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

Unfortunately, Wizards gave your friend an incorrect answer.  No neutral power may move units into or through neutral territories or territories belonging to another power.  See page 15 of the Europe Rulebook.

I knew they did, that is why I posted here.  Thanks for the quick response.

It is not the first time  Wizards has  made mistakes. This is the best place for answers, Cond1024, as I am sure you know.

sub transport with 2 inf dropping on island, island defended by 1 sub. Does the sub deny my landing? Do we fight it out (he can submerge thus my landing goes or fight it out and win/lose thus possibly deny landing? How does t his work?

The sub allows you to land with the transport during the combat movement phase
A warship (sub qualifies) escorting the transport allows the transport to work over the enemy sub

No combat takes place unless you declare that you are attacking the sub.  Then the defender could choose to fight or submerge

I buy naval units including a carrier to place them into a hostile sea zone. May I ncm existing planes there knowing that they can land?

@V.:

I buy naval units including a carrier to place them into a hostile sea zone. May I ncm existing planes there knowing that they can land?

Welcome to the forum, V. Manstein.

Yes, you may do that:

@rulebook:

A fighter or tactical bomber can land in a sea zone (even a
hostile one) that is adjacent to an industrial complex you own
if you will be mobilizing an aircraft carrier that you previously
purchased in that zone during the Mobilize New Units phase.

HTH :-)

Germany Dows Russia, can germany load on to transports with cruiser contesting the water?

I am sure I can load and offload the round I dow, but if I start doing J2 or J3 dows again for whatever reason, I need the link for new players to show or a quote with page number for rules.

@Cow:

I am sure I can load and offload the round I dow, but if I start doing J2 or J3 dows again for whatever reason, I need the link for new players to show or a quote with page number for rules.

Page 12, Europe rulebook, in the Declaring War box:
“During your Combat Move phase in which you entered into a state of war, your transports that are already in sea zones that have just become hostile may be loaded in those sea zones (but not in other hostile sea zones). In effect, transports may be loaded in their initial sea zones for amphibious assaults before war is declared, while the sea zone is still friendly.”

@simon33:

There is no reason for ANZAC to DOW on Japan other than to exploit this loophole. Therefore, I submit that removing ANZAC’s ability to DOW on Japan would be perfectly reasonable and remove a loophole.

Spent a few hours driving today and realised all you need to do is remove the link when ANZAC DOWs to the UK. i.e. if ANZAC DOWs, the UK is not at war with Japan. There are reasons why you might want to keep the link if Japan does a DOW - if there’s a mixed fleet. It matters little if you keep or remove the link for the UK.

Yeah there is a reason for the link.  Basically all politics of the UK and ANZAC are linked, so it’s simple that way (no exceptions to track).

You could always house rule that if one declares war on Japan unprovoked that that is an exception to the link, if you hate the loophole possibility

Can a tactical bomber be sent on a SBR when it cannot do any damage?
Does it participate in the dogfight?
Is it exposed to the AAA?

Context: Japan keeps sending 1 tactical bomber + 1 strategic bomber to India, which is defended by 2 fighters. Every time the strategic bomber bombs the factory and the tactical bomber bombs the airport/harbour (the TAC is sent along in the SBR to provide an escort during the dogfight). At some point, the airport&harbour both have 6 damage. Can the tactical bomber still be sent to India?

@Ozymandiac:

Can a tactical bomber be sent on a SBR when it cannot do any damage?

Yes, technically it bombs the ruins but the additional damage cannot be assigned.

@Ozymandiac:

Does it participate in the dogfight?

Yes, as an attacking bomber (not as “escort”, only fighters can escort).

@Ozymandiac:

Is it exposed to the AAA?

Yes, every attacking bomber surviving the dogfight is subject to the AA-fire of the facility it attacks (other than fighter escorts).
The self-defense antiaircraft ability of the facility is not affected by damage.

@Ozymandiac:

Context: Japan keeps sending 1 tactical bomber + 1 strategic bomber to India, which is defended by 2 fighters. Every time the strategic bomber bombs the factory and the tactical bomber bombs the airport/harbour (the TAC is sent along in the SBR to provide an escort during the dogfight). At some point, the airport&harbour both have 6 damage. Can the tactical bomber still be sent to India?

Yes. There is nothing in the rules that prevents bombers from bombing damaged (to whatever extent) facilities … but damage exceeding the limits is not applied.

HTH :-)

If a facility is fully damaged, I would imagine that is possible but if there is no harbour or airfield I wouldn’t think that was legal.

Thanks Panther & Simon!  :-) I haven’t seen it happen yet, but one of our games is getting close to this situation.

@simon33:

… but if there is no harbour or airfield I wouldn’t think that was legal.

Indeed, as in this scenario the tactical bomber can’t SBR (it can only bomb air bases and naval bases).

I can confirm P@nther’s answer, as Krieghund has in the past affirmed that it is legal to send tacticals even when the bases are bombed out

Hi Krieg, I have not so much a rules question but an interest to know why a rule is the way it is… i.e. I want to know the reason for the rule.

The rule as quoted from the rule book:

It can also remain at sea with
the cargo still aboard (but only if the cargo remaining
aboard was loaded in a previous turn, was loaded this
turn in the Noncombat Move phase, or was loaded this
turn for an amphibious assault from which the transport
retreated).

What is the thinking requiring a transport making an amphib attack to unload all its cargo?  Like, if in attack mode it has to go all in?  I don’t really think that makes sense.  I am sure we could find historical examples of troops held back on the ships while others were sent crashing on the beaches.

Is there some janky game anomaly that arises if an attacker holds back some of the transported units?

Or is the reason as simple as keeping the combat/non-combat move distinction as clean as can be, i.e. all units making combat moves must attack?

Just curious.

@Karl7:

Or is the reason as simple as keeping the combat/non-combat move distinction as clean as can be, i.e. all units making combat moves must attack?

This.  If you want units to remain at sea until after the combat, they should be moved in noncombat movement.