Thanx.
Several Questions/Clarifications
-
So then the same rule would apply to putting Russian Fighters on British Aircraft Carriers and so on?
Hmm, that’s something I hadn’t considered. I think Germany can ignore the fighters, but I’m not sure.
I doubt this ever came up in playtesting and I doubt it’s been considered. Germany can likely choose to ignore the russian fighter, and the fighter needs to find a landing spot if it no longer has one. It has been confirmed that in order to attack any territory, you need to have declared war on all powers that occupy that territory and you will combat all units that occupy that territory (so the russian fighter will fight back, but you have to declare war on russia in order to attack the UK territory in question). As for the URL, ugh… Doing a search of Krieghungs comments will net a faster result than looking for the several threads that have questions regarding Russian-Japanese aggression/nonaggression and the implications on NOs, neutrals, etc.
-
Well it’s a catch all rule then.
If for me to attack London I have to declare war Russia because there is a Russian Fighter there, the same rule would apply to a Russian Fighter on a British Aircraft Carrier, or Russian Ground units loaded in a british Transport. Or ground units in British Territory.
You also mean to tell me that if Russia drives into the Middle east early - because it is at war with Japan, and Russia parks its units in UK territory that I have to DOW on Russia to take these territories?
Which also leads me to conclude, if you use that same mindset you can’t attack Navies seperately at all if the two parties are at war with a major power. IE A russian Sub supports a british navy under attack. The same mentality saying if it was a fighter on the ground or on an ACC you have to declare war, wouldn’t it be the same for a sub or any other unit?
Personally I think that’s all garbage.
-
Well it’s a catch all rule then.
If for me to attack London I have to declare war Russia because there is a Russian Fighter there, the same rule would apply to a Russian Fighter on a British Aircraft Carrier, or Russian Ground units loaded in a british Transport. Or ground units in British Territory.
You also mean to tell me that if Russia drives into the Middle east early - because it is at war with Japan, and Russia parks its units in UK territory that I have to DOW on Russia to take these territories?
Which also leads me to conclude, if you use that same mindset you can’t attack Navies seperately at all if the two parties are at war with a major power. IE A russian Sub supports a british navy under attack. The same mentality saying if it was a fighter on the ground or on an ACC you have to declare war, wouldn’t it be the same for a sub or any other unit?
Personally I think that’s all garbage.
No, it has been firmly established that you can seperate naval battles if you’re not at war with one of the powers. If you’re at war with both, then you have to fight both. But you get to leave neutrals out in a seazone, and if russia leaves a plane on a carrier it’s not considered cargo during germany’s turn (planes are only cargo on the carrier’s owners turn, otherwise they’re “in the air”, which is why a sub can attack and even though the planes can’t hit the sub, they aren’t on the carrier when/if the carrier sinks).
Territories are different than seazones because you can control a territory, but seazones don’t belong to any power, so there can be other units in them (otherwise you wouldn’t be able to place units in a seazone adjacent if an enemy power’s navy was there).
Russian ground units on a british transport would be a bit of a conundrum. I’m certain never came up in playtesting, as loading friendly powers infantry as cargo is rare. I think they’d die, treated as cargo, and you wouldn’t need to declare war. Cause russia would be stupid to do it anyway, and I doubt a british transport would bother at any point before russia was at war with germany anyway.
But yes, ANY territory that has a unit of a power you’re not at war with requires a declaration to attack. Neutral units are NEVER displaced from a territory. If russia has a unit in a UK space, Germany MUST declare war on russia if they want to attack that UK territory.
-
If the Russian ftrs on the Brit CV are stranded, they will have to die, right?
-
If the Russian ftrs on the Brit CV are stranded, they will have to die, right?
How on earth would they be stranded? The uk carrier would have had to attack with a russian fighter on it, and gotten damaged (this is the ONLY way to get a plane stuck on a carrier). That’s turn 3 at the earliest, assuming the UK bought a carrier, russia landed on it, the UK attacked with it, and germany damaged it, and then Germany attacked back before it could be repaired… That’s so unlikely that as an exploit, it hardly needs to be considered.
Unless you mean in the air (Germany attacked the carrier group) in which case it wouldn’t have to die if it was next to Britain or novabirsk (pretty likely, based on the early timing of these conditions ever coming up) as that’s a space away and if Russia landed a plane on a british carrier, they’re obviously at war with Japan, and any british territory is a legal space. Otherwise, if for some reason it was in the middle of the atlantic, germany must have been pretty lucky in chasing it down.
