Unofficial Q and A - Group Wisdom

of the aworldatwar group

[Synced with the official AWAW rules dated 2018 Jun 30]

[Official AWAW Q&A dated 2007 July 5 incorporated on 2008 Jun 11]

[Official published version: "Unofficial Q and A - Group Wisdom" link]

At one time the Third Reich rules were written as a general guideline to play, with the details being left up to the players. This approach showed an incredible naivete concerning the rule lawyering and competitive nature of gamers.
Bruce Harper, 2005 Apr 9
As A World at War was developed (building on the Third Reich system), the rules expanded with the game and many details were added. However, clarifying the rules is an ongoing process; in doing so, one very useful forum is the Yahoo group aworldatwar. I have culled this material from several years of active participation in that group, dating back to 2005. This material is not official, and in some cases the opinions expressed by the group participants were not unanimous. However, to the best of my knowledge this material is accurate, in full agreement with the AWAW rules, and (in cases where there was disagreement) follows the most convincing interpretation promulgated. Reference dates and/or post numbers are provided as an aid in finding the group discussion (which may have spanned several days or even weeks). I periodically update this document as detail is added to the rules, or as other changes to the rules render a previous interpretation obsolete. Any inaccuracies or misrepresentations are likely my fault alone.
Tim Schroeder, 2008 May 7

Rule-oriented Wisdom
Components and Concepts:
Definitions (3) - Terrain and Mapboard (4) - Mapboard Boxes (5) - Offensive Operations (9)
Ground Operations: Ground Units (10) - Partisans (11) - Stacking (12) - Movement (13) - Attrition Combat (14) - Offensive Combat (15) - Exploitation (16)
Air Operations: Air Units (17) - Air Operations (18) - Air Combat (19)
Naval Operations: Naval Units (20) - Naval Operations (21) - Naval Interception & Combat (22) - Air-Naval Operations (23)
Strategic Warfare: Strategic Warfare (24) - Submarine Warfare (25) - Strategic Bombing (26)
Logistics: Unit Construction (27) - Redeployment (28) - Hex Control (29) - Supply (30) - Bridgeheads (31) - Fortifications (32) - Oil (33) - Weather (34)
Economics: YSS and BRP Calculations (35) - Mobilization (36) - Industrial Centers (37) - Key Economic Areas (38) - Spending Limits (39) - BRP Grants (40)
Research and Intelligence: Research (41) - Production (42) - Atomics (43) - Intelligence (44) - Espionage (46) - Covert Operations (47) - Codebreaking (48)
Diplomacy and Politics: Diplomacy (49) - Declarations of War (50) - Pearl Harbor & Allied Unpreparedness (51) - Lent Units (52) - Cooperation Restrictions (53)
Surrender of Major Powers: Surrender of Major Powers (54) - Italian Surrender (56) - Japanese Surrender (57) - French Surrender (58) - British Surrender (59) - Russian Surrender (60) - Chinese Surrender (61) - U.S. Elections (62)
Nazi-Soviet Pact & Eastern Europe: Eastern Europe (63) - Bessarabia (66) - Finnish Border Hexes (67) - German Economic Interests (69)
British Commonwealth: Australia (71) - India (72)
France: Restrictions on French Forces (75) - French Asian Colonies (76) - Vichy France (77)
China, Manchuria, Siberia: Nationalist China (78) - Restrictions on Chinese Forces (80) - Manchuria, Siberia, the Urals Box (81)
Minor Countries: Minor Countries (82) - Conquest of Minor Countries (83) - Associated Minor Countries (84) - Minor Allies (85) - Scandinavia (86) - Western Europe (87) - Middle East (88) - Far East (89)

Miscellaneous Wisdom
Research Results - Diplomatic Tables - Tension Tables - Scenario Introduction - Campaign Scenarios - Barbarossa Scenario - North Africa Scenario - Tables - Sequence of Play - Player Aids - Map

3.11 -- combat phase

Q: What comprises the combat phase?
A: The combat phase is comprised of the items listed in step 6 of the sequence of play. This includes attrition (rule 14), combat (rule 15), and exploitation (rule 16) as well as many naval and air missions. Post-combat adjustments (step 7 in the sequence of play) are separate from the combat phase. There are parts of the turn that are not part of any of the four main "phases" (movement, combat, construction, redeployment). One implication is that naval units that fail to intercept during the combat phase can attempt to intercept again during post-combat adjustments. Note that this interpretation contradicts the group wisdom on 18.46, which implies that post-combat adjustments are part of the combat phase. [2007 Jun 27-29]

3.11 -- fully operational fast carrier

Q: May a fast carrier still be "fully operational" even if based in a non-operational port? Even if it is inverted?
A: The only requirements for a fully operational fast carrier are that it be undamaged and carrying its full complement of NAS; the status of the port in which it is based makes no difference. An inverted carrier may be fully operational; an inverted fully operational carrier (intercepted while changing base, for instance) provides the same search and anti-submarine benefits as an uninverted fully operational carrier. See 20.33. [2009 Dec 30]

3.11 -- SBP

Q: What is a "SBP" as listed under naval units on the force pool charts?
A: SBP = Shipbuilding Point


Q: Are units on the beach hexes of two-hex islands vulnerable to elimination by isolation?
A: Yes; 30.542B excepts units on Pacific one-hex islands or ports, but not on hexes treated as ports for sea supply. [2007 Jul 30]

Q: What does it mean that these beach hexes are treated as ports but cannot be used in support of naval operations?
A: The hexes are treated as ports in that sea supply lines can terminate in those hexes, and that ground/air units can be picked up or dropped off in them during sea transport, seaborne invasion, or redeployment (sea escort). However, naval units cannot base in these hexes, and they do not count as ports when determining whether a naval mission satisfies range restrictions. If you sail from a port, to such a beach hex, and from there to another port or to a final destination, the mission must satisfy the range requirements without treating the beach hex as a port. (Note the one exception in 21.3612; the hex can be used to meet range restriction only for sea escort missions that embark units at the island.) This is the same way that one-hex islands are treated. [2013 Aug 18]


Q: When is the distance between the U.S. boxes and the mapboard relevant?
A: 5.12B allows the normal range restrictions for naval activities involving mapboard boxes to be superseded by special range rules. In the case of both U.S. boxes, there are specific limitations for all naval activities: base changes and naval displacement (5.28, 21.214, 21.231); sea supply (30.365); sea transport (21.433); seaborne invasion, including shore bombardment and fast carrier missions (21.512, 21.523A, 21.553A); and sea escort and NRs (21.61, 28.751, 28.752). Patrols (21.413A) and interception (22.11B) are prohibited from the U.S. boxes. The distance of the U.S. boxes to the mapboard edges is relevant only for strategic bombing (26.31). [2009 Jun 16 [off-list]]


Q: Should the rule state the prohibition on patrols from the US box?
A: 5.28F prohibits interception; maybe the set of naval missions should be complete. See 21.413A.


