OK, I have an official answer. It was never Larry’s intention that transports in Classic should be able to load in a hostile sea zone, but the rules as written do not reflect that intention. However, he’s not going to revise an FAQ for a game that’s been around for as long as Classic has and is now out of print for something this minor.

The bottom line is that in Classic, per the rules, you can load transports in a hostile sea zone during combat movement, though this was not intended. This ruling does not apply to any other A&A game besides Classic.

The “why” is based on historical reality. Until the surprise attacks of late 1941, Japan was at war only with China, and not with anyone in the Pacific. Therefore, any Japanese naval presence close to the USA mainland would have been seen as an act of aggression, as they would have no business being there.

In contrast, Germany was at war with the United Kingdom, and it was engaged in active warfare in the Atlantic. German submarines roamed the Atlantic pretty much freely until the United States entered the war.

With new players, a lot will depend on style of play and getting used to the rules. There’s nothing wrong with playing without a bid at first, as many of the strategies that make a bid necessary are discovered only after many hours of play. Depending on your group and how much they get strategies from the outside, you may actually find that a small bid or none at all will suit you, at least in the short run.

@Private-Mike said in New to Global. HELP:

@Krieghund Thank you. So if he loads 10 transports in sea zone 110 for sealion and has 1 battleship also, I could scramble from London with say 3 planes. If I scramble, and he does not designate any of germans planes to participate in the seazone battle, I could sink his battleship and the transport are gone with the men. Correct?

Attacking transports are only defenseless if they cannot retreat. If he attacks directly from sea zone 110, they will not be able to retreat, and what you say will be true.

However, if in combat movement he loads the transports, moves them to an adjacent sea zone (say, 112), and then moves them back to 110, he will have established a retreat route in that zone. As a result, he could retreat any surviving transports from the battle once the battleship is sunk. For example, if you roll two hits and sink the battleship, all of the transports could retreat. However, if you roll three hits, the battleship and one transport would be lost before the others could retreat.

@Private-Mike said in New to Global. HELP:

Hello guys. I am not new to Axis and Allies, but I am about to play my first game of Global AA very soon. If I may, I have a few questions for people much smarter than me when it comes to the rules. Any help would be VERY MUCH appreciated.

Welcome!

4-I know you must clear sea zones of warships before conducting an amphibious assault. My question is this, can transports continue with the assault after warships are cleared? You just do not get an offshore bombardment. Hypothetical situation. Germany has 10 transports, 1 Battleship, and 1 Destroyer in sea zone 110. On the UK turn, they buy a destroyer and place it in the same sea zone. Germany must clear this before proceeding correct? Then, are they (Germans) able to use the transports that are in the same sea zone that combat was just conducted to continue to land in UK?

Unless you have just declared war, you cannot load transports in a hostile sea zone. Also, transports must be loaded for an amphibious assault during the Combat Movement phase (before any combat begins), unless they were loaded on a previous turn. Thus, in this situation, Germany would not be able to conduct an amphibious assault unless either the transports were already loaded or they move to another sea zone, load there, and come back.

@jchamlin said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

And finally, I want to address this:

even though it doesn’t really matter, as “bridging” is merely flavour text

Do we have an official statement from Larry Harris that bridging and the rulebook text around it is “merely flavour text”?

For example, the case of bridging into an amphibious assault when the transports start their turn in the sea zone from which they wish to perform the amphibious assault, do we know if it was Larry’s intent to really allow the purchase and mobilization of a single destroyer in that sea zone to be able to prevent the assault? If there’s an official reference to a comment from Larry saying so, I’d really like to read it. Otherwise, I think it would be good if Larry would chime in on this thread and provide us some context of why this is the case (i.e. what’s the purpose of the rule, either historically/factually, or is it for game balance reasons, or is this just an unintended side-effect of the rule that transports can’t load or unload from a hostile sea zone that he didn’t foresee)?

I have already addressed this. There is no need for clarification from Larry regarding Global 1940, as the rules speak for themselves. Loading in a hostile sea zone is forbidden, and the bridging rule does nothing to override this. Furthermore, the rules for sea units starting their turn in a hostile sea zone on page 13 of the Europe Rulebook make no mention of an exception for transports loading under such conditions, stating that they must leave the zone, load, and return in order to perform an amphibious assault there. Additional proof can be found in the rules for declaring war, on page 11 of the Europe Rulebook:

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.

