I’ve read through the first 120 pages of this Q&A thread, which constitutes the first three years’ worth of questions. As I did so, I gathered notes and grouped them by topic. Figuring that others might find this useful, I’m posting my compilation back into this same thread. Players may find it useful for clearing up common rule confusions, or even for raising points they may not have thought of yet.

Disclaimers:

• I’m not trying to claim credit for the work that all the many contributors to this thread have made. Their postings have been invaluable to me in clearing up the finer points of the A&A rules.

• Nor am I trying to assert that what I’m posting is official, for it isn’t. I could very well have misunderstood, or distorted the context in which some of the answers were given. Again, this document has not been officially vetted and may be inaccurate at points. (And the document itself clearly states this as well.)

• I asked Krieghund for his permission to post this here, and he has no problem with me doing so.

Unofficial Compilation of Clarifications from the first 3 years of this thread:

A&A Global 1940 - Lessons Learned from the Official Q&A Thread.pdf

@Bob77:

Hmm. That brings up an interesting question.
If some how japan attacked russia on the euro map while russia still neutral in europe, would russia still be neutral there?
Or could american bombers land in pac russia if japan and russia are neutral, but italy and germany have taken russian territories on pac map?
Wont happen, but wondering.

This is, I believe, directly answered in the rules. E40 p. 37:
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.

If somehow Japan attacked Russia on the European map while Russia is still neutral in Europe, would Russia still be neutral there?
Yes.

The harder question is, could Russia then attack these Japanese-held territories?
As written, the rules seem to say no. But I might be sympathetic to a player who argued that Russia should be able to attack Japanese-held formerly-Russian territories on the European map–assuming no Italian or German units are in them at the time. Except of course that, by this time in the game, Russia probably has the ability to DoW whomever it wants: if that’s the case, I’d live by the letter of the rules.

Could American bombers land in Pacific Russia if Japan and Russia are neutral, but Italy and Germany have taken Russian territories on the Pacific map?
No.

E40 p. 15:
Neutral Powers: When a power is not at war with anyone, it is neutral. Powers that begin the game neutral, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, aren’t initially part of the Allies or the Axis. The Axis powers are on the opposite side of these neutral powers, but they are not yet considered enemies. While a power remains neutral, it operates under even tighter restrictions. A neutral power can’t move land or air units into or through neutral territories. It can’t move units into or through territories or onto ships belonging to another power or use another power’s naval bases, nor can another power move land or air units into or through its territories or onto its ships or use its naval bases.

@Karl7:

Just to be sure, the FAQ says:

Q. Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships. If at some
point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I
ignore the subs and end the battle?
A. No. Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them
when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them. When you attack a sea zone, you
attack all of the units belonging to powers with which you are at war in that sea zone.

Does this apply also if the defending unit making the sea zone hostile is a defending ftr?

I.e. if I move in with fleet into zone w/enemy subs only and defender scrams, but I kill his fighter the first round, can I ignore remaining enemy subs?  I am thinking not, but want to be sure.

No, once the battle is joined, you must fight it through to the usual conclusion: e.g., one side retreating, all of one side being killed or submerging, etc.

(Not an official answerer, but I’m confident in this one, having recently read through the first 100 pages of this Q&A thread.)

@Gamerman01:

From the sea zone that it scrambled to

Thank you. That is what I had assumed, but then I re-read the rule and I wasn’t sure anymore:

E40.2 p. 16: “After all combat is completed, each surviving scrambled air unit must return to the territory from which it was scrambled. If the enemy has captured that territory, the unit can move 1 space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier.”

(You could argue from this that the rulebook says the planes must return to the captured territory, and then it gets its 1 space to land.)

So thank you for the confirmation.

A fighter scrambles to an adjacent sea zone. While there, its airbase territory is captured by the opponent and it is left stranded. It’s now granted 1 movement point to reach a valid landing spot.

Question: Is this 1 allowable movement measured from the sea zone it is in, or is it measured from the territory its airbase was in?

–Thank you.

Let me try this again:

Air units cannot overfly . . .