Q: When may naval units return to the South Africa box after a naval activity?
A: Naval units may return to base in South Africa only if South Africa is their base of origin (21.33), or after engaging raiders in the Indian Ocean (21.538C). Except where explicitly allowed, the distance to the South Africa box is such that it is too far away for the action being contemplated. [2006 Aug 9]


Q: Are the Andaman Islands within air staging range of the India box?
A: No. Although the India box is adjacent to the west edge of the mapboard (5.42A) and that is within six hexes of the Andaman Islands, the air bases in the India box are only in air staging range of eligible hexes in India (5.47A). [2009 Dec 2-4]


Q: Are overruns onto the mapboard from the India box allowed?
A: No. Although the overrun takes place on the mapboard and occurs during movement rather than during combat, what if the overrun fails? Then the units attempting the overrun remain in the "hex" from which they attempted the overrun (the mapboard box) and must attack in the following combat phase -- which is not allowed. Thus, overruns from the mapboard box are not allowed. [2014 May 20]


Q: Can sea supply be traced from the India box to Suez, Basra, or Abadan?
A: No. Although base changes, sea transports, and redeployments are allowed between India (or Australia) and the Middle East, sea supply is not allowed. Sea supply lines never cross between theaters (except as they are traced for oil or BRP grants). At least in part, this is because sea supply from India or Australia carries the oil status of the mapboard box, while on the European mapboard supply from mapboard boxes (Atlantic US box, South Africa box) does not carry oil (33.4715, 33.533). [2011 Jun 6]


Q: Is Port Moresby within air staging range of the Australia box?
A: No. Although the Australia box is adjacent to the south edge of the mapboard (5.52A) and that is within six hexes of Port Moresby, the air bases in the Australia box are only in air staging range of eligible hexes in Australia (5.57A). [2009 Dec 2-4]


Q: Are overruns onto the mapboard from the Australia box allowed?
A: No. Although the overrun takes place on the mapboard and occurs during movement rather than during combat, what if the overrun fails? Then the units attempting the overrun remain in the "hex" from which they attempted the overrun (the mapboard box) and must attack in the following combat phase -- which is not allowed. Thus, overruns from the mapboard box are not allowed. [2014 May 20]


Q: Can supply be traced from South Africa through an Allied-controlled Ethiopia box into Egypt?
A: No. Land supply lines require a line of hexes (30.311, 30.321); Ethiopia is a box, not a hex. [2009 Feb 11]

Q: Can supply be traced from Ethiopia into Egypt?
A: No. Although units in Ethiopia are considered to be in full supply, Ethiopia is not a supply source, and supply lines cannot be traced from Ethiopia to anywhere else. [2012 Feb 18]


Q: If a naval unit in an SW box protects a mission that is then intercepted, and after naval combat retires to a port on the mapboard, may the naval unit be uninverted at the end of the player turn?
A: Naval units in an SW box that protect a mission must return to the SW box, either before or after accompanying any naval units that were based on the mapboard to a port (5.91). There is no option for a naval unit that was based in the SW box to return to base on the mapboard after naval combat (unless it was damaged - 25.371).

Q: Is there any way to deploy NAS to an SW box to replenish a fast carrier already in the SW box?
A: NAS cannot be deployed into an SW box except on board a fast carrier. A fast carrier without its full complement of NAS would have to leave the SW box to have additional NAS transferred to it. (NAS could be shuffled between fast carriers in the SW box, but that doesn't remedy the shortage of NAS.) [2011 Mar 13]


Q: Are harbor attacks by carriers considered to be an offensive operation?
A: No. The harbor attack is carried out during the movement phase (21.441) and inverts the carrier, but the attack is a research result, not an offensive operation, and requires no BRPs to be spent. [2015 May 2]


Q: May a major power choose to pay 15 BRPs for a full offensive option at any point, rather than tracking individual expenditures using the "pay-as-you-go" method?
A: Each major power strictly follows 9.58, paying the BRPs as the actions are performed. A major power may not "pre-pay" for offensive operations for any reason, including to reach the "full offensive" level. This may require the moving player to divulge more information than desired about TFs (the number of BRPs paid for any naval operations performed before reaching 15 BRPs of offensive actions will give some information about the naval units in a TF), but this is intentional; a player can't mask the contents of a TF by hiding behind a "full offensive" until the full offensive has been reached.


Q: If one major power (e.g., Germany) pays 15 BRPs for offensive actions on a front, must other major powers in the same faction (e.g., Italy) also pay for offensive actions performed by its units?
A: Yes. The 15 BRPs paid by a major power allows offensive operations only by the major power and its associated or allied minor countries -- not by other major powers (or their associated or allied minor powers). It is not uncommon for both Germany and Italy to pay 15 BRPs for offensive actions on a front, or for one major power to pay 15 BRPs for offensive actions and the other major power to pay a lesser number of BRPs for offensive actions. [2017 May 26]


Q: If a carrier patrols on one front, but counterairs an air base on another front, on which front must the BRPs for the patrol be paid?
A: The BRPs are paid for the offensive action on the front containing the patrol hex (21.414A). However, the cost of the offensive action (the BRPs for the carrier) is also considered (but not paid) on the front receiving the counterair, for the purposes of whether an attrition can be done on that front. [2006 Jul 29] [2007 Dec 10]

Q: How does this rule interact with 15.45, which states that the cost is "counted only for the front in which the attacking unit is located"?
A: 15.45 makes the simplifying (but unstated and in some cases incorrect) assumption that one of the fronts receiving the action will be the front on which the attacking unit is located. The governing principles are:
(a) The hex that receives the action determines the front for which BRPs are paid (9.71).
(b) The cost for any given unit is only paid once (9.75).
(c) When deciding whether attritions are permitted, the cost is counted on all involved fronts, even though it is only paid on one front (9.75).
(d) The BRP cost for a unit which takes offensive action on multiple fronts is counted only on the front that receives the first offensive action.
(e) If the first offensive action of a unit is on multiple fronts (e.g., an attack into two fronts), the attacking player decide on which of those two fronts the BRP cost will be paid.
(f) The cost for a unit's attack only counts toward the 15 BRP threshold (allowing unlimited offensive actions by a major power and its associated or allied minor countries) on the front where the cost is actually paid. That cost may be counted (but not paid) on another front as well, which might prohibit an attrition on that front. But paid cost is what what determines whether the 15 BRP threshold allowing unlimited offensive activity is met, not counted cost (15.45). [2014 Dec 29-31]


Q: Does movement really somehow count as an offensive activity?
A: When 9.75 refers to "each front on which the unit moves or attacks", it is referring only to offensive movement (overruns, exploitation movement) -- not normal non-offensive movement. [2014 Dec 29]


Q: If unit exploits on a second front (having already paid for offensive activity on a first front), how does this rule interact with 9.57, which says a unit only pays for offensive activity on a single front?
A: BRPs for the exploiting armor unit need to be paid only once, on the first front (9.57) where the first offensive action occurs. (Being placed onto a breakthrough hex is an offensive action, so the BRPs will be paid on the front where the breakthrough hex is located, assuming no overruns during normal movement.) However, the BRPs are counted on the second front, even if they are not actually paid, when determining if an attrition is allowed on the second front. If there is no full offensive, the armor unit will be participating in a limited offensive, with the BRPs for the armor being counted, even though they are not actually paid. If there are 14 BRPs or fewer counted, attrition is allowed. If there are 15 BRPs or more counted, attrition is not allowed, even if fewer BRPS are actually paid. [2017 May 6]


Q: May an Italian air base be used on the eastern front and used by German air units to conduct offensive operations?
A: Yes. The Italians may place air bases on the eastern front, which may then be used to base Italian or (in a later phase) German air units. German air units based at an Italian air base may conduct offensive operations; Italian air units could be used defensively. [2012 Oct 26]


Q: Are Western Allied 3-factor infantry units mechanized in the Pacific?
A: They are still mechanized, although they are treated as non-mechanized for all purposes in the Pacific. They still take four turns to mobilize, for example, even in a PTO-only scenario. [2013 Jun 21]


Q: Can replacements occupy enemy-controlled hexes?
A: Yes, moving into enemy-controlled territory is not an offensive operation. [official Q&A]


Q: Does a Japanese armor in a jungle/mountain hex retain its mechanized component?
A: No. Japanese armor in a jungle hex retains its mechanized component, but the mountain component of a jungle/mountain hex negates the mechanized component. [2012 Jul 23]

Q: How does an armor unit gain/lose MPs as it moves between clear and rough terrain in the Pacific?
A: An armor unit has MPs according to the hex it is in, and spends MPs according to the hex it wants to move into. If the number of MPs it has (less those already used) is at least as many as the number it needs to spend, the movement is allowed. Starting in rough and moving to clear (have 2 MPs, need 1 MP) and then to rough (have 3 - 1 used = 2 MPs, need 2 MPs) is allowed; starting in clear and moving to rough (have 3 MPs, need 2 MPs) and then to clear (have 2 - 2 used = 0 MPs, need 1 MP) is not allowed. [2007 Aug 16]


