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

Boldfresh is correct.

@Krieghund:

Boldfresh is correct.

correct that it is somewhere in the faq or correct that an acc qualifies as an escort for amphib assault in a zone with only enemy submarines present (and no scramble option).

either way, could you please clarify what is meant by the phrasing on page 32?  “Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines.”

this sentence seems to be mixing two unrelated thoughts if we are saying the operative word is “attack”.

Yeah, can you please clarify this. And also explain it maybe?

The rulebook seems to contradict itself. I’m trying to wrap my head around this, but it does not seem like both of these statements can be true at the same time. Either the rules need to be clarified better or one of them is wrong.

PG16

However, a transport
is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious
assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy
submarines unless at least 1 warship belonging to the
attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end
of the Combat Move phase.

Seems to indicate that any warship can escort a transport for the purposes of an amphibious assault when an enemy sub is present.

PG32

This means that a transport can’t fire
in the attacking units’ or the defending units’ fire steps.
Transports may not attack without being accompanied
by at least 1 unit with an attack value, unless they are
conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea
zone that is free of enemy submarines.

Seems to indicate that carriers are not an acceptable escort for transports for the purposes of an amphibious assault when an enemy sub is present.

Unless the rules are talking generalities first and then it drills into the specifics, these passages SEEM to be mutually exclusive. So please say if the following situation is a legal amhpibious assault within the context of the rules.

Enemy sub in sz42 - attacker brings in a loaded transport accompanied by ONLY carrier(s) of the same nation in order to conduct an amphibious assault on Java

@Boldfresh:

either way, could you please clarify what is meant by the phrasing on page 32?  “Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines.”

This should read: “Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value.”

Good catch, Seth
You caught an error on page 32

Now all you have to do is get used to the fact that a carrier is adequate escort for a transport over an enemy sub  :-)  :wink:

Can you conduct an attack that will require air units to fly over Spain during noncombat movement in order to land (Gibraltar is the only possible landing zone and there are no alternate flight paths) during the same turn in which Spanish neutrality is broken (by an attack on Spain)?

I have seen answers about combat movement, but wasn’t clear about noncombat movement under these circumstances.

yes you can fly over in noncombat, just not in combat (unless it is to attack spain).

PG11

Once any formerly neutral territory becomes controlled by a major power, the rules regarding neutral territories no longer apply to it. It�s treated like any other territory, with the exception that it has no �original� controller (even if it was initially biased toward one side or the other).

PG11 as well

Air units can�t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it. When a neutral territory is invaded, it�s no longer considered neutral and immediately becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it.

Even an “unsuccessful” attack on Spain would have created a valid flight path for my bombers to land in Gibraltar. If it helps, think of it in naval terms. You have aircraft on carriers that range out to attack something even though on the combat phase there is a blocking fleet/unit that would prevent the carrier from picking up the aircraft. As long as you clear it or make the attempt to clear the blocking unit, said move is valid. I could have in theory just attacked Spain with an infantry and this would have been fine as Spain would have become axis and the restrictions governing movement over neutrals would no longer apply.

Basically I was covered whether I took Spain or not.

Right.  As soon as a neutral is attacked, it immediately joins the other side, which means that during the noncombat movement following the combat move that was the attack on said neutral, aircraft can freely fly over the attacked neutral (bad way to say it - actually, it is no longer neutral at all, because it was attacked.).  And then all powers from both sides can fly over that attacked neutral for the rest of the game.  It has joined one of the sides and is no longer neutral.

Unfortunately, Triple A does not track this.  You can do it with game notes or something.

You can NOT freely fly OVER the neutral during the combat movement phase that you are FIRST attacking that neutral for the very first time, as Bold said.

So the an attack requiring a NCM flyover can be executed so long as you know that when NCM starts it will become a flyover-able territory? (because it isn’t flyover-able when the attack is actually launched)

I believe you guys … just want to be sure I understand the mechanics since it seems like there is no flight valid flight path during the combat movement phase even if you know that one will exist after the combat movement phase.

It’s the same thing when you’re clearing a SZ so carriers can pick up the fighters/tacticals. And it’s the same thing when you buy a carrier to give your air a valid landing spot. In the combat move phase there’s not a current valid landing spot. But there will be once the carrier is built or the blocker is cleared and the carriers can move somewhere to pick up the roving air.

Ah, I see what you’re saying
Tricky…

Well, because you know for sure the flight path will be legal when the non-combat phase comes, it would be legal, yes.

I’ll look for something in the rule book about combat movement and planes to check the exact language again, for you.

Page 29 under air units

Paraphrasing,

That player just has to be able to demonstrate that there is a possible way for the aircraft to land safely at the end of the turn.  Page 30, this could include “a combination of combat moves”.

Since an attack on a neutral guarantees it will join the other side no matter the dice result, the aircraft would be able to fly over it in noncombat movement, so such combat movement is allowed.

PG29-30

You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. 30 This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier.

There’s more on PG30 about assuming the attack will succeed, following through with building the carrier or moving the carriers to pick up said aircraft, and such.

But I think the crucial wording here is ‘afterward’. You don’t need a current valid landing zone, you just need to demonstrate that the air will have a possible valid landing spot after the battles have been conducted. Since attacking the neutral means I will have a valid route to land regardless of whether Spain fell or not. But that’s just my reading of the rules and I’ve been wrong recently about the rules in a case where the words seemed to say one thing but really didn’t.

Thanks everyone … sorry I’m thick sometimes  :-D

@Gamerman01:

so such combat movement is allowed.

Hooray

@Gamerman01:

Ah, I see what you’re saying
Tricky…

Well, because you know for sure the flight path will be legal when the non-combat phase comes, it would be legal, yes.

I’ll look for something in the rule book about combat movement and planes to check the exact language again, for you.

I’m good for a trick or two every once in awhile.  :evil:

Now I just have to deal with the axis gaining all those neutrals.  :oops:

Yeah, you’re right on this one Seth

Like you, I also say pg 29-30 is a good explanation for this situation, that rules out any doubt.