@DoManMacgee said in AAZ Rule Question: getting the 1 infantry bonus:
I think “Liberate” is referring to the game term where a country reclaims the territory of an ally from an enemy power (and removing their Control Marker).
Yes, that’s true, but I believe that the intent of the card is that you get the extra unit whether you liberate or capture the territory, as this is how the bonus infantry rule is written. I have submitted this for the FAQ, but for now I’d just play it as written.
The only restriction on Chinese movement is that Land Units may not move by sea.
@Cernel said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:
However, if you tell me that the cargo also participates in combat, why cannot I load a transport and send the transport in combat deliberately keeping the cargo on board in Revised OOB?
I don’t believe there’s any rule that would prevent that.
Because the transported land units are only passively participating in the sea combat. To qualify for loading in combat movement, they must be intended for active participation in an amphibious assault.
I know that is not a problem for Revised LHTR because it is clearly stated that
A transport may only end its combat move still carrying land units if it retreats from a sea combat in the intended offloading sea zone or if those units were already aboard at the beginning of theturn.
(beside the fact that I believe that this sentence is not very clear (unless I’m misunderstanding something) because a transport can also end its combat move still carrying land units if it is planning an amphibious assault from a hostile sea zone because those units would not actually leave the transport before the conduct combat phase so would still be carried upon ending the combat move phase unless we consider that offloading units during the conduct combat phase counts as a movement for the transport too (Does it?))
It’s a problem. That’s why it was dropped in later games.
@Krieghund said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:
As far as the intent of the sentence you quoted, we simply didn’t take into account starting in a hostile sea zone and add “participated in combat” (it was added in later versions).
To be clear, are you talking about the sentence
Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or offload cargo, unless they loaded, moved or offloaded during the combat move or combat phase.
meaning that it should have been written as
Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or offload cargo, unless they loaded, moved, offloaded or participated in combat during the combat move or combat phase.
Yes.
(on top of what I’ve already argued about it in my re-writings)?
Mostly. They can load or offload (but not move) in noncombat movement if they moved in combat movement and/or participated in combat.
Yes.
I am not conflating Dutch territories with friendly neutrals. They are indeed different types of territories, with many different rules. However, the procedure for claiming control of both types of territories is exactly the same, even though the conditions under which it may be done are different. I am merely applying similar rules in a consistent manner.
My saying that air units are also defensive was in counter to your argument that AAA should count because it would “defend” the Dutch territory, and thus provide “guardianship”. My point was that if AAA were to be treated differently in Dutch territories than in claiming friendly neutrals for that reason, it would also stand to reason that air units would also be treated differently, as both could defend the territory. However, they are not.
As it stands, the procedure for claiming both Dutch territories and friendly neutrals requires moving a “land unit” into the territory in noncombat movement. In the case of friendly neutrals, AAA are explicitly exempted from that function. Since the procedure for claiming both types of territories is the same in every other way, it makes sense that AAA should be exempted for Dutch territories as well, for the same reasons. Not only does this apply the same principle in a similar situation, but it avoids a needless difference in the two procedures that players would need to be aware of.
I hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.
@the-captain said in Looking for Affirmation:
At page 9 in the Axis & Allies Pacific 1940 2E I cannot find any rules indicating that USA collects 30 IPC when attacked by Japan.
This change was introduced in the FAQ and included in later print runs.
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rule Question: getting the 1 infantry bonus:
Krieghund, thanks for the answers (as always).
Can we just summarize this issue by saying:
You get the 1 infantry bonus if you remove the Z control marker?
So if a unit is not Z-controlled but has Zs in it… and even if you destroy them all: still no bonus.
Correct.
There is no cap on income (other than owning the whole board). Simply place your NCM on the maximum value, then place another one on the chart to track the excess. Sounds like you’re having fun…
@Cernel said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:
Are you saying that, if I play Revised OOB or a previous Axis & Allies game, I can load one or two units onto a transport during combat move and send the transport into a hostile sea zone keeping the units on board until the end of the combat move phase and without designating them to make any amphibious assaults on this turn (for example, in case the embattled sea zone is not adjacent to an enemy territory)?
Yes.
No.
Sorry, but I’m not sure about what you are referring to as having been dropped?
The sentence you quoted.
Wait! That sentence is from Revised LHTR (where I understand that the transport can neither move nor load nor offload if it moved in combat movement and/or participated in combat?).
Maybe I should have clarified it each time, but everything I quoted at my second post was only from Revised LHTR (2.0),
Actually, I’ve not quoted anything from any rule-book other than Revised LHTR (2.0) in this thread so far.
Yes, you’re right. I got lost bouncing back and forth between OOB and LHTR.