Q: May more than three specialized units stack in a hex if there are fewer non-specialized units in the hex than allowed? In other words, can a specialized unit "act like" a non-specialized unit in order to stack more than three in a hex?
A: The limit is three specialized units "regardless of the presence of any other units". Thus, the limit is three specialized units even if there are no non-specialized units in the hex. [2012 Feb 23]


Q: What is the supply status of an airborne unit dropped onto an enemy port, if post-combat sea supply to the port fails?
A: The airborne unit retains the fully-supplied status it had before it dropped until initial supply determination during the following friendly player turn, and suffers no CTL penalty. The hex on which it dropped (to which post-combat sea supply failed) is unsupplied. In the game turn following the airdrop, during initial supply determination, the airborne unit and hex must be supplied normally; there is no automatic supply. [2007 Jun 15]


Q: What is the airdrop range for the Chindit?
A: The Chindit has an airdrop range of three hexes, the same as a Pacific Theatre air transport unit. [2015 Jan 31]

Q: Does the intrinsic airdrop capability act like an air transport unit?
A: The intrinsic AT is not its own unit. It does not require uninversion. It cannot be counter-aired and does not count against air base capacity. It must still abide by all other restrictions of the mission it is performing: operational base and so on. [2015 Nov 11]


Q: Is there any CTL requirement for marines to use their special capabilities, as there is for other specialized units (airborne - 10.53D, Chindit - 10.61A, commandos - 10.83)?
A: No. [2013 Jan 22]


Q: How is the ten- or five-hex range of an invading commando measured?
A: The path traced from the commando's port of embarkation to the port being invaded must be ten (Europe) or five (Pacific) hexes or less. The general range restrictions also apply to the movement of the naval units carrying or accompanying the commando. [2007 Aug 22]


Q: Is a hex containing only a flak unit eligible for attrition occupation?
A: No. Just as flak units are not counted in attritions (14.23F) and may not be taken as attrition losses (10.93), flak units alone do not make a hex eligible for attrition occupation. [2012 Jul 1]


Q: May British partisans be constructed if Britain is not in a state of surrender?
A: Yes, if Germany has previously accepted a British offer of surrender. It makes no difference whether Britain exited, or exited and re-entered, the war. [2015 Oct 6]


Q: May partisans be placed in a hex containing an enemy flak counter?
A: No. Flak units are ground units (11.353E), and a hex containing a flak unit is not vacant (11.353D).

Q: May a partisan be constructed in an otherwise vacant hex containing a shipyard if there are ships undergoing construction or repair in the shipyard?
A: Yes, so long as none of the other restrictions on partisan construction are violated. The ships in the shipyard are not occupying the hex. [2007 May 31]


Q: Can a major power lose BRPs to partisans in a minor country that it doesn't control?
A: Yes. Partisans can cause economic damage if in a hex controlled by a major power, even if in a hex in an unconquered minor country (so the major power has not yet received the BRPs) or if in a hex controlled by one major power in a minor country conquered by an ally (so the ally received the BRPs). This is one reason to keep strict track of which major power controls each specific hex. [2008 Apr 17]

Q: What constitutes an "island" for deciding whether partisans cause BRP damage?
A: The exception for "islands" prevents the loss of BRPs from partisans in economically unimportant areas which cannot reasonably be eliminated by the major power suffering the loss. Partisans in the Balearic Islands (Spain), Crete and the Aegean islands (Greece), Gotland (Sweden), Corsica (conquered France) and Sardinia (conquered Italy) do not cause BRP damage. Partisans in a conquered Britain, Ireland and Ceylon do cause BRP damage. A partisan in Scapa Flow could cause BRP damage. A partisan in Sicily could cause BRP damage. [2015 Oct 11]

Q: Which power loses the BRPs for a territory that is not controlled by any major power?
A: In some cases the power that loses the BRPs isn't well-defined. Allied hexes are usually jointly controlled by two or three powers. Hexes in Russia may be controlled by Germany or Italy, though neither Axis power controls the "territory" of Russia. Russia can control hexes in a territory controlled by the Western Allies (like Persia). The Axis can build partisans [in Allied hexes] in territories (like an Axis-associated Turkey) controlled by the Axis. And so on. Better/Clearer might be

That covers all the cases (including the weird cases mentioned above), and means there is no fiddling around like having an Italian advance into a Russian swamp hex before the German it is stacked with advances, just so that Italy controls the hex and will lose the BRP if a partisan shows up there a year later. [2011 Apr 21]


Q: May more than three specialized units stack in a hex if there are fewer non-specialized units in the hex than allowed? In other words, can a specialized unit "act like" a non-specialized unit in order to stack more than three in a hex?
A: The limit is three specialized units "regardless of the presence of any other units". Thus, the limit is three specialized units even if there are no non-specialized units in the hex. [2012 Feb 23]

Q: May more than three airborne units airdrop into a hex simultaneously?
A: Stacking limits apply during combat (except at sea); there is no exception as there is during movement or redeployment. No more than three units may airdrop into a hex. [2015 Sep 12]


Q: May a player air and/or sea transport more than two ground units into a hex, in the hopes that some of the missions will succeed?
A: If it is certain that the stacking limit of the hex will be exceeded if all the missions succeed, then they are not allowed. But if a legal attempt is made to meet the stacking limit (for example, by attempting an overrun to get some units out of the hex), the missions are allowed even if the attempt to meet the stacking limit fails (for example, DAS brings the overrun odds below 6:1). In these cases, there are specific rules for remedying overstacking (such as in the case of a failed overrun). [2007 Aug 12]


Q: May the units in two fully-stacked adjacent hexes swap places during movement?
A: Stacking limits do not apply during the movement phase or during exploitation movement. In each case, stacking limits are checked at the end of all movement, not after the individual movement of each specific unit is completed. All the units originally in the first hex can move into the second hex and complete their movement there, even though the hex would be overstacked (if stacking limits applied). Then the units originally in the second hex can move to the first hex. Once all movement of all units is completed, stacking limits are checked. In this example, once all movement is complete, no hex is overstacked, and the movement is legal. [2016 July 9]


Q: May more than two units conduct and overrun so long as no more than two cross into the target hex across the same hexside?
A: No. An overrun is conducted by no more than two ground units in total, and they must move into the hex through the same hexside. [2014 Jul 30]


Q: May the defender allocate additional DAS in the combat phase to defend a hex that was the subject of a failed overrun?
A: Yes. The units that participated during the movement phase remain committed, but like the attacker, the defender can assist the defense with additional air units. [2012 Dec 10]


Q: May an attrition zone be composed of hexes on one front that are contiguous only by virtue of connecting hexes on a different front?
A: No. All the hexes must be on the same front. So, for example, if the Axis advance a hex or two into France from Italy, but do not link those hexes with the Axis hexes along the main Franco-German front, the Axis will be separated into two attrition zones. The groups of hexes are not contiguous on the western front; the fact that they are contiguous by land by going around Switzerland through the Mediterranean front does not matter. [2005 Apr 21]

Q: May an attrition zone be composed of hexes on one front that are contiguous only by virtue of connecting hexes in a different attrition zone on the same front?
A: No. In fall and winter turns, Manchuria is part of the Siberia-Manchuria-Mongolia-Tannu Tuva attrition zone. Thus Japanese-controlled northern China is attritioned separately from Japanese-controlled Korea; those two areas are separate attrition zones because they are contiguous only through a different attrition zone (Manchuria, etc.). [2016 Feb 22]


Q: How are airborne attritioned if an area of contiguous controlled hexes contains only airborne dropped from two different attrition zones in the previous player turn?
A: This situation can arise if, for example, airborne from Portsmouth and Cherbourg airdrop behind German lines in France after Operation Overlord. The rules are not clear on how this is handled, but a reasonable interpretation is that attrition losses can be taken from either attrition zone (Portsmouth or Cherbourg). [2012 Feb 29]


