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

Can Japan build a major in Kiangsu or Manchuria?

Afternoon ghr2.
Afraid not. It is considered Chinese originally owned territory, only occupied by Japan.

People at gencon were saying that in global 40 2nd edition, that Japan was allowed to do that.

I remember Krieg saying they could not, as I always thought they could.
Wait on Him or Gamerman then.
Hope you had fun incidentally.

No, Japan definitely cannot build a major in Manchuria or Kiangsu because they are considered originally Chinese territories.  I know Krieghund has said the same.

It must be an originally Japanese territory, as in, yellow on the game board.

Korea is the only eligible site for a Japanese major in 2nd edition.

I’m not quite sure how to find this in a 67 page FAQ, so maybe it has been asked before. But for the purpose of retreat, does a transport constitute an ‘attacking unit’? So if I enter some fighting naval units into combat from one sea zone, and add a transport to it arriving from a different sea zone, could I then, after a round of combat, retreat all units towards where the transport came from?

@Herr:

I’m not quite sure how to find this in a 67 page FAQ, so maybe it has been asked before. But for the purpose of retreat, does a transport constitute an ‘attacking unit’? So if I enter some fighting naval units into combat from one sea zone, and add a transport to it arriving from a different sea zone, could I then, after a round of combat, retreat all units towards where the transport came from?

Yes, you can.
You must only have at least 1 unit with attack value (so something besides a transport or a carrier) come from SOMEwhere.  You CAN establish new retreat routes with transports.

Excellent question - I asked this same question of Krieghund several months ago  :wink:
I know, if you don’t have the search function, it’s tedious to find your question in the FAQ thread.  If you have the search function (apparently not everyone does), it’s on your menu bar.  
“Home, Help, Search, Profile, My messages, members, chat, logout”

Thank you! And nope… no Search for me…  :-(

Is this the correct order of operation for the combat section of the turn:
1. make all combat moves
2. declare scrambles
3. start rolling battles

so you cant change the forces in a combat after a declared scramble because you realized you are sol?

@Gamerman01:

Sequence of events:
Combat move phase: Player moves bombers and escorts to target territories
End of combat move phase: Defender makes scrambling decisions
After combat move phase and before conduct combat phase: Defender must make intercept decisions
Beginning of conduct combat phase: Defender makes kamikaze decisions
Conduct combat phase: Player has option to roll all SBR’s and then all rockets, or all rockets and then all SBRs.  All rocket targets must be selected before rolling any rocket dice.  Specific facility targets for SBRs are not chosen until AFTER ANY AIR BATTLES with interceptors are complete.

So yes, majik, Scramble decisions are made after all combat movement is complete.  After the scramble decision(s), no combat moves may be changed.

Ok here is a good one for you guys:

Can i attack a fleet with a sub to demonstrate that I have a “chance” of giving my planes a valid landing spot, only to submerge the sub saving it to fight another day in combat.

@ErwinRommel:

Ok here is a good one for you guys:

Can i attack a fleet with a sub to demonstrate that I have a “chance” of giving my planes a valid landing spot, only to submerge the sub saving it to fight another day in combat.

Yes, I’m pretty sure I remember Krieghund saying you could actually submerge it (to make the flight plan legal).

The only part I can’t remember for sure is if you have to go a round with the sub or if you can submerge it immediately.

You have to fight one round.

So I’m facing many enemy controlled territories that were left empty, and I’m about to blitz with 1 tank and 1 mechanized infantry using the combined forces rule. They take the first territory together, but can they split to take 2 more territories separately, or must they end their movement together in the same territory?

They have to end their movement together Young Grasshopper, if they start together. They cannot split up to take two more Tts. See page 26 of Pacific.

A question about the Russian-Japan pact.  Turn 1 japan attacks Amur thus nullifying the treaty Japan also attacked the Mongolian territory with 2 Inf on it.  Can you do this and not trigger the neutral rules since it states that after the Japanese combat movement phase those Mongolian territories place Russian troops there if Amur is attacked?

Victory conditions.  Say Japan takes their sixth victory city during their turn.  Game is won when?  At the end of Japans turn or at the beginning of Japans next turn if they still have all six cities?

At the end of their next turn.
In the intervening time , they cannot drop down to five VP Cities or they will not win.

@majikforce:

A question about the Russian-Japan pact.  Turn 1 japan attacks Amur thus nullifying the treaty Japan also attacked the Mongolian territory with 2 Inf on it.  Can you do this and not trigger the neutral rules since it states that after the Japanese combat movement phase those Mongolian territories place Russian troops there if Amur is attacked?

You are correct.  Japan can NOT attack Amur and any Mongolian territory in the same turn without making all the true neutrals in the world go pro-Allies

2nd Edition says: Mongolia will only become pro-Axis if attacked by the USSR.

So if the UK attacks Mongolia, Mongolia does nothing?  Just sits there even if such an attack flips all the other neutrals?

I looked at the FAQ and I didn’t see a clarification.