It seems you may have an older printing of the game. The newer print runs of the Rulebook (which can be found on the Avalon Hill Rules Page) have been enhanced with some clarifications. This same paragraph from the latest version should answer your question:
Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map, and Axis powers on the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps. For example, a state of war with only Japan lifts the neutrality restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and allows Japanese units to attack or fly over Soviet-controlled territories on either map. However, the Soviet Union is still restricted on the Europe map, and Germany and Italy must still treat the entire Soviet Union as a neutral power, and may not move units into or through any original Soviet territories or Soviet-controlled territories. At the same time, Allied powers may move units into or through Pacific original Soviet territories and Soviet-controlled territories, but not European ones.
@indignation said in Looking for Affirmation:
Greetings,
Correct me if I’m wrong but on page 9 of Global Pacific 2nd edition rules, it states that " An unprovoked declaration of war by Japan on the allies, United States receives a one time payment of 30 IPC". Does this mean that if Japan does so on round 2, the U.S. would receive 30 ipcs immediately which they could use to purchase units, on their turn, round 2, and then after their turn they would subsequently receive an additional 30IPC as part of their national objectives? Also if the U.S. declares war, round 3 they would not receive this one time bonus?
This is correct, but only for the stand-alone Pacific game. This one-time payment does not occur in the Global game (see page 37 for USA Global rules.
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rule Question: getting the 1 infantry bonus:
On the rule itself: we interpreted this rule wrongly. At this moment two things spring into my mind:
(1) It seems to me getting this bonus (especially when combined with the Hidden Supply Cache card) is too easy. But please elaborate on this, Kriegshund.
(2) It seems a bit strange to me, even a bit ‘unfair’, that you do not get this one infantry bonus when totally clearing an area of Zs if this area was not Z-controlled. This seems a harder task then just surviving one round of combat.
This rule is intended to be more about theme than it is a bonus. Think of it as providing a safe place in the territory for survivors to gather.
@Cernel Honestly, the rules regarding cases like these in Revised and earlier are a mess. That’s one of the reasons we created LHTR in the first place. Forget what I said here to the contrary, and go with the prior rulings. I have edited my above answers in accordance with this.
Per the final sentence of the paragraph I quoted, other Allied Powers may not enter either original Soviet or Soviet-controlled territories on the map in which the USSR is not at war, so they cannot liberate such territories, regardless of whether or not the Soviet capital is Axis-held. Of course, the was around this is for the USSR to declare war on Japan.
@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:
But, can Japan scramble against US ships when it is ANZACs attack? That is, what if the US also put some surface warships in that sea zone in its non-combat turn- would Japan have to ‘fight’ them in the scramble or just the ANZAC ships?
Japan is scrambling against the ANZAC amphibious assault, not the US ships. The US units are not part of the attack, as it’s ANZAC’s turn, not the US’s.
This is really complicated and might be not addressed by any current rules or errata. thanks (and this is mostly acedemic)
This is addressed by the multi-national forces rules on page 21 of the Rulebook, and by the following FAQ entry:
Q. Say the United Kingdom launches an amphibious assault from a US transport without any supporting UK sea or air units in the sea zone, and then Japan scrambles. What happens?
A. In effect, nothing happens. The US transport doesn’t participate in the sea battle because it’s not the US’s turn. Since there are no attacking sea or air units, there is no sea battle. However, the sea zone can’t be cleared of defending combat units, so the amphibious assault can’t proceed.
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rule Question: Desperate Meassures Card: DECOY TEAM:
Krieghund, can we rephrase this as:
Move one Z to an adjacent area that is not neutral?
Well, it’s half of the zombies in the territory, but essentially yes.
@Cernel said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:
what you are saying now is that being cargo of a transport which is participating in combat means “passively participating in a combat” for the units being cargo. That does not allow then to move during Combat Move but nevertheless counts as them having participated in combat once we are in the Non-Combat Move phase. Correct?
Sort of. It doesn’t allow them to load during the combat move phase. Transports carrying units that were loaded in a previous turn could be moved into combat, but they then would have participated in combat.
However, as I said, going with the prior rulings leaves an open question which I’ve made at my previous post, specifically
The loaded units ended their movement on the transport, in a friendly sea zone. The movement of the transport after they were loaded was not theirs, but the transport’s. In order to fulfill the requirement, they must offload into a hostile territory, thus ending their movement there.
(About this, it was recently clarified that in Classic you can load transports in hostile sea zones (even after entering them on the same turn), so that way (in Classic) the loaded units could end their movement in a hostile sea zone.
I can’t seem to locate this. Could you point me to it?
Yes, it is German now, but it was originally Soviet, and that fact keeps the other Allies out due to the treaty with Japan. Any incursion by another Allied Power into Soviet territory (original or current) would be considered by Japan to be an act of war.
@midnight_reaper @AndrewAAGamer is correct. While air units may move through hostile territories, this does not include neutral ones.