Some couple of questions

1: All planes are cargo on defense and will be sunk if the carrier is destroyed.

2: Refute to number 1, planes are cargo.

3: I am kind of confused about this question. I am thinking you’re asking if you attack and then try to move the same fighter to a carrier? Should the fighter get destroyed, nothing else matters.

4: Scramble should have nothing to do with enemy capturing territory because if you’re scrambling, you’re trying to protect your navy which sea battles always go BEFORE land battles.

5: If you move a fleet with transports into a battle, if you have to retreat, you need at least another naval unit in order to retreat as if you have ONLY transports, they have an attack of zero so they are automatically destroyed.

6: Yes, as long as the enemy fleet has no destroyers in play, you can pull submarines out at any combat turn you please. It’s a perk of buying submarines.

7: So picture Dutch territories as a nation that lost their capital ironically though, they have no capital to play so let’s say you capture whatever territory would have their capital, they have “no nation or military” to return to play. The rules for Dutch territories are simply, they are allies so any nation can land aircraft on it, however in order to “capture” the territory, you have to place land units on it however the US has a unique rule in this, the US cannot take Dutch territories if they are at peace with Japan. From my understanding, they are allowed to land forces on them, but cannot take control until Japan and US are at war.

these questions are not all clear, and are perhaps explained in FAQ.

1.

Air Defense: Whenever an undamaged carrier is attacked, its aircraft (even those belonging to friendly powers) are considered
to be defending in the air and fight normally, even if only submarines are attacking and the air units cannot hit them because
there is no defending destroyer

and

Combat: […] If a power at war attacks a
sea zone containing units belonging to
both a power with which it’s already at
war and a power with which it’s not at
war, the latter power’s units are ignored.
Those units won’t participate in the
battle in any way, and a state of war with
that power will not result.

I would therefore guess that the planes take off, and can land in any friendly zone next to the combat. but I am not certain in any way

2.
The planes are definitely allowed to use one move to find a landingspot. it is even given as an example in the rules.

3. Only defending fighters gets the “extra” move to find a landingspot. If your fighter have used its 4 moves, it is done. However, your AC has to try to save your fighters if the can.

4. As I understand it, your scrambled planes have 1 move from the seazone they scrambled from, not from the landzone where the AB was.

5. The transports can retreat. Any transports that are hit in the first round of combat dies tho. So, if you are attacking with 3 ships and 5 TTs and the defender gets 4 hits on you. You will kill all three ships and 1 TT, the final 4 retreats.

6. Yes

7. They are like Pro allied with benefits. The benefit being that you can land Airunits there without having activated them yet. The other benefit, is that if Japan attacks them, they are at war with UK and US can declare war on Japan.

1. Kreuzfeld is correct.

2. ShadowHawk and Kreuzfeld are correct.

3. ShadowHawk and Kreuzfeld are correct.

4. Kreuzfeld is correct.

5. ShadowHawk and Kreuzfeld are correct.

6. Everyone got this one right.

7. No one quite got this one.  The Dutch territories are treated in the same manner as those of an Allied power whose capital is held by the enemy, but there is one exception.  UK and ANZAC are allowed to take control of them peacefully (with land units in noncombat movement), which is normally not allowed.  Other Allied powers may move units there, but may only take control of them by recapturing them from an Axis power.

@ShadowHAwk:

Not sure if you can actualy do this as planes of a neutral coutry cannot land on any other countries carriers.
What scenario do you have in mind where this can actualy happen?

While air units of a neutral power can’t land on another power’s carrier, it’s possible that a power could be at war with some enemy powers (and thus not neutral), but not the power that’s actually attacking.

@RedIndian:

Ok I got it. But not for the “Scramble-Rule”

Let’s say GB is attacked by Germany in Seazone 110 and decides to scramble. GB wins this battle, so the fighter will be back in the UK in the Non-Combat Move?
But Germany invades UK from Seazone 109 and wins the battle. So UK is captured by Germany in the Combat-Move and the scrambled fighter in seazone 110 can’t land in UK anymore. So where does it move from one space. From Seazone 110 or from the captured UK?

Or did I get it wrong and the scrambled fighter has already to land directly after the seabattle in 110. So it is already in UK when Germany invades the UK but it can’t participate in this battle, 'cause it has already done in 110?

Willkommen bei uns, RedIndian :-)

@rulebook:

After all combat is completed, each surviving scrambled
air unit must return to the territory from which it was
scrambled. If the enemy has captured that territory, the
unit can move 1 space to land in a friendly territory or
on a friendly aircraft carrier. If no such landing space is
available, the unit is lost. Surviving scrambled air units
land during that turn’s Noncombat Move phase, before
the attacker makes any movements.

So in your example, the scrambled figther returns at the very beginning of the attacker’s noncombat movement phase. The fighter is still at SZ 110 at that moment. As he cannot land on the airbase that he came from, he has a move of 1 space to land, starting from that seazone.

HTH :-)

@RedIndian:

(arent’t you at DAAK, too? I guess I know you from that page)

No, that must be someone else.

@RedIndian:

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Well, 100%, as my answer is based just on the rules.

@RedIndian:

Some other questions:

1. All troops have to retreat into the same seazone or land, right? (At least only to those places that one ship or landunit attacked from)

Correct.

@RedIndian:

2. Can I reatreat alhtough I’ve won the battle? No, right? (The purpose is to clear the land free of enemies troops, so that another allied can capture it in his round)

When you have won, the battle is over. The attacker may retreat as long as he faces a valid enemy target (at the earliest after the first round of combat).

