Really could use a sticky for Errata/Questions/Etc. or something…..

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

Okay……seems pretty obvious now I see. Thought I been very thorough reading up on things…evidently NOT!! Thanks

Ah never mind my previous comments, Kriegshund has it correct. There’s a special rule just for this scenario:

“An attacking land unit can assault a coastal territory
from an ally’s transport, but only on the turn of
the attacking land unit’s owner.  All of the normal
requirements for transports offloading in a sea
zone must still be met by the attacking power (see
“Special Combat Movement, Transports”, page 16),
and any scrambled air units will prevent the landing
if they cannot be destroyed”

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf (page 21)

On page 16 it permits a scramble to resist amphibious attacks:

“They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious
assaults from adjacent sea zones”

Hi Pherman. Like The Methuselah said, nothing is official.  That said, not many (no one) here would allow an Anzac Inf on Egypt. The accepted rule is that the territory needs to be owned by the nation placing the bid unit. Ultimately, is between the players to decide.

Our group has had this discussion many times. It seems unrealistic that a country would develop something that is not useful.  In one of our games Russia bought a non-disposable tech dice and actually rolled a 6 then rolled on the chart and got “War Bonds” which was cool for them but if you look at the list there are very few that Russia can benefit from.  Mostly depends if they are on the offensive.  If they are on the defensive then only “War Bonds” and “Increased Factory Production” seem to be worthwhile.  “Radar” would also be good but its on a separate chart with tech that would not benefit them.  Most would say that Russia should not even consider rolling on tech and I tend to agree unless they are on the offensive and have a massive economy.

I think what also helped the USA in the Pacific was the type of war it was; wasn’t the majority of the Japanese land forces fighting in China? The USA could use their wealth of equipment and air-power to good use this way.

I like the idea of the different start-ups and scenarios and maybe more victory conditions for the Global Games.

I don’t think WW2 Axis & Allies games are dead either; I like the idea of more Theater type games as well like:
Eastern Front (have lots of territories; maybe make good use of rail-roads and blitzkrieg tactics etc… have extra "special infantry to represent the SS and other stuff)
Stalingrad would be cool…
Kursk would be cool…

Maybe some form of Atlantic Battles (subs vs convoys etc…)
Maybe some form of Battle of Britain (air battles) or some form of Bombing strategy game of the allies vs Germany (air battles).

I think there’s lots of games and ways they could still go.

You are correct–friendly ships belonging to other powers that are in the same SZ as an amphib assault do not fire during the attack.

Yes, one sub can reach it and that one should be moved there. Combine it with a massive move to Carolines and from there you can pick Hawaii, most ANZAC territories, most of DEI, Phillipines, etc.