ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC

ANZAC or UK may land planes on any Dutch territory. However that does not take control of the territory for the Power that landed planes there. A land unit, not AA, is required to take control of a Dutch territory.

@Burgh-Gamer-67 said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

Need help to clarify this rule…1st Edition says “Units” 2nd Edition says “Land Units” on the non combat phase can Anzac take control and land planes there? Any help much appreciated

A specific exemption in the rules allows ANZAC to land planes in Dutch territories, even without landing forces to take control of the territory or on the same turn as land forces have taken control of the territory. This exception only applies to ANZAC.

Marsh

@Marshmallow-of-War said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

This exception only applies to ANZAC.

Actually that is not correct. UK has the same rule. Pacific 1940 2nd Edition Rulebook… Page 38 for UK and Page 39 for ANZAC.

UK Page 38 - It may, however, move units into Dutch territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as those territories have not been captured by an Axis power. It may actually take control of Dutch territories (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them. Additionally, the United Kingdom considers attacks against any Dutch territories to be acts of war against it directly.

ANZAC page 39 - It may, however, move units into Dutch territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as those territories have not been captured by an Axis power. It may actually take control of Dutch territories (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them. Additionally, ANZAC considers attacks against any Dutch territories to be acts of war against it directly.

@AndrewAAGamer Yep, I totally forgot that option, probably because UK Pacific rarely sends planes east. I wonder if there’s some potential play as an oob defense sending UK planes and troops to ANZAC to allow more time for the Allies to get to Europe…

@Burgh-Gamer-67 said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

Need help to clarify this rule…1st Edition says “Units” 2nd Edition says “Land Units” on the non combat phase can Anzac take control and land planes there? Any help much appreciated

This is amended in the 1st Edition FAQ:

These two powers also have an arrangement with the Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch territories in the Pacific. As a result, they are free to move units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan. They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them.

Keep in mind that the Dutch East Indies are not the only territories that this can happen. A previously-attacked-but-uncaptured pro-Axis/Allies neutral could also be valid landing spot for its faction.
Example: UK attacks Pro-Axis Iraq but loses or retreats. Italy then reinforces Iraq with only aircraft. Italy still could not take control of Iraq with only aircraft, paralleling UK/ANZAC DEI scenario.

@Colt45554 Technically this is not true. A previously-attacked pro-neutral that holds out joins the side for which it’s pro and is no longer neutral. It does not give its IPCs to to any power in its alliance until one of them lands troops during non-combat movement, but all of its allied powers can then land planes there.

This has come up several times in failed attacks on Iraq – Iraq then becomes an Axis power and is no longer a pro-Axis neutral. This creates interesting opportunities for the Axis to stage air power in the Middle East, which could wind up wrecking Allied efforts to save the Mediterranean or India.

In this case it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, but isn’t a duck anymore…

Marsh

@AndrewAAGamer
AA units can take control of a neutral

@seancb said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

@AndrewAAGamer
AA units can take control of a neutral

No they cannot. I realize TripleA lets you do it so it is an easy mistake to make but if you check the notes section it details all the official rules that the game engine is incapable of handling. This is one of them.

The big five I normally see people do that are illegal moves are:

• Not recovering a plane via a carrier and letting it splash
• Fly over and past a Neutral that has not been previously attacked
• Blitzing through or moving past a Neutral the same Turn it was controlled
• Taking a Neutral with an AA gun
• Using a transport both in the Non-combat Phase and again in the Combat Phase.

@AndrewAAGamer
It says nothing about an AA gun being unable to activate a neutral in the rule book I looked everywhere

@seancb said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

@AndrewAAGamer
It says nothing about an AA gun being unable to activate a neutral in the rule book I looked everywhere

@seancb You are correct. It is not in the Rulebook. It is in the FAQ. It is also listed on this website here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/20494/mongolia-and-neutrals-rules-summarized-here

@AndrewAAGamer
That is someone’s “made up” FAQ. We are like attorneys in our group. If its not in the rule book, it is either not permitted or permitted depending on the circumstance!!!

Wow - tough. Here it is from the FAQ

Axis & Allies Europe 1940 FAQ - September 3, 2014

Q. Can I activate a friendly neutral territory by moving an antiaircraft gun into it?
A. No. You must move a land unit with an attack value into the territory.

@seancb said in ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC:

@AndrewAAGamer
That is someone’s “made up” FAQ. We are like attorneys in our group. If its not in the rule book, it is either not permitted or permitted depending on the circumstance!!!

That’s a really odd stance to take. Andrew’s link is to Gamerman’s thread, who has the tag “Official Answers”. That means ->“This group of individuals provide answers to the game that should be considered the official out of the box rules answers.”

I don’t know the exact relationship of this site’s top dogs but I know they have frequently corresponded with Larry Harris over the years.

It is not just “someone’s” made-up FAQ. The answers and clarifications can be considered an addendum to the G40 2E rule books.

It’s fine if you want to play lawyers and pause the game with your group to scour the rule book to find answers that may or may not be there but the users of these forums recognize the legitimacy of official answers.
It’s a rather large rule book; you really think Larry would either be perfect or not allow clarifications on what should have been added?

since every one wants to argue about it I’ll channel my inner Curtmungus and continue to make everyone angry and make a sad attempt at trolling the so called “rule freaks”.
We’ll just say this one time for the wimps in their basement.
Our reasoning is similar to lending that friendly power the ability to defend itself if attacked. Therefore they are joining the fight due you giving them arms which they didn’t have. You guys can play your way and we’ll play ours. Carry on.

one more thing
we started playing with that ability when the game came out. Not when some “FAQ” came out. To be honest, it’s not really a “frequently asked” question to us.

@seancb Whatever. Thanks for wasting my time when I was trying to help you.

For those that really care, like @Burgh-Gamer-67, and who want to play the game by the official rules an AA gun does not take control of a neutral. Nuff said…

Does it really matter to anyone? No. The point is have fun and use your imagination as we have.