Q: In which turns does the attrition modifier for winter preparation apply?
A: The modifier applies in any turn where the defending units are subject to winter effects. This is normally only winter turns, but also fall turns in Siberia, Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tannu Tuva. And the modifier does not apply (even in winter turns) in areas where there are no winter effects (such as Africa and the Middle East). [2015 Jul 1]


Q: May a 1C/1H result be converted to a 2C result in the Pacific theater, even though '1H' does not allow a hex to be taken?
A: Yes. It is only the result that matters, not the effect of the result in a particular theater. In the Pacific, one would likely convert every 1C/1H result to a 2C result, in order to do an extra counter of damage at no cost. [2006 Sep 17]


Q: May a player trace unlimited supply to a supply zone already in unlimited supply, for no purpose other than to allow attrition losses to be taken from another supply zone?
A: Yes. For example, Japan may trace sea supply from Japan to the mainland (though it may already be supplied from Seoul), and Britain may trace sea supply to France (though it may already be supplied from Paris). A player may also trace post-combat sea supply to a newly-placed beachhead, even though the beachhead is an unlimited supply source, in order to be able to take attrition losses from a supply zone other than the local zone or the zones that launched the invasion. [2005 Apr 17] [2006 Aug 28]

Q: If the only units in an attrition zone are armor units in full supply by virtue of having exploited during a previous player turn, is this sufficient to allow attrition losses to be taken from anywhere other than the attrition zone?
A: To take losses from somewhere other than the attrition zone, the ground units in the attrition zone must all be fully supplied -- not merely in exploitation supply. If full supply is not traced to the armor units in the attrition zone the friendly player turn after the one in which they exploited, any subsequent attrition losses must be taken locally. Note that if exploiting armor units are attritioned in the enemy player turn immediately following the one in which they exploited, those armor units will still be fully supplied (they must have been fully supplied to exploit, and that full supply is not lost until initial supply determination in their next player turn). [2007 Dec 16]

Q: What is an "attritioned" unit?
A: Rule 14.2 defines "attritioning" units -- those that are counted towards the attrition total. By symmetry, "attritioned" units are those units of the defending faction adjacent to and allowing the inclusion of an eligible "attritioning" unit. Adjacency alone is not sufficient because the unit must be in the proper attrition zone (14.211), not adjacent solely across a fortified hex sides (14.23D), etc. Taking losses to implement a "#C" result or designating a hex during a Russian winter attrition has no effect on which units are attritioned. Since the attacker need not include all eligible units in the attrition, he has some control over which defending units are "attritioned". [2014 Nov 13]


Q: May a player take attrition losses from units that are isolated? For example, North Africa (as well as mainland France) is supplied from Paris in an Allied turn. On the following Axis turn, some units in France are cut off from Paris (or Paris falls). The Axis attrition in North Africa. May attrition losses be taken from the now-isolated units in France?
A: Yes. The units that are "cut off" are not actually isolated until initial supply determination in the next Allied player turn. During the Axis player turn, they are still part of the supply zone that included Paris. [2005 Jul 31]


Q: Are units adjacent to attritioning enemy units but in a fortification "in contact" with the attritioning forces?
A: Only units that are being attritioned are "in contact" with the attritioning forces. Units in a fortification are not being attritioned, and are therefore not "in contact with", even though they may be "adjacent to", the attritioning units. [2010 Sep 1] [2012 Dec 6]


Q: Although Russia cannot designate a hex for both attrition loss and attrition occupation, could it occupy a hex designated for attrition loss "normally"?
A: Yes, assuming the requirements for claiming the hex are met (14.521H). The same hex cannot be designated for both losses and occupation because 14.521G would then both require and forbid losses from being taken from the same hex. But 14.521G does say, "... Attrition losses may be taken from hexes which have been designated for attrition losses, to prevent their occupation ...", which clearly imagines that a hex designated for attrition losses could be occupied as part of normal attrition occupation. [2014 May 31]


Q: Does Germany suffer the disadvantages of a Russian winter attrition if a minority of their defending factors are east of the Pact line?
A: If at least one attritioned hex is in the Russian winter zone, then the attrition is a Russian winter attrition resolved according to 14.521. Although 14.521A limits hexes designated for attrition losses or occupation to the Russian winter zone, all losses across the entire eastern front must be taken in accord with 14.521G. [2005 Sep 3] [2007 Apr 17] [2007 Aug 20]


Q: May Russia occupy hexes "normally" even if it designated hexes for losses and occupation (14.521D) up to the limit of the difference in winter preparation?
A: Yes. When 14.521D refers to hexes designated for attrition occupation, it includes only those hexes specially designated, from which the Axis may not take losses. When attrition occupation is resolved, Russia is allowed to occupy hexes up to the number given by the "H" result of the attrition. These will normally include hexes already designated (14.521D) plus additional hexes (14.521H). For example, Russia rolls a 9C/4H result with a difference of 5 in winter preparation; Russia may designate 2 hexes for losses and 3 hexes for occupation (14.521D). After the Axis remove their attrition losses (which must include the two hexes designated for losses, and must not include the three hexes designated for occupation), Russia may occupy 4 hexes (the three already designated, plus one more "implemented normally). [2017 March 19]

Q: Do the Axis retreat from hexes Russia designated for attrition occupation before retreating from hexes occupied normally?
A: All attrition retreats are simultaneous. Here is the sequence for a winter attrition on the eastern front conducted by Russia: (1) the attrition combat result is determined; (2) the Russian player designates hexes for mandatory losses & mandatory advances; (3) the Axis player removes losses; (4) the Russian player designates hexes for advance; (5) the Axis player retreats units from hexes selected for advance; (6) the Russian player advances into hexes designated for advance. The only difference from the normally attrition resolution sequence is the addition of step (2), which involves only designations (no counters are moved). [2007 Jun 17]


Q: Is a hex containing only a flak unit eligible for attrition occupation?
A: No. Just as flak units are not counted in attritions (14.23F) and may not be taken as attrition losses (10.93), flak units alone do not make a hex eligible for attrition occupation. [2012 Jul 1]


Q: May a unit retreat to an enemy-controlled hex in enemy ZoC if an enemy-controlled hex not in enemy ZoC is available?
A: Such a retreat is legal only if the defender would be overstacked in the hex outside enemy ZoC, but not overstacked in enemy ZoC. Although the "least of the following evils" clause does not discriminate between these two types of hexes (they are equally "evil"), the defender must still avoid overstacking or entering enemy ZoC if possible. If the only choices for retreat are overstacking in an enemy-controlled hex outside enemy ZoC, or entering (but not overstacking in) an enemy ZoC in an enemy-controlled hex, then the rules allow the defender to choose to enter enemy ZoC rather than overstack; the two hex types are equally "evil", and the "avoid ... if possible" clause does not define a hierarchy among the hex types to avoid. In either case, the defender is failing to avoid two of the three conditions listed, and there is no indication that violating one pair is any better or worse than violating the other. Overstacking in an enemy ZoC in an enemy-controlled hex is not allowed unless there are no other possibilities, as it fails to avoid all three of the conditions listed.

