even after an amphibious assault?

@zanetheinsane:

When an Anti-Air gun is already loaded on a transport with an infantry unit and that transport takes places in an amphibious assault, what happens with the AA? Is it stuck on the transport until you can unload it next turn?

My interpretation was that it can’t unload because it can’t take place in the combat move and you can’t unload the transport during the non-combat move because it unloaded during the assault. Is this correct? Or can you unload units during the non-combat move even after an amphibious assault?

You’re correct.  The AA artillery is indeed stuck.  AAA can only unload during noncombat (and can only be loaded during noncombat as well - they aren’t permitted to attack, therefore they aren’t permitted to move during the combat phase)  Transports can only move/unload in EITHER combat or Noncombat, but not both.
So the AAA must wait at least until the next noncom phase, assuming the transport doesn’t move again during the combat phase.

I believe that somewhere in the new rulebook it said that once you declared your combat moves and your opponent declared his scrambling fighters you could not then change your attacks. is this correct?

@Global-commander:

I believe that somewhere in the new rulebook it said that once you declared your combat moves and your opponent declared his scrambling fighters you could not then change your attacks. is this correct?

Yes.  Scrambling is declared after combat moves are completed.

@Global-commander:

I believe that somewhere in the new rulebook it said that once you declared your combat moves and your opponent declared his scrambling fighters you could not then change your attacks. is this correct?

I do not have the page number to site you right now (do not hve the book here with me atm) but yes, once you have finished your combat moves you may not alter them (legally.)  Since scrambling occurs after your combat move, but before conduct combat, you are stuck with what you moved and where you moved it.

@Cmdr:

@Global-commander:

I believe that somewhere in the new rulebook it said that once you declared your combat moves and your opponent declared his scrambling fighters you could not then change your attacks. is this correct?

I do not have the page number to site you right now (do not hve the book here with me atm) but yes, once you have finished your combat moves you may not alter them (legally.)  Since scrambling occurs after your combat move, but before conduct combat, you are stuck with what you moved and where you moved it.

I thought that was the correct order.

@Cmdr:

Chicochico in black - response in red
I have a ton of little questoins that came up while playing (AAG40.2) and i doubt i can remember them all. Some aren’t 1940-related, but bear with me :-P

8. all allied units defend togheter (like UK and anzac troops in egypt); i was told this is not the case for allied planes loaded on carriers? Say, an uk and a soviet plane on Uk carrier, both at war with italy, are attacked, the soviet plane won’t fight?

All allied units defend together - in the air, on land or at sea.  An American carrier carrying a Soviet fighter and a British tactical bomber, being attacked by a German destroyer would have all three nations defending.

I know the context of the original question was w/all parties are at war, but this was a pretty broad statement so I felt the need to clarify (not trying to nitpick).

“All allied units defend together - in the air, on land or at sea” is true only if all parties are at war. Powers not at war can’t be on their future ally’s territories, carriers or transports (so this part holds up because it can’t happen). At sea however, a neutral power could share a sea zone with its future ally, and the enemy could attack and ignore the neutral power (so they won’t defend together).

*See side bar on page 15 of E40 2nd Ed “Powers Not at War with One Another”

Example: US (not yet at war) moves fleet to join Anz ships in sz 54 (off Queensland). The Japanese could attack only the Anz ships in sz 54, and ignore the US fleet.

In the same scenario, if the Japanese aren’t at war with either US or Anz, they could DOW and attack only the US ships, and the Anz ships would just sit and watch (no Anz scramble either).

Have the actual maps changed in the 2nd Edtion releases? Or is it just the addition of new pieces and rule changes? Thank you.

Hi Antholin. The only map changes I can see are that the National Production chart is on the map now(40 on each) and the two Canadian territories on the Pacific map(Yukon and BC) are now one (no change in IPCs)called Western Canada. 
As you said, rules and some pieces have changed.

There are a couple of other minor changes on the map that I noticed.
1 – The upper border of Sea Zone 6 now connects directly with the border of Korea and Amur. On the old map it connected on Korea and made it look like Sea Zone 5 was also adjacent to Korea.
2 – The Western United States no longer has that annoying “50” on it, which was only used in Pacific 1940 and was supposed to represent the 40 IPCs that the US got for switching to a wartime economy, basically the US National Objective. The thing is that Western US is only worth 10 IPCs – Like if Japan captured it, even in the Pacific game, they only raised their IPC income 10 points. Of course, in the Pacific game, Western US was considered the US capital so Japan also got any unspent US IPCs and, let’s face it, pretty much won the game. Anyway, it’s nice not to have that “50” on the Western US territory. I just think it looks better.

I have a question. If US ships join ANZAC ships in SZ 54, and Japan declares war on ANZAC only and goes after the ANZAC ships in SZ 54, the US ships would still not participate in the battle? In the rules, it says any unprovoked declaration of war by Japan on UK and/or ANZAC makes it possible for the US to declare war on Japan. However, since Japan moves before the US and the US DOW has to happen during the US Combat Move phase, then when Japan declares war on ANZAC and attacks it’s ships in SZ 54, the US ships are still neutral, right? So they have to sit there and watch the ANZAC ships get slaughtered. After that battle, the Japanese ships will be stuck in SZ 54 with the US ships. Then on the US Combat Move phase, they can declare war on Japan and kill the Japanese ships in SZ 54, right? Or, I guess they could even NOT declare war and just sit there sharing SZ 54 with the Japanese ships too. Or they could retreat, like if the Japanese fleet was bigger.
You know, that would be an interesting way for Japan to invade Australia without committing a lot of warships if they didn’t mind losing transports. They send just enough warships to take out the ANZAC ships and possible scramble fighters, a few transports full of guys and tanks to land on Queensland. Then if the US declares war and kills the Japanese navy there, Japan already has a large force of troops and tanks right there on Australia which the US can do nothing about.

Knp7765: Except if US has taken his APs to SZ54, he would have them loaded with ground units and could drop them on Australia to retake it. Suppose it would come down to who had more troops.
Also because the capital is in NSW, not off SZ54, am not sure Japan can reach it before US and is probably only worth doing if you capture Sydney.
I do not have time to do the moves. Have you tried?
Cow might know.
Start a thread though. Not here.

Yep in rare circumstances it could happen. Just think if after the Anz fleet/air was taken out, and the Japanese fleet still outgunned the US fleet. The funny thing is that if the Japanese amphib was also successful and Japan got control of the naval base on Queensland, the US fleet couldn’t outrun the Japanese fleet either (couldn’t retreat to the safety of Hawaii).

You would really have to catch the US asleep at the wheel. There is normally a lot of Allied fire power off Queensland, and the Anz generally have some ftrs on the Queensland airbase to protect their tiny navy. The Japanese navy could be pretty dinged up if they scrambled so it would defiantly be a situational thing or really lucky dice. Not sure if it is in Japans best interest to go “all in” early on, they are nothing w/o the navy.