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

The only one I’m aware of, maverick, is the one Krieghund previously identified when we asked about it -

Page 32, bottom, under transports
You should strike the clause that says “, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines”

This was a partial sentence from before that was saying something else - anyway, it should be struck, per Krieghund

Again, I don’t know of any typos or misprints anywhere else - the rule books are very dependable.

Awesome!

Now just gotta get setup cards made for my 1st. ed. game.

That’s already been done, I think.  Look over the sticked threads in the G40 section
A Bob Mickelson did some fancy set up cards you can print out, and there are some threads about Minor Threat’s set up cards….

Anyway, thought I might help keep you from having to “re-invent the wheel”

Thanks, will do.  :-D

Okay, I am away from home atm, and that means I don’t have my rulebooks and sorry, but I hate reading from pdfs.

I seem to recall that American warships could not dock near Japanese islands before America and Japan were formerly at war.  Was that repealed or am I misremembering that rule?  (coming up because of American aggression in my game with Karl7. :P  )

@Cmdr:

Okay, I am away from home atm, and that means I don’t have my rulebooks and sorry, but I hate reading from pdfs.

I seem to recall that American warships could not dock near Japanese islands before America and Japan were formerly at war.  Was that repealed or am I misremembering that rule?  (coming up because of American aggression in my game with Karl7. :P  )

That is correct, AND American warships can’t end movement by ANY Japanese controlled territory, so it’s not just islands.

Z37 is a significant one.  Siam prevents USA from stopping movement in Z37.

Japan can’t get within 2 spaces of Alaska or WUS until at war

You should note that Triple A does not enforce the “No USA warships in Z37 until at war” rule, but Z37 is in fact off limits for USA until at war.

Yea, I was clear on Japan’s restrictions but I am glad to get confirmation that the US is still barred from docking near Japanese territories. (in this case it’s SZ 17 (Iwo Jima))

Just found out that Chinese forces can enter Burma and Kwangtung at any time even if UK is not at war with Japan.  This prompted the question:  Could Japan target only the Chinese forces in Burma and ingnore any UK troops? Similar to how naval battles can be.  My answer was no but an official “no” or “yes” would be great.  Thanks a bunch.  The fate of the world hangs in the balance!!! :-D

@majikforce:

Just found out that Chinese forces can enter Burma and Kwangtung at any time even if UK is not at war with Japan.  This prompted the question:  Could Japan target only the Chinese forces in Burma and ingnore any UK troops? Similar to how naval battles can be.  My answer was no but an official “no” or “yes” would be great.  Thanks a bunch.  The fate of the world hangs in the balance!!! :-D

NO.

On land, you must be at war with all powers that have units there.  For example, Russia can’t invade Romania when there is an Italian tank there (along with a German stack, say) without being at war with Italy.  Also, you are invading a UK territory, so Japan would always have to declare war on the UK to get at Kwangtung/Burma.

It is ONLY at sea that you can ignore units of powers with which you are at war and attack others.  If you need, I can point you to it in the rulebook, otherwise I won’t bother.

@Gamerman01:

@majikforce:

Just found out that Chinese forces can enter Burma and Kwangtung at any time even if UK is not at war with Japan.  This prompted the question:  Could Japan target only the Chinese forces in Burma and ingnore any UK troops? Similar to how naval battles can be.  My answer was no but an official “no” or “yes” would be great.  Thanks a bunch.  The fate of the world hangs in the balance!!! :-D

NO.

On land, you must be at war with all powers that have units there.  For example, Russia can’t invade Romania when there is an Italian tank there (along with a German stack, say) without being at war with Italy.  Also, you are invading a UK territory, so Japan would always have to declare war on the UK to get at Kwangtung/Burma.

It is ONLY at sea that you can ignore units of powers with which you are at war and attack others.  If you need, I can point you to it in the rulebook, otherwise I won’t bother.

Great news and thanks for the quick response Gamerman!  That answer will suffice.  Game on!

Where’s the bit of rules in second edition where subs can block an amphibious assault?  I’ve tried searching these forums and other places but it’s hard to get quotes for specifically Global rules.

Afternoon TheMaster.
If you mean a Sub preventing an amphibious assault by an unescorted Transport, then it is on page 15 of Pacific, under Transports.
That is the only occasion they can do that.
Is that what you meant?

Yes, that’s it exactly.  We scoured Europe 2nd Ed. but not Pacific, lol…

Does a german bomber in original chinesse territory prevent China from taking it back.

@ErwinRommel:

Does a german bomber in original chinesse territory prevent China from taking it back.

China can’t declare war on a European Axis power unless
one of those powers first either declares war on China or moves units into a territory into which Chinese units are allowed to
move.

Page 38 Pacific 1940 2nd Edition Rule Book.

SITUATION:

-A Japanese navy sits off of Hawaii.  (1 battleship, 1 loaded transport, 1 dst, 2 acc, 4 fgt)
-Japan sends the fighters and the transport to attack forces in Western United States. Leaving it’s carriers in the Hawaiiaan sea zone.
-Japan also uses transports off Japan, to amphibiously assault Hawaii.
-Hawaii is defended by two fighters.

The question is this…
1. Can Japan attack Western USA with fighters, knowing that should the americans scramble at hawaii the japanese carriers ‘may’ be involved in combat, and unable to provide a landing zone?

The issue is that by leaving the carriers in the hawaiin sea zone, it significantly discourages the Americans from scrambling (because they are unlikely to win). In a sense, the Japanese have committed their carriers to an amphibious operation, and are benefitting from two committments.  Of course… if there is no scramble, there is no problem.

My understanding is that this move is entirely valid.  Based on the rule that as long as there is a “possibility” of landing, the Japanese aircraft can attack WUSA.

And of course… if I’m the Americans, I’m likely to scramble 1 fighter, to prevent a bombard, and ensure the death of all 4 fighters sent to WUS.

Right.  Because the scramble is not a sure thing when doing the combat move, the combat move of fighters to WUS is valid.

The reason is that if the defender does not scramble at Hawaii, then the carriers are free to go to zone 10 to pick them up.
Like you said, you just have to demonstrate that it’s possible to pick up surviving aircraft.

Sub Clarification please.

A sub can retreat from a battle, which takes place at the end of a combat round? Regardless of a destroyer present.

A sub can submerge in a battle, which takes place at the beginning of a round of combat?  Cannot if a destroyer is present.

Is this correct?

Also, can air force ever retreat separately from a battle?  Thought i read that somewhere.  And i know amphibious assault troops cannot retreat.  what about accompanying forces that didnt arrive by boat?  thanks!!