Q: How do the restrictions in 14.73 apply to complex attrition retreat situations, where the retreat hex chosen for one unit might affect the possible retreats for another unit?
A: Retreats are simultaneous. The retreating player is forced to arrange all of his retreats together so as to (primarily) minimize the number of retreating units that violate the most important criteria, to (secondarily) minimize the number of retreating units that violate the second most important criteria, ..., and to (finally) minimize the number of retreating units that violate the least important criteria. The number of overstacked hexes, the number of occupied hexes in enemy ZOC, and the number of enemy hexes taken by attrition retreat are immaterial. The violations, from most important to least important criteria, are


Q: Must all attacks be announced at the same time?
A: Attacks are only announced when they are about to be resolved. A player may therefore announce and resolve attacks differently based on the results of previously announced/resolved attacks. Any advance-after-combat for an attack must be executed before the next attack is resolved. [2007 Sep 18]


Q: May a ground unit participate in more than one attack in a turn?
A: No. 9.65 prohibits double attacks by ground units, including prohibiting a ground unit from both attacking and counting towards an attrition. However, a unit can participate in overruns and still attack (or attrition). And a single attack might consist of multiple rounds of ground combat. [2014 May 3]

Q: May an empty enemy hex be attacked?
A: Normally an empty hex may not be attacked in ground combat. Attacking units must be adjacent to or on top of enemy ground units to attack; if there is no enemy ground unit, there can be no adjacent units. The one exception is seaborne invation of an empty hex (21.513A); an invasion is always an offensive naval activity, but is only an offensive ground operation if the hex is defended (and breaktrhough/exploitation is an offensive ground operation, even if the hex was undefended). [2015 Apr 1]


Q: Are Free French units subject to the -1 DM as "minor country" units?
A: No. [2017 Aug 3]


Q: What is the definition of "home country"?
A: East Prussia is part of Germany. Sicily is part of Italy, but Sardinia is not. Only Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu, and Hokkaido are considered Japan's home country. Ulster is part of Britain. Corsica is not part of France. The Aleutian and Hawaiian Islands are not part of the U.S. Manchuria is neither part of China nor part of Japan.
Currently the best definition is in 27.42, though there must be a better place for something as basic as defining home countries. Also note that unlike Free French units, Commonwealth units must be constructed in their home countries (82.13B); that is, Indian units must be constructed in India, etc. Commonwealth units are explicitly considered to be "in their home country" when defending in Britain, but the reverse is not true; British units are not in their home country when in India or Australia, nor are units of one Commonwealth country considered to be in their home country while in a *different* commonwealth country. [2016 Apr 1]

Q: What is the "home country" for Vlasovs, Wangs, and the Indian National Army?
A: In each of these cases, the home country is the country (or countries) in which the units can be built. The "home country" for Vlasovs is Russia and pre-war Poland (44.32A), for Wangs it is China and Manchuria (44.33A), and for the Indian National Army it is India and Burma (72.92C). In the case of Vlasovs, Poland is explicitly listed as being part of their "home country" (44.32A). [2015 Jan 23]


Q: Can isolation reduce the DM of a hex/unit low enough so that it defends at face value even against seaborne invasion or (sole) airdrop?
A: All positive and negative DM modifiers are taken into account simultaneously. There is no limit to the negative modifier for isolation, and no limit on the total of all negative DM modifiers. Once all modifiers both positive and negative are taken into account, no unit ever defends at less than face value. In a sufficiently isolated hex, there may be no DM difference between attack by land and attack by seaborne invasion. [2005 Sep 16]


Q: How do you reconcile "is counted only for the front in which the attacking unit is located when determining whether a full offensive is being conducted for that front" with "the hex which receives the action determining the front for which offensive operation BRP expenditures must be made (9.71)"?
A: 15.45 is making the assumption that if a unit is attacking on more than one front, the first of those fronts will be the front on which the unit is located. This is not necessarily true, though, since a unit on the eastern front could attack into the western and Mediterranean fronts without also attacking on the eastern front. [2014 Dec 29-31]

Q: Can an armor unit exploit across a front boundary and attack on the new front without paying the offensive option cost on the new front?
A: Being placed on the breakthrough hex is an offensive action (9.42B), and will normally be the first offensive action the armor unit takes. The hex receiving the action (the breakthrough hex) is the front on which the cost must be paid (not, for example, the front on which the armor was located prior to being placed on the breakthrough hex). Once the cost is paid on this first front, the armor unit is free to continue to conduct offensive operations (exploiting, attacking) on additional fronts without paying the offensive operation cost a second time. However, the cost is counted when determining whether an attrition option is allowed on any front where an offensive action is conducted, even though the cost was paid only on the front containing the breakthrough hex. [2017 May 6]


Q: Must all attacks be announced as part of these "preparations" before any attacks are resolved?
A: No; according to the sequence of play, specifying the attacking & defending units is part of resolving an attack (not of preparing for it). An attack may be carried out (or not) depending on the results of prior attacks. Note that there are repercussions for not carrying out an attack involving already-declared ground support (for example); but if an attack would involve only ground units attacking by land, there is no penalty for not attacking. [2016 Mar 28]


Q: Are Ex results converted to Ex-1 results for Italian overruns and exploitation?
A: No; the attack must involve a German armor unit to benefit from this rule. However, even an Italian ("Axis") attack can trigger the expiration of this benefit. [2009 Aug 4]


Q: If the CRT result indicates the partial loss of a ground unit (for example, one combat factor but only 3x3 units are available), is the unit replaced with a smaller unit?
A: No; the entire unit is lost. "Change" is never made for ground units. [2013 Oct 15]


Q: May exploitation attacks also continue for multiple rounds?
A: Yes; 15.7 applies equally to normal combat and exploitation combat. [2017 Jul 10]


Q: In an attack against defending units in multiple hexes (15.44), if all the defenders in one hex are eliminated in a round of combat, may air units flying ground support or DAS over the now-empty hex participate in subsequent rounds of combat?
A: Yes. This rule mandates that all the surviving units participate in the later rounds of combat (except when applicable ratios or CTL limits would be exceeded -- the same items that would prohibit units from participating in a later round of combat where there was only one defending hex); there is no exception for air flying over the now-empty hex. The attack was against both hexes in round one, and is still against both hexes in round two (even though one is now empty). For example, you can fly ground support at greater than the 3:1 ratio over one hex of a multi-hex combat, so long as the 3:1 limit is respected for the attack as a whole. And after a successful second round, the attacker can still advance into a hex that was emptied after the first round, because that empty hex is still being attacked in the second round (15.91). [2011 Jan 17]


Q: Is the CTL adjustment for isolated ground units dependent on the number of turns the units have been isolated?
A: No; unlike the Defense Multiplier adjustment for isolated units (15.33D), the number of turns the units have been in partial supply or without oil has no effect on CTL. The CTL is never adjusted by more than -1 for 15.81. [2012 Feb 6]


Q: May armor units carried on DDs with CTL 1 exploit from an invasion hex if the invasion combat lasted two rounds?
A: Yes. DDs with CTL 1 (and therefore the ground units they carried) would not be able to participate in a second round of invasion combat, but to exploit, the armor units must not participate in invasion combat (21.5181). Since they are not participating in the invasion combat, the CTL of those ground units or the DDs carrying them is not relevant in resolving the initial invasion combat. [2007 Aug 3-6]


Q: Can an armor unit attacking from a mountain hex in the Pacific theater into a clear hex create a breakthrough?
A: No. While in the mountain hex, the armor's mechanized component is negated. That mechanized component is restored once the armor unit advances after combat into the clear hex. However, breakthroughs require an attacking mechanized armor unit; 16.11B makes it clear that 16.11A must be met before advancing after combat. [2012 Mar 5]


Q: If a breakthrough is created by an attack where all the requirements to create a breakthrough and exploitation are met by the "land component" of the attack, does the inclusion of additional invading units trigger the CTL reduction for exploiting armor units?
A: A ground attack is either a seaborne invasion or it is not; the rules do not allow the concept of "this part of the attack" or "that part of the attack". 21.517B allows for a seaborne invasion to include units attacking by land, but the entire attack is still a seaborne invasion. As such, the CTL of exploiting armor is reduced. [2014 Mar 8]


Q: May an exploiting armor unit from one breakthrough hex end its exploitation movement in an overstacked second breakthrough hex?
A: No. The rules allow armor to be placed on a breakthrough hex without regard to stacking limits, but there is no exception to the stacking limits for armor units using exploitation movement to move into a second breakthrough hex. Stacking limits do apply to breakthrough hexes, and each unit in an overstacked breakthrough hex needs an exception to the stacking limit in order to be in the hex. [2009 Sep 2-3]