This is an exception for loading in an already-occupied hostile sea zone when declaring war, indicating that it is not normally possible.

@Cernel said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

Just to be absolutely sure, are you actually saying that, according to a literal interpretation of the rules, the following sequence of actions is legal:

During the British turn, the sea zone next to the United Kingdom being occupied by 1 German battleship at start turn, move 1 empty British transport into the sea zone next to the United Kingdom territory, load 1 or 2 units from the United Kingdom territory onto the transport, declare the intention to offload all the loaded units into Western Europe, conduct combat with 1 German battleship in the sea zone, clear the sea zone with the transport surviving, offload all the loaded units into Western Europe.

If you are saying that the above is legal (as @jchamlin appears to be sure that it is), I think here we have once again a case of a conflict between the literal interpretation of the rules and the interpretation of the intention behind the rules.

This is something that happens, when interpreting laws (the rules of a game are laws too, of course). Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach

As much as I’m surprised that you are conceding to it, I tend to agree with you that, according to a literal interpretation of the rules, the move above should be allowed (because the rules fail to disallow it).

However, I’m pretty sure that the intention behind the rules is not to allow that sequence of actions (just the way the rules are explained is not literally covering the case).

The main reason why I believe so is given by the fact that, by the rules, enemy ships have the ability to impede you offloading into a territory, from the sea zone they are inside. The dynamic by which this happens can only be pictured as these ships interposing themselves between your transports and the coastline where you intend to offload. Therefore, it would make no sense that, instead, they are unable to interpose themselves between your transports and the coastline where you intend to load. If you need to destroy all enemy ships before offloading to a coastline, it makes the only sense that you need to destroy all enemy ships before loading from a coastline, at least in the case in which the transports are moving into the sea zone (thus being blocked by the enemy ships, from moving any further).

Well, it is a slightly different situation. When loading, you are in friendly waters within the sea zone. While offloading for an amphibious assault, you are in enemy waters within the sea zone. It could be argued that enemy ships guard only their own coastline, and not yours. I realize this is splitting hairs, but it could be used as thematic justification for the difference.

Obviously, we all realize that it is next to impossible that whoever holds the copyright over the original 4 classic editions (comprising their rulebooks) is going to publish official errata or addenda, at this point.

So, what are we going to do? Can Larry be summoned for a quasi-official clarification of the rules (that I’m pretty sure will say the move is forbidden)? Can he publish an actual official integration for the rulebook on his own?

I’m looking into it…

Assuming you find yourself in this situation in any version of A&A since classic with a fleet sitting in a hostile sea zone (due to the defender building a destroyer to block), with empty transports, and units available to be picked up from that sea zone for an amphibious assault but cannot: it will take you THREE TURNS before you can conduct an amphibious assault (assuming you don’t get allied help to destroy the blocker). Turn 1: transports flee empty before combat, some portion of the fleet remains to kill the destroyer built to block (as stated earlier in this thread, they must flee, if they stay they are forced to are participate in the sea zone combat and this cannot be loaded during non-combat).
Turn 2: kill the second destroyer built to block, non-combat the transports back in and load them
Turn 3: conduct the amphibious assault

@jchamlin I believe you are correct here for every strategic games since Revised LHTR (included). However, I believe that Europe, Pacific and Revised OOB (non-LHTR) reduce this to 2 turns only, as, on turn 1, you can just leave the empty transports in the sea zone, have them taking part in the sea battle and, then, load units onto them (so they will start turn 2 in the same sea zone, but with the units already on board).

Correct.

Finally, @Krieghund, even though it doesn’t really matter, as “bridging” is merely flavour text, can we clarify it? @jchamlin clearly believes that moving into a sea zone and, then, loading and offloading units without moving any further is bridging. My understanding, instead, is that no bridging is happening during such sequence of actions, as bridging is, instead, when you load and offload units during the same turn while the transports doesn’t move at all, during the phase in which it is bridging (thus it is also not moving during the whole turn). So, is bridging whatever situation in which you load and offload without moving between loading an offloading (as @jchamlin believes) or is bridging only the situation in which you load and offload without moving the transport at all, during the whole phase (as I believe)?

