But note that it’s pointing out that enemy antiaircraft guns are still owned by the enemy, regardless of which order you decide to resolve the battles. In other words, you cannot go conquer a territory and take over its antiaircraft gun before your other planes fly over. Why is this important in this case? Because you capture antiaircraft guns just like you capture industrial complexes. So if hostile antiaircraft guns always get to shoot, then I could argue that the factories always get bombed while still being hostile as well.
Excellent observation! This is exactly what my opponent argued as well and with the simultaneous time frame principle in the rules this is what I would believe to be true as well (rather than Japan attacking its own IC). Of course I’m playing devil’s advocate here, so let’s follow this line of thought and assume that indeed the rocket attack involves the AA-gun targeting a Russian IC (even though on the board there is already a Japanese control marker in Moscow).
In addition, you collect all unspent IPCs from the former owner of the captured capital. For
example, if Germany conquers Moscow while the Soviet Union�s player is holding 18 IPCs, these are immediately transferred to Germany�s player.
Notice the IPCs are transferred immediately as Japan takes control of the territory. This means Russia has no cash on hand anymore when the Rocket Strike is resolved.
The opponent must surrender that many IPCs to the bank (or as many as the player has,
whichever is the lesser amount).
The player controlling Russia in this scenario is the ‘opponent’ in this battle. Russia surrenders 0 IPCs (lesser amount) to the bank. End of combat.
So, since the rules don’t explicitly state what to do, that’s how I would piece together my argument. Since all combat happens at the same time, the factory gets hit with rockets and I kill all the bad guys, and then I take control of the territory. Even if you “resolve” it in the other order, you can imagine that’s still what “actually” happened. The mechanics of the game are there to try and make it simple and this edge case just wasn’t considered.
I agree that it is ‘in the spirit of the rules’ that you’d roll the rocket strike first. It also seems more ‘realistic’, yet this alone cannot be a reason to play that way. There are many very unrealistic things occurring every turn (even the concept of a turn is very unrealistic) and it’s not necessarily the best course of action to explain what happens on the game board with what happens in a real war.
Another situation that is at odds with the simultaneous time frame principle for example is the ability for the attacker to retreat with one force based on the end result of another combat. You could consider this ‘unrealistic’ and ‘not within the spirit of the rules’, but it’s also a clever use of game mechanics that can be used to gain an advantage. It’s a game that you want to win after all.