Q: If two exploiting armor units attack from a hex, and an advance of one of them is legal, is that advance always still legal if the other armor unit is lost in combat?
A: Not necessarily; you cannot voluntarily break the chain (16.47B). For example, if two armor units exploit two hexes east from the breakthrough hex and attack the next hext to the east, one could advance after combat if the other survives. But if one is eliminated, the other may not advance, because that would break the chain. This rule's "no adverse effect on other exploiting armor units" refers to other exploiting armor units further down the chain; armor units are not lost because the chain is involuntarily broken between them and the breakthrough hex. But this rule does not allow an advance that would voluntarily break the chain. [2015 Dec 15]


Q: May the first armor unit in a breakthrough "chain" move more than two hexes (in Europe) if the chain is never broken?
A: No; once the first armor unit moves two hexes, it may move no further during exploitation movement. Likewise, once a subsequent armor unit moves two hexes beyond an earlier armor unit, it may move no further during exploitation movement. This is true even if the addition movement would be "lateral", or if another armor unit could be used to maintain the chain. However, since the exploiting units need not move in sequence, the "first" armor unit in the chain may not be the first armor unit to leave the breakthrough hex. [2007 Feb 10] [2012 Feb 5]


Q: Can more than two exploiting units in a breakthrough hex attack the *same* defending hex in a single attack?
A: Yes. [2013 Dec 4]


Q: If an armor unit near the start of the chain is eliminated in exploitation combat, can an armor unit further along the chain advance after exploitation combat?
A: Yes, so long as the advance would be legal had the first armor unit not been eliminated. This is similar to what would happen furthest advanced armor unit had attacked first; at that point the advance would have been legal, and no change would subsequently be made after the armor closer to the breakthrough hex attacked and was eliminated. However, if two armor units move two hexes (extending the chain by two hexes) and one of them is eliminated in exploitation combat, the other cannot advance unless the advance would have been legal without the presence of the second armor unit. The governing principle is that the advance must be legal at the exact point in time that it is made. [2005 Apr 2]


Q: For a "lateral advance", may the hex into which the armor advances be adjacent to any hex through which the advancing armor already moved, so long as the the "chain" appears unbroken on the mapboard?
A: No; the hex into which the armor advances must be adjacent to the hex the armor moved through immediately prior to reaching its current hex. The "chain" must not only "look like" a chain, but be constructed in the prescribed manner. [2015 Nov 19]


Q: When does exploitation supply expire?
A: The armor unit must be in full supply to exploit. Supply is only checked at two points during a game turn (initial supply determination and post-combat supply determination of the owner's player turn - 30.14). If the armor unit cannot trace full supply during initial supply determination of the owner's player turn the turn after it exploits (and if it has not redeployed in the meantime), it receives special exploitation supply. Unless upgraded to full supply during the ensuing post-combat supply determination, that special exploitation supply lasts until supply is again checked, at initial supply determination during the owner's second player turn after the armor unit exploited. The armor unit does not receive exploitation supply immediately upon exploiting (it still has full supply, and supply is never checked during exploitation), nor does it lose exploitation supply immediately upon redeploying (supply is never checked during redeployment); whether an armor unit exploits or redeploys only affects what its supply status will be during the owner's next initial supply determination, if it fails to receive full supply normally. [2011 May 12]


Q: May land-based NAS that are committed to interacting with naval activities transfer to a carrier?
A: Although land-based NAS interacting with naval activities are not physically inverted until the end of the redeployment phase (23.164), they are in effect "marked for inversion" and are ineligible for anything that requires uninverted air (23.162) -- except for continuing to interact with naval activities (23.161). Land-based NAS interacting with naval activities are in the process of being inverted and cannot be transferred to a carrier, though they may continue to interact with naval activities until they are physically inverted at the end of redeployment. [2013 May 8 [off-list]]


Q: What happens to naval air on a carrier if the carrier is sunk by surface combat or a submarine attack?
A: If a carrier is sunk while the naval air is not flying a mission (as in fleet combat or a submarine attack), excess NAS are eliminated. Note that NAS are not based on individual carriers; NAS are eliminated only if the NAS in a naval force exceeds the capacity of the naval force (17.3124). [2005 Sep 26]

Q: May NAS flying CAP missions voluntarily land at a land base if there are carriers available?
A: Yes; see 22.463B. But note that the decision must be made before fleet combat or submarine attacks (22.463A). [2010 Dec 9]


Q: Does the maximum size of the kamikaze force pool increase if Japan uses all its available kamikazes, but has less than the maximum number of kamikazes available?
A: The maximum kamikaze force pool size increases only if Japan has the maximum number of kamikazes available and uses them all. [2009 Sep 26]


Q: Do kamikazes receive the +1 modifier for naval air units attacking ships at sea?
A: No; they are not naval air units. Naval air units and kamikazes are dealt with in separate rules (17.3 vs. 17.4), and kamikazes can be created by converting army air units (17.44A). Although kamikazes are treated as elite naval air units when attacking naval units (17.464), this refers only to their Air Nationality DRM -- see 17.47H. [2013 Nov 6]


Q: How much information does the player attacking with kamikazes receive on the contents of the defender's CGs before choosing which CG(s) to attack?
A: None, other than the information normally revealed during naval combat. For a kamikaze attack outside naval combat, the specific CG to attack will essentially be chosen at random. However, choosing kamikaze targets strictly at random is not correct when there are more than 15 kamikazes available; a strictly random targeting algorithm might result in more than 15 kamikazes attacking the same CG of a multi-CG naval force, which is not legal. (See also the entry for 22.93A, dealing with submarine attacks.) [2008 Apr 7] [2011 Jul 5]


Q: In an attack with more than 15 kamikazes, must all waves except the last include 15 kamikazes?
A: No more than 15 kamikazes may attack in a single wave, but except for that restriction the player may split the kamikazes between waves in any way he chooses. [2016 Oct 2]

Q: When kamikazes attack, must all available kamikazes attack?
A: Kamikazes may not be held back to attack later in the turn, but they are not forced to attack; they could be held back and not used until a later turn. However, if all kamikazes do not attack, the player is not eligible for a kamikaze force pool increase or an attack modifier increase. Generally it would be foolish not to use all the kamikazes. [2016 Oct 2] [2016 Oct 13]


Q: Does the kamikaze attack modifier increase if Japan uses all its available kamikazes, but has less than the maximum number of kamikazes available?
A: The kamikaze attack modifier increases only if Japan has the maximum number of kamikazes available and uses them all. This is the same as the trigger that increases Japan's maximum kamikaze force pool size. [2009 Sep 26]

Q: Do kamikazes receive the +1 modifier for naval air units attacking ships at sea?
A: No; they are not naval air units. Naval air units and kamikazes are dealt with in separate rules (17.3 vs. 17.4), and kamikazes can be created by converting army air units (17.44A). Although kamikazes are treated as elite naval air units when attacking naval units (17.464), this refers only to their Air Nationality DRM -- see 17.47H. [2013 Nov 6]


Q: When and how are jet squadrons converted back to jet factors?
A: Three uninverted jet squadrons convert to one uninverted jet factor; otherwise three jet squadrons convert to one inverted jet factor. Two jet squadrons (inverted or not) convert to one inverted jet factor. One jet squadron (inverted or not) is eliminated. Jet units are converted at the same times as army air units (23.13, 23.14). [2007 Aug 22]


Q: Do interceptors have a +1 Air Nationality DRM if accompanied by jets (which also generate a +1 on an air combat roll)?
A: No. Jets modify air combat rolls (17.56, 19.31B), but do not have an Air Nationality DRM advantage over AAF (19.31A). A mixed force of interceptors and jets will not have the Air Nationality DRM advantage of interceptors alone, but will still receive the modifier for the jets. [2011 Nov 2]