You’re right in that it doesn’t matter. Whether the transport moves first or not, it is loading and offloading within the same sea zone, and the point of the bridging rule is that this action is equivalent to loading and offloading in different sea zones, as the transport moves from one coast to another within the zone. So I would say that the nature of the loading and offloading is what defines bridging, not whether or not the transport moves first.

@jchamlin said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

Agreed that you need to commit the units to the amphibious assault before any battle is fought.

However, I’d like to clarify for the record that I never said “move in, attack, load, offload”.

I took “move the UK home fleet, destroy the German fleet, and bridge land units from the UK into an amphibious assault” to imply that order of events.

However, such a restriction was not necessary under the standard rules, as this situation can only occur when using the optional rule …

So, this situation (loading transports in a hostile sea zone) can occur in the standard game without any optional rules added. But it can only happen if the transports are being used as a bridge (both loading and unloading without moving in between the load and unload).

Yes, it can. However, it’s still debatable whether this was intended or a loophole. I am attempting to get clarification. In either case, it is what it is.

In summary:

• The action of bridging into an amphibious assault in a hostile sea zone is legal in classic.

• Assuming the rules for bridging are being interpreted correctly, the action appears to be not legal in any version of A&A since classic.

Both correct.

• Assuming you find yourself in this situation in any version of A&A since classic with a fleet sitting in a hostile sea zone (due to the defender building a destroyer to block), with empty transports, and units available to be picked up from that sea zone for an amphibious assault but cannot: it will take you THREE TURNS before you can conduct an amphibious assault. Turn 1: transports flee empty before combat, some portion of the fleet remains to kill the destroyer built to block (as stated earlier in this thread, they must flee, if they stay they are forced to are participate in the sea zone combat and this cannot be loaded during non-combat).
  Turn 2: kill the second destroyer built to block, non-combat the transports back in and load them
  Turn 3: conduct the amphibious assault

Correct, assuming that there is no other workaround available, such as moving the land units to another territory or using land units in another territory for the assault.

The rules glitch is that a single destroyer built on each of two turns in this case can delay the impending amphibious assault by THREE TURNS. That seems against the spirit of the game.

We must agree to disagree on this point.

Doing that is legal, based on the fact that you can load in a hostile sea zone. What you said before (move in, attack, load, offload) is not. It’s the order which you do it that’s important.

This matters because you must commit the land units to the assault before the sea battle is fought.

@jchamlin said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

However, such a restriction was not necessary under the standard rules, as this situation can only occur when using the optional rule that allows placing new units in a hostile sea zone and that sea zone contains enemy transports.

That’s not correct. It happens any time you play with a later game German navy when the UK fleet isn’t at home and Germany has sea units in its sea zone. You can move the UK fleet home, destroy the German fleet, and bridge land units from UK into an amphibious assault on Western (assuming you win the sea battle), all in the same turn.

It sometimes happens with Japan too, where Japan can move home, destroy the US fleet there, and bridge units into combat in Manchuria (assuming the US landed there).

Enemy units in a sea zone never prevented bridging in A&A Classic. It works just like an amphibious assault with both a sea battle and a land battle, if you win the sea battle you can then bridge into the land battle. While not common in games (Germany usually didn’t build fleets and US rarely built in the Pacific), it was part of the classic game and no optional rules were required for the case to happen.

This is not legal. Even if you concede that bridging allows loading in a hostile sea zone, that does not lift the requirement that all combat movement with the exception of offloading units for an amphibious assault must be done before any combat is resolved. As I said before, there is nothing in the bridging rule that explicitly overrides that requirement.

As every game since then (1999’s A&A Europe onward) does not allow loading in a hostile sea zone.

Yeah, I see that. However, I still think bridging replaces (or should replace) loading and unloading actions. You don’t load or unload a bridge, you simply just walk across one. If you clear a sea zone, you should be able to bridge into an amphibious assault, just like you could in classic.

You are reading too much into the term “bridging”. As I said before, it simply means that a transport can move within a sea zone to load and offload units. It conveys no special powers or privileges.