@RedIndian:

3. Since all attacks happen at the same time, there is no chance to prevent your enemy/oponent from scrambling in the same turn by doing SBRs on his airfields, right?

Almost correct. Scrambling takes place at the end of the attacker’s Combat Move Phase. SBR takes place in the following Conduct Combat Phase

@RedIndian:

4. Latest update: I’m quite confused. Is there a new one? Thought in global 1940 2nd ed alpha +3 (latest?) only 1 British Inf in Egypt , not 2 !?

Alpha+3 has been a predecessor of 2nd. Edition rules. The latest ruleset is the 2nd Ed. Ruleset.

HTH :-)

@RedIndian:

Ok here are another 3 :D

1. Convoy:

Example:
India captures French-Indo-China from Japan. Japan has surface warships in seazone 36. So is there a convoy-disruption taking place by the collect income phase of the Indian player (or GB Pacific)? Or not, 'cause it has been captured in this turn. So it is too early for taking this step?

In general: If you take control of an enemy territory (with min value of 1) that is adjacent to a seazone , that has a convoy symbol and it contains surface warships of your opponent, will there be a convoy disruption by the collect income phase of the player which just captured this territory in this turn?

Convoy disruptions take place when the three conditions (rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 23) are met, during the Collect Income Phase. Controlling the territory determines one of the conditions (regardless of the point in the past when it had been taken).

@RedIndian:

2. USA : (US in first 3 rounds when not at war)

Beside the “No-China-Rule”
Are any ships and airplanes of the US allowed to go through seazones which are adjacent to Japan controlled islands? Yes, aren’t they? Unless they don’t park there/ end the movment adjacent to a Japan controlled island or territory, right?

Correct, “while it’s not at war with Japan, the United States may not move any units into or through China or end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japan-controlled territories” is the respective phrase in the Pacific 1940.2 rulebook, page 37.

@RedIndian:

3. USSR (first 3 rounds when not at war)

Is the USSR-player allowed to move landtroops into Northwest Persia during his nom-combat-move when he is neutral/not at war?
No, 'cause as a neutral nation, he is only allowed to do at war, right? (Distinction between Europe & Pacific map)

In general: Is any nation allowed to take controll of a friendly neutral territory in his non-combat-move?
No! Only if this nation is in a state of war, right?

Correct, as per page 9 of the (Pacific 1940.2) rulebook: “…However, a power that is at war may move land units into (but not through) a friendly neutral as a noncombat move…”

HTH :-)

@Caesar:

1: All planes are cargo on defense and will be sunk if the carrier is destroyed.

All planes are cargo on attack, not defense. Allied fighters on a different nation’s carrier participate in defense.

@P@nther:

@RedIndian:

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Well, 100%, as my answer is based just on the rules.

Well, Krieghund said you have to move from the seazone. He is a playtester, so when he says it, it is correct.

@Kreuzfeld:

@P@nther:

@RedIndian:

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Well, 100%, as my answer is based just on the rules.

Well, Krieghund said you have to move from the seazone. He is a playtester, so when he says it, it is correct.

Indeed, and when the questioner after that has a follow up question it is my standard not to answer with a simple “because Krieghund said so”, but to additionally deeper explain and prove the issue by the rules. Sometimes people want to learn about the background of a ruling.

@P@nther:

@Kreuzfeld:

@P@nther:

@RedIndian:

Ok. I thought it has to move from UK not from the seazone.

So are you 100% sure about this? 'Cause this point was very discussed in my last playing round.

Well, 100%, as my answer is based just on the rules.

Well, Krieghund said you have to move from the seazone. He is a playtester, so when he says it, it is correct.

Indeed, and when the questioner after that has a follow up question it is my standard not to answer with a simple “because Krieghund said so”, but to additionally deeper explain and prove the issue by the rules. Sometimes people want to learn about the background of a ruling.

I see that, and I would do the same. However, I just discovered that reading the rules in the only logical way did not give the correct answer because “Krieg said so”. If you remember the thread where we talked about intentionally building too many troops, so you could chose what you wanted to place later.

@Kreuzfeld:

However, I just discovered that reading the rules in the only logical way did not give the correct answer …

I don’t agree here. Given from what I quoted and additionally explained here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40076.msg1672764#msg1672764
to me the answer is obvious simply from the rules. There is absolutely nothing in the rules covering the “1 space from the airbase - interpretation” IMHO, though questioning/discussing it is absolutely fine, of course. So my answer has been based on what is written in the rules and not on what could be read into the rules (that is not there). Pretty logical, IMHO. If you (or anybody) don’t read it this way - great - let’s discuss it. That is what we rules-guys are here for. We all learn from those discussions and thus improve the game.

I consider it most important that the questioner at the end of the discussion accepts and understands the result - whatever is needed to achieve both is fine.
I know we have no dissent on this.

So many rules have been discussed in the past, especially during the development towards 1940.2. As the rules/FAQs are written down now, this is also a result of this discussion process. Personally I am optimistic, that there are only very few issues that are not covered by the rules/FAQ and need or needed a ruling.
But the interpretation of words will always lead to discussions - and that’s just fine.

@P@nther
I was thinking about the whole buying and switching thread, and was trying to be coy about it :)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39954.15

If I am being serious, When it comes to rules, I believe in playing the rules as written, not intended. That is how laws work, that is how rules should work. If the rules are wrong, they should be amended in an errata, maybe in an FAQ, and certainly not in a random post in a random forum thread. Reading and arguing about intent of rules just lead to a mess in my experience. People will tend to understand the rules as is best for them, without realizing that is what they are doing. People will not remember what their position was last time the rare situation came up.