Q: May air units stage to a base in excess of its capacity, if additional air units leave the base by the end of movement? (For example: stage 2 NAS and base change a fast carrier to a hex that is already basing the maximum amount of air, then transfer the NAS to the carrier.)
A: No; air units may not stage to a base with insufficient capacity to base them, even temporarily. [2007 Jul 3]


Q: May airbases be recycled in the middle of the redeployment phase, such that a single airbase can be used in two different hexes in the same phase?
A: Yes. For example, AAF can be SRd from Townsville through an airbase in NN30 to Noumea; then the airbase can be moved from NN30 to Guadalcanal; then the AAF can be TRd from Noumea to the airbase in Guadalcanal. There is no requirement that the airbase be recycled at the start of the phase. 18.143 ("If an airbase on which air units are based is recycled, those air units must stage or redeploy during that phase, including to the newly placed airbase.") makes it clear that there is no strict ordering; AAF on an airbase can be redeployed from an airbase to that same airbase in a different hex. A recycled airbase is not actually being moved; a new airbase is built and the old airbase is abandoned, possibly [shortly] after the new airbase is built. [2011 Feb 28]

Q: Do airbases that are "recycled" count against the placement limit in 18.142?
A: Yes. Any recycling of an airbase is a placement, though not all placement of an airbase is a recycle. [2011 May 12]


Q: May a lent Australian air unit or the Flying Tigers use an American airbase in the phase it is placed? May the Flying Tigers use an American air base in the phase it is placed?
A: Lent Australians can use a British airbase the phase it is placed; however, they may not use an American airbase the phase it is placed. Even though the Flying Tigers represent American planes and American pilots, they are Nationalist Chinese units; they may use the Chinese airbase, but not a U.S. airbase, in the phase it is placed. It makes no difference whether the Flying Tigers are lent or not. [2006 May 6] [2010 Jan 9] [official Q&A]


Q: Can air units in an isolated base fly DAS over their own base hex?
A: Yes. 30.523A allows air in partially supplied bases (or bases lacking oil) to conduct defensive activities over the base hex. 30.532 does not add any further restrictions for air units in unsupplied bases. [2014 Jan 11]


Q: May air units be displaced other than by enemy occupation of their base or elimination of a base due to isolation?
A: Yes. For example, Russian air units based in Persian cities when the Western Allies open the Persian BRP route are displaced, because control of the city passes to the Western Allies (40.524) and Russian air units may not base in Western Allied cities (53.46). In these and similar cases, the air units are displaced according to the procedure described in 18.25. [2011 Apr 23]


Q: What is the range of an interceptor?
A: The minimum range of interceptors is four hexes in Europe and three hexes in the Pacific. This may be increased by air range research (17.82).


Q: May land-based NAS perform different roles (attack, cover, search) with respect to the same enemy naval activity?
A: Each land-based NAS may perform multiple roles with respect to each enemy naval activity with which it interacts, but may only perform one role per round of naval combat (or per hex, outside naval combat).


Q: When could an air base be operational, yet not have been controlled at the beginning of the phase?
A: If an air base is captured in the combat phase (an airdrop on a port, perhaps), sea supply may be traced to the supply zone containing the air base during post-combat supply determination. Without the restriction that the base must have been controlled at the start of the phase, air units used during the resolution of a successful sea supply line could return to the newly-operational base. Note that this implies that post-combat supply determination is part of the combat phase, an interpretation that conflicts with the group wisdom regarding "combat phase" in 3.11. [2007 Jun 11]

Q: If an AAF converts to AAS and some of those AAS are used, may all of the AAS return together to a different base?
A: Only air units (AAS included) that are actually used may "return to base" anywhere; AAS that are not used never leave base, and therefore may not "return to base" anywhere else. It may in fact be possible that there is no way to use some of the AAS; for example, Cover AAS may fly to defend a friendly naval mission, but if there is no interception there would be nothing for Attack AAS to attack. The unused (and still univerted) AAS could be redeployed, possibly to the same base to which the used (and now inverted) AAS returned. Since they did not redeply while inverted, they are still eligible to be uninverted at the end of the turn if they become inverted because they recombine into inverted AAF or are used while in their new base (33.74D). [2015 Mar 10]


Q: How do AAS counterair land-based NAS (which they can do per 23.152)?
A: The content of 23.152 should be moved to 18.52. It belongs in the counterair section rather than the air/naval interaction section, as it does not involve naval units. [2013 Aug 12]


Q: Do aborted defending units participate in subsequent rounds of counterair combat?
A: Yes. All defending surviving units, including aborted and inverted air units, participate. [2013 Dec 8]


Q: If the same air base is counteraired both during movement (18.511A) and combat (18.512A), are the results applied to the defender cumulative?
A: The two counterairs are completely independent. If 1 AAF counterairs 5 AAF during movement and scores 1/1 (and then the counterair ends, because all attacking air is eliminated - 18.522A), one defending AAF is eliminated and one defending AAF is aborted and inverted. If 1 AAF counterairs the same base during combat and scores another 1/1 result (and again the counterair ends), those results are applied first to the uninverted 3 AAF (19.64). One defending AAF is eliminated and one defending AAF is aborted and inverted. After both counterairs are completed, the air base will contain one uninverted AAF and two inverted AAF. [2014 Feb 11]


Q: Do abort results from air combat rounds prior to the final round have any effect on the defending air units?
A: No. Once an additional round of air combat is declared, the prior abort results cease to matter. If the attacker scores a 2/3 result in round one, and a 1/1 result in round two (the final round), then only one defending air unit is aborted and inverted. [2014 Jul 30]


Q: Does air supply have any effect on the supply status of the hex?
A: No; air supply grants partial supply to a single unit. The supply status of the hex itself and other units or counters in the hex is unaffected. [2007 Jun 26]


Q: How much additional ground support can be added to a combined invasion/land attack that involves CVEs?
A: The words "invading" and "invasion" should be removed from 18.553D. While CVEs are limited to 1x the number of *invading* ground factors in 18.553C, additional ground support is limited to 3x the *total* number of ground factors (not the total number of invading ground factors) involved in the attack. Non-invading ground factors are still able to receive their share of ground support (in a combined invasion/non-invasion attack). [2017 Apr 15]


[consistency; Francesco Lopresti - 2018 Apr 23] Ground support from CVEs is now limited to 1x the number of invading ground factors.


Q: If interception of an airdrop eliminates or turns back an airborne unit that was to negate the DM for attacking across a river, what happens to ground support flown against a fortification if the attack would now be at less than 1:1 odds (and therefore may not be made)?
A: The air is inverted and goes back to base. It is not destroyed. The phrase "air units providing ground support are not eliminated when the attacker is unable to attack as a result of enemy action" applies. [2017 Mar 31]

Q: If British ground support is committed to aid French ground units in an attack that cannot be made because Paris is not recaptured, what happens to the British air units?
A: Since there was no voluntary decision to abandon the intended attack (75.4 forbids French ground units from attacking while Paris is occupied), the British air units are simply inverted (not eliminated). The presence of an Axis unit in Paris constitutes "enemy action" for the purposes of this rule. [2007 Nov 17]

Q: What happens to French air units flying ground support if conditions change (German DAS either cannot be intercepted, or the Allies choose not to intercept) to drop the odds below 1:1?
A: The attack is not being abandoned voluntarily; it is prohibited by enemy action (DAS). The air units are not eliminated, but are returned to base and inverted. The BRPs spent for their offensive option are not refunded. [2012 Oct 7]


Q: If an airborne unit is eliminated in combat after an airdrop, is the air transport eliminated to keep the ratio of supporting air factors to ground factors below 3:1?
A: No; only air factors flying ground support missions are subject to the 3:1 ratio. [2008 Oct 3]


Q: Must all interception of DAS be announced before any such interceptions are resolved?
A: Yes; according to the Sequence of Play, interception of DAS is announced in step 6f, but such interceptions are not resolved until step 6g. [2016 Mar 28]


Q: Can a player intercept defensive air support flown over a hex that will not be attacked?
A: Yes. [2008 Oct 9]


Q: When a low-odds attack is announced, must the specific attacking and defending units be identified before the defender commits DAS?
A: Yes; announcing an attack means the exact attacking and defending units are identified, so that the odds can be calculated. [2007 Oct 29]

Q: If an attack that was at 1:1 or better drops below 1:1 for a subsequent round of combat, may the defender then allocate deferred DAS to his defending units?
A: No, the attack is announced at 1:1 or better, and any subsequent rounds simply continue the same combat. The defender may only allocate deferred DAS at the moment an attack is announced, before the first round of combat. [2008 Apr 10]


Q: Are inverted air factors eligible to intercept an airdrop if the airdrop occurs in the air units' hex?
A: No, inverted air is never eligible to intercept enemy activities. The only rules exceptions allowing inverted air to fight anywhere appear in 18.521 and 23.4117, both of which involved counterair attacks on the inverted air units' base.