For the record, this is all pretty stupid. Russia under no circumstances should be allowed to be in a british territory until it’s at war with Germany. Similar to China/Japan/Allies, if Russia stationed a fighter group in Britain, historically Germany would have seen that as a violation of their treaty (Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact), which in this game SHOULD amount to a DOW (and Russia ISN’T allowed to declare war till R4)! Even Russia being able to attack a neutral after attacking Japan is troublesome to me, but I’ll forgive it (Stalin was a nasty piece of work). But they should NEVER be able to help defend a UK territory before being at war with Germany.
-
@Boxcars:
It’s the rule that neutral countries can’t enter the territory of any other country
Hmmm…I’m not seeing that in the rulebook. Got a page number where that shows up?
-Boxcars (who is honestly not trying to start anything)
Page 15, Powers That Begin the Game Neutral box: “A power that is not at war can’t move land or air units into neutral territories. It can’t move units into territories or onto ships belonging to another power”, etc.
-
…
But yes, ANY territory that has a unit of a power you’re not at war with requires a declaration to attack. Neutral units are NEVER displaced from a territory. If russia has a unit in a UK space, Germany MUST declare war on russia if they want to attack that UK territory.
Note: This is not a statement of fact, but the below descriptions and arguments refer to the rules out of box in order to present a reasoned argument on why it would be nice to revisit earlier rulings on this matter. I hope they are read as a respectful and modest effort to appeal for a review of the situation as it exists in current gaming. I apologize if this post seems rude, it is not my intent.
If you are referring to page 15 AAE40 rulebook, blue side box, 3rd paragraph beginning with “Combat:”, first sentence: “A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.”; then:
I would argue that this stipulation and limit of combat regards only the US and USSR per the first paragraph, first sentence, under the title “Powers that Begin the Game 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.”
As Germany, Japan, and Italy all begin the game at war, and are thus not “Powers That Begin the Game Neutral” they are not limited by this “Combat” stipulation in the third paragraph.
Basically I read it as US and USSR may not attack a territory controlled by or containing units belongings to a power (Japan, Italy, or Germany) with which it is not at war.
To conclude, it is rational to interpret a situation in which the Germans attack London with a USSR fighter stationed there as on “observer” and thus would not participate in combat. This unit would not be destroyed and would be able to fly out on their next turn.
I personally would further argue that it is not permissible for the “European Neutral” USSR to move into a European power’s territory or a European neutral per the second sentence under the Political Situation USSR description on page 33 AAE40 while no European axis player (Italy or Germany) has not declared war. It would be permissible to move into a Pacific Neutral or into a Pacific powers territories as they are not mandated to be Neutral in the Pacific and we can infer the USSR may declare war on Japan in the Pacific per the 3rd sentence which prohibits USSR from moving into China while not at war with Japan.
In effect, it is reasonable to conclude the USSR can be both a Neutral power and a power at war, at the same time, but not on the same board. Using UK-Europe and UK-Pacific as an example of such board specific rule distinctions(page 32 AAE40 top of right column), it is reasonable to discriminate USSR’s war status based on board location. Unless European axis powers declare war first, USSR must be a Neutral power on the European board. It may be a power at war on the Pacific board however.
I realize that this issue has been addressed already, and rulings have been made. I just wanted to present a reasoned argument for a revision of these prior rulings based on the framework of the existing rules out of box.
Personally, I believe this is more reasonable and avoids unnecessary confusion by keeping the USSR out of European territories it does not control while not at war in Europe.
Thank you for your consideration.
-
If you are referring to page 15 AAE40 rulebook, blue side box, 3rd paragraph beginning with “Combat:”, first sentence: “A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.”; then:
I would argue that this stipulation and limit of combat regards only the US and USSR per the first paragraph, first sentence, under the title “Powers that Begin the Game 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.”
As Germany, Japan, and Italy all begin the game at war, and are thus not “Powers That Begin the Game Neutral” they are not limited by this “Combat” stipulation in the third paragraph.
Basically I read it as US and USSR may not attack a territory controlled by or containing units belongings to a power (Japan, Italy, or Germany) with which it is not at war.
To conclude, it is rational to interpret a situation in which the Germans attack London with a USSR fighter stationed there as on “observer” and thus would not participate in combat. This unit would not be destroyed and would be able to fly out on their next turn.
