Newbie question: convoys

From new A&A Europe Rule Book, reprint and purchased this week.
Page 30, last paragraph under Air Units: Air units can hit submarines only if a friendly destroyer is in the battle.
Page 32, Submarines: Unit Characteristics: Can’t Be Hit by Air Units: When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units can’t be assigned to submarines unless there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle.
Page 32, Destroyers: Unit Characteristics: last paragraph … cancels the following characteristics of all enemy submarines in that battle: Surprise Strike, Submersible, and Can’t Be Hit by Air Units. …

@otahere34:

This is off subject but has to do with the fact of the U.S. building a minor IC in korea. Can they move within striking distence of that when there not at war even though Japan can not end movement withing 2 zones of alaska or the western U.S.?

Yes.  The United States is only prohibited from being next to Japanese soil in the Pacific.  If they want to leave their fleet next to SZ 6, but not in SZ 6, they may do so.

@Zallomallo:

@Zcion:

Quick clarification:

in before mentioned case, UK income 8+5 from NO, 4 ger subs in sz109 and 1 in sz119.
would uk loose 8 or 10 ipc due to convoy disruption?

afaik you cant convoy disrup NO?

many thx
Zcion

Correct, disruption is capped by the surrounding territories’ income.

Well, it’s capped by the total value of each convoy zone’s adjacent spaces, which can technically exceed income collected from those territories.  But you’re correct in that disruption does not affect National Objectives or at least does not affect the 40 on West US.

However, I’m not certain of the timing of convoy vs objectives and whether convoy disruption affects total income after objectives are collected.  Convoys can only affect values of territories, but since they can exceed income you’d collect from territories (by the double dips similar to 109/119), I don’t know whether than can dig a little into objectives.  Based on the Pac40 west US errata, it would seem no but this is not specifically addressed by the errata, which clarified that WUS was not worth 40, it was only worth 10, and could only be blocked up to 10.

So, as long as britain is making an additional 2 ipcs income through other territories, if sz109 and sz119 are fully blocked, Britain will lose 10 ipcs (8 for 109 and 2 for 119).  If Britain is making less than 10 IPCs in income before national objectives, they collect 0 for those their territorial income, and then collect national objective ipcs.

However, it’s VERY rare indeed that the UK does not still collect from an african or canadian territory that would put its territorial income over 10, in which case, if sc109 and 119 are fully blocked, they lose 10 IPCS.

You need a poll to vote guys, cmon get it together.

@Peck:

Does a sea zone have to be uncontested for a convoy disruption to work?  Japan sub beside java (uk owned) uk rolls in a crusier to kill the sub,  sub submerges.  Does the sub still cause a convoy disruption?

A seazone does not need to be uncontested - the simple presence of an enemy ship disrupts the convoy, even if friendly ships are in the same seazone.  If the allies has a ship in SZ6 at the mobilize units phase of Japan’s turn, Japan could not prevent the disruption in any way, even if they placed a far numerically superior force.  If there’s an enemy ship, it disrupts - end of story.

“Submerging” has no impact on any game phase beyond the combat phase - it is ONLY an ability of the submarine to disengage from the battle and remain in the same seazone.  The only time submarines can “submerge” is during combat and after combat is over, submarines are no longer considered submerged.  It is simply a retreat mechanism, it does not exist in any manner outside of the conduct combat phase.

@Razor:

It sure dont work that way in the Pacific, if Japan attack neutral DEI, then Japan is suddenly at war with everybody, even neutral USA.

Not immediately.  Japan is only at war with UK/ANZAC.  The US is allowed to declare war on Japan on its next turn.  The same thing applies here.  If Italy declares war on the USSR, the USSR is allowed to declare war on Germany on its next turn, but it is not immediately at war with Germany.

@Razor:

And if it was the other way around, that Russia attacked Italy, then I am pretty sure that Russia would automatically be at war with Germany also.

No, but Germany could declare war on the USSR on its next turn.

@Razor:

If Italy attack USA, is only Italy at war with USA then ? Germany is not ?

Correct.  However, either Germany or USA may declare war on the other on their next turn.

@Krieghund:

@moralecheck:

Really??  Scratches head Nova edition maybe??

Nope.

Well then…I’m off to edit Wikipedia.  :-D

It goes to the European economy.