• pro-Axis, pro-Allied, or strict-neutral territories that haven’t yet been entered by someone in a previous phase*, (P40.2 p. 9)

• nor the controlled territories of a neutral power, (E40.2 p. 15)

• nor can neutral powers overfly territories controlled by anyone but themselves. (E40.2 p. 15)

Otherwise, air units are permitted to overfly all other territories.

Does that cover it?

• • I’m disregarding Mongolia in this discussion, whether or not that would make any difference.

So there are P40.2 page-8 neutral territories and there are page-9 neutral territories, and they aren’t (entirely) the same thing.

Is this statement true:
“In A&A 1940 Global 2nd edition, air units can overfly any territory they choose to at any time with the exception of page-9 neutral territories?”
Understanding that,

• page-9 neutral territories consist of only those territories that were neutral single-territory “countries” at the start of the game (whether pro-Axis, pro-Allies, or strict neutrals, and that this list includes the Mongolian territories),

• and that players may be able to overfly even these page-9 neutral territories if certain additional conditions are met,

• –such as a friendly page-9 neutral territory that was moved into during a previous NCM phase, or

• –such as an unfriendly page-9 neutral territory or a strict-neutral page-9 neutral territory that was attacked (that is, entered) during a previous CM phase?

Oh, now I see there needs to be an additional restriction to my statement:

“Neutral Powers (which consist only of the US before it goes to war against any one of the three Axis powers, and the USSR which is neutral individually by theater), are also disallowed from flying air units into or through neutral territories (E40.2 p. 15)”, this rule presumably referring to page-8 neutral territories, not just to page-9 neutral territories (e.g., it refers to all territories that are neither friendly nor hostile).

And while a power is neutral, other players cannot overfly the neutral power’s territories either.

Thank you for the replies, everyone.

This is where I am confused:

E40.2 p.8:
All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” page 9).

Let’s look at things from Japan’s point of view at the start of the game.
UK territory is not friendly. (Japan doesn’t control it, and the UK is certainly not a friendly power.)
UK territory is not hostile. (Japan is not yet at war with the UK, so by definition UK territory isn’t hostile.)
So by process of elimination, UK territory is Neutral, since p.8 says all territories have to be in one of these three states.

And then you say
It is nowhere in the rules that air units may not fly over neutral territories.
The rules say: “Air units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.”, page 9.
Japan can’t fly over Sweden as Sweden is neutral.
Japan can fly over Shan State, as UK is not neutral.

I’m feeling a little like baby Groot trying to understand the triggering mechanism of an atomic bomb . . .

It is nowhere in the rules that air units may not fly over neutral territories.
Okay…
The rules say: “Air units can’t fly over a neutral unless they are attacking it.”
Errr….doesn’t this rule say that air units can’t fly over a neutral?
(And even when they’re attacking a neutral, air units aren’t flying over it–they’re flying into it, so “air units are not allowed to fly over neutral territories”, right?)
Or are you making a distinction between a “neutral” and a “neutral territory”? (And if so, what is your definition of a neutral and your definition of a neutral territory?)

Or compare the quote from above . . .
“All territories exist in one of three conditions: Friendly … Hostile … Neutral.”
With . . .
“An important concept to understand is the difference between a neutral territory and a neutral power. … While some of these powers begin the game neutral, neutral territories begin the game not being controlled by any power.” (E40.2 p. 10)
Or by being controlled by “a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war”, right?
“Each neutral territory is treated as a separate entity.”
Except for those territories that are controlled by a power with which you are not yet at war, right? (since they too are “neutral territories”)
Or is the rulebook trying to use the term “neutral territory” in two different ways on two different pages? (always a surefire way to achieve clarity)

I am Groot.

P40 p.8 says:
“All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war (see “The Political Situation,” below).”

Perhaps we’re reading this last line differently. Is it suppose to read as . . .

Neutral: a territory that is not controlled by any power, or a territory that is controlled by a power with which you are not yet at war.

or as . . .

Neutral: a territory that is not controlled by any power, or a territory that is controlled by a power that belongs to the other alliance, an alliance with which you are not yet at war.

E.g., is the phrase “on the other side” merely a parenthetical quality of “power”, or is it the target of the phrase “with which you are not yet at war”. For the sentence on p. 8, as written, is ambiguous and can be read either way.

(I consistently read it the first way; it appears those who give rule answers read it the second way.)