Nice try, James. However, the sections on combat and declaring war are intended to apply to all powers, not just those that remain neutral. The language used indicates this, but it could have been made more clear, now that I look at it from this perspective.
I personally would further argue that it is not permissible for the “European Neutral” USSR to move into a European power’s territory or a European neutral per the second sentence under the Political Situation USSR description on page 33 AAE40 while no European axis player (Italy or Germany) has not declared war. It would be permissible to move into a Pacific Neutral or into a Pacific powers territories as they are not mandated to be Neutral in the Pacific and we can infer the USSR may declare war on Japan in the Pacific per the 3rd sentence which prohibits USSR from moving into China while not at war with Japan.
In effect, it is reasonable to conclude the USSR can be both a Neutral power and a power at war, at the same time, but not on the same board. Using UK-Europe and UK-Pacific as an example of such board specific rule distinctions(page 32 AAE40 top of right column), it is reasonable to discriminate USSR’s war status based on board location. Unless European axis powers declare war first, USSR must be a Neutral power on the European board. It may be a power at war on the Pacific board however.
I realize that this issue has been addressed already, and rulings have been made. I just wanted to present a reasoned argument for a revision of these prior rulings based on the framework of the existing rules out of box.
Personally, I believe this is more reasonable and avoids unnecessary confusion by keeping the USSR out of European territories it does not control while not at war in Europe.
Thank you for your consideration.
This is being considered, along with other options.
-
Krieg, for clarification when Russia is not yet at war w/Euro axis, but is at war w/Japan (I know it is subject to change in the future, and I hope it does). Theoretically Russia can get a ftr/tac on a UK carrier on R2. UK could move the carrier it has w/in range or build one. If Germany or Italy attack the UK carrier w/Russian air unit on it do we follow the at sea or on land rules.
- treat it as a naval unit and ignore the Russian air unit allowing it one movement point to get to safety in noncombat (No DOW).
- treat it like cargo and it is trapped on a damaged carrier, or goes down if carrier is sunk (No DOW).
- treat it as hostel like an at war friendly ftr on carrier (or a ftr on a land tt) allowing it to def in the air (needing an axis DOW), and after words the ftr follows normal rules if it survives.
-
If the Axis power declares war on USSR, option 3; otherwise, option 1.
-
Is it possible for a tank to blitz after an amphibious assault to an empty territory?
-
No. Land units may not move before loading onto a transport or after unloading from one.
-
I think it is clear, that a nuetral nation cannot bolster the defense of another nation. So Russia cannot land a plane on London.
If Russia is at war with Japan, but not Germany, than Russia can help Britain with Japan only. Not Germany. This would be the only rational choice in keeping with the spirit of the game in the absence of a clarification for the Global game, where Russia can be at war and also nuetral.
Eddie
-
@WILD:
Krieg, for clarification when Russia is not yet at war w/Euro axis, but is at war w/Japan (I know it is subject to change in the future, and I hope it does). Theoretically Russia can get a ftr/tac on a UK carrier on R2. UK could move the carrier it has w/in range or build one. If Germany or Italy attack the UK carrier w/Russian air unit on it do we follow the at sea or on land rules.
- treat it as a naval unit and ignore the Russian air unit allowing it one movement point to get to safety in noncombat (No DOW).
- treat it like cargo and it is trapped on a damaged carrier, or goes down if carrier is sunk (No DOW).
- treat it as hostel like an at war friendly ftr on carrier (or a ftr on a land tt) allowing it to def in the air (needing an axis DOW), and after words the ftr follows normal rules if it survives.
If the Axis power declares war on USSR, option 3; otherwise, option 1.
Good to know, thanks. (subject to change based on possible future revisions RE: Russia)
-
If Russian units are on a British transport and a German force kills the transport, do the Russians die? Does Germany have to declare war on Russia to kill the transport?
-
It would seem to me that Russia could not use a british transport in Europe. Though it is as war with Japan it still cannot violate any nuetrality rules with Germany. Putting an infantry unit on a UK transport to defend it against a German attack most certainly violates nuetrality. Although not an explicit rule in the Global due to it not being that specifically covered, it most certainly is an implicit rule.
Otherwise the Russian troop would have to be willing to die without forcing Germany to declare war. Germany is attacking the transport not the Russian troop.
-
Of course the Soviet units die - they are cargo. Germany need not declare war on the USSR in order to attack UK ships. The Soviets take their chances when they board a ship that’s in danger of being sunk by an enemy.
Suggested Topics