Q: Do interceptors have a +1 Air Nationality DRM if accompanied by jets (which also generate a +1 on an air combat roll)?
A: No. Jets modify air combat rolls (17.56, 19.31B), but do not have an Air Nationality DRM advantage over AAF (19.31A). A mixed force of interceptors and jets will not have the Air Nationality DRM advantage of interceptors alone, but will still receive the modifier for the jets. [2011 Nov 2]

Q: Do British Attack AAS have a -1 Air Nationality DRM?
A: No. AAF break into AAS and may perform many of the same activities as NAS, but that does not make them naval air units. [2015 Oct 28]


Q: If British NAS flying CAP combine with British Cover AAS flying air cover, what is the Air Nationality DRM of the combined force?
A: Defending air units flying CAP do not individually gain any Air Nationality DRM benefit. The rule instead applies an explicit +1/-1 DRM if all units are flying CAP; this is separate from the Air Nationality DRM. In the case of British NAS flying CAP and British AAS flying air cover, this CAP modifier does not apply; the Air Nationality DRM of the mixed force is simply the lower Air Nationality DRM of the British NAS. See 23.415D. (The rules could be changed to be more intuitive by eliminating 19.31C and adding "+1 defending air units flying CAP" to the Air Nationality DRM chart. However, until then, the rules give no Air Nationality DRM benefit for flying CAP.) [2013 Jun 6]


Q: With a force of air units comprising a mixture of both types (19.61) and inverted and uninverted air units (19.64), which rule takes precedence?
A: 19.64 takes precedence. The results are first applied to the uninverted air only, according to 19.61-19.63. If there are any remaining eliminate results to be applied after all the uninverted air is eliminated, those remaining results are applied to the inverted air only, again using 19.61-19.63 to assign the results. (Abort results have no effect on inverted air.) [2014 Jan 24]


Q: Are carrier-based NAS a different "type" of air unit than land-based NAS?
A: NAS are NAS, regardless of where they are/were based. Likewise air units aren't of different types simply because they come from different air bases. [2008 Feb 6]

Q: How are losses allocated among units of the same type?
A: Among units of the same type, the owner is free to allocate the results assigned to that type as he sees fit; there is no requirement to maintain any form of balance within a type, nor to maximize the effect of the results. Because carrier-based NAS have the inverted or uninverted status of their carrier (17.3122D), allocating abort results in air combat to NAS based on uninverted carriers may avoid inverting the aborted NAS (18.526B), essentially nullifying the abort results. (NAS based on inverted carriers are considered inverted, and as such would incur losses only after all uninverted air units were eliminated -- 19.64) Hits scored by land-based air against destroyers in a multi-TF force can be allocated solely to non-cargo-carrying TFs, so that no cargo is lost. [2011 Apr 22, 2012 Aug 22, 2013 Jan 29]


Q: What happens if a ship in a TF is damaged as a result of naval combat and chooses not to withdraw?
A: The damaged ship may remain in the TF until it returns to port (20.163). Once a TF sails, it remains a TF until it returns to port (or until it contains no ships). So, if the damaged unit remains with the naval force, it remains in the TF, and will be part of any CG containing the TF. [2005 Jun 11]


Q: May ships be voluntarily inverted so as to leave them in a TF with other inverted ships?
A: No. [2005 May 22]


Q: Must the composition of a task force be revealed when it fires shore bombardment?
A: No. Only the number of shore bombardment factors is revealed, though this will give some indication of the composition of the task force.


Q: Are there any restrictions on when you can rearrange TFs (assuming they are in the same port at the same time)? Could two TFs be merged just before a naval interception is announced?
A: There are no restrictions on timing; anytime the naval units are based in the same port at the same time, the TFs can be rearranged, even during the opponent's turn. Passing through a port during a mission is not sufficient to allow TF rearrangement (20.164E). [2005 Jun 20] [2013 Feb 18]


Q: May a fast carrier still be "fully operational" even if based in a non-operational port? Even if it is inverted?
A: The only requirements for a fully operational fast carrier are that it be undamaged and carrying its full complement of NAS; the status of the port in which it is based makes no difference. An inverted carrier may be fully operational; an inverted fully operational carrier (intercepted while changing base, for instance) provides the same search and anti-submarine benefits as an uninverted fully operational carrier. [2009 Dec 30]


Q: How do CVEs differ from fast carriers or from other light ships?
A: CVEs are light ships (20.12A), but are slow (20.121B) and have an additional -2 modifier to their NDRM (22.552A). They are not automatically screened (22.531C), and contribute one factor per CVE to light ship fire in fleet combat (22.552A). Unlike fast carriers, CVEs in TFs do not need to be balanced by an equal number of fast fleet factors (20.162F). [2007 May 12-13]


Q: May CVEs provide shore bombardment?
A: CVEs may accompany invasions and shore bombardment missions, but only add to ground combat by providing ground support (and count against the limits on ground support). [2006 Jun 18]


Q: How many hits does it take to sink a damaged named ship?
A: A named ship is sunk when it takes hits equal to its size in factors (20.5211A). A damaged ship has already taken hits equal to one less than its size (20.5221). Therefore any additional hit will sink it, as 20.5221 and 20.5231B say. 20.523C only applies to hits insufficient to damage or sink a ship and so cannot apply to a damaged ship; even one additional hit is sufficient to sink a damaged named ship. Until a damaged ship is repaired in a shipyard, a single additional hit at any time will sink it. [2013 Jan 18]


Q: If a single named ship is targeted three times in a three-ship harbor attack carried out by submarine, are hits accumulated between the three attacks?
A: No. The results of each attack roll are determined separately, with no accumulation between the three attacks. [2010 Mar 11]


Q: What does it mean to "damage" a ship?
A: "Damage" is defined in 20.5221 -- a number of hits one less than the size of a ship in factors. Although hits may be accumulated (20.5231), such hits are not considered "damage" until the threshold defined in 20.5221 is reached. [2012 Jul 22]


Q: In what order are the "normal" damage from an attack vs. a named ship and damage from a possible critical hit applied?
A: First the normal damage is applied. Then the critical hit roll is made. If (and only if) the roll is larger than the size of the ship (20.524), then the effect of the critical hit is applied. For example, a DD1 attacks a BB4 and rolls a '12'. The BB4 takes 1 hit. The critical hit roll is a '5', so there is in fact a critical hit. Since the BB4 is not damaged (it has not yet taken damage equal to one less than its size), 20.526A applies: the undamaged ship is damaged. The BB4 is given two additional hits, so it now has three hits and is damaged. It is not automatically sunk simply because it received a [confirmed] critical hit. [2014 Dec 22]


Q: Do the rules for assigning losses to mixed light forces apply to each attack separately, or for the set of results from all attacks as a whole?
A: They apply to each attack separately. For example, two submarine attacks would both damage a cruiser with their first hit.

Q: Does rule 20.551 or 20.57 take precedence in apportioning losses among a mixed group of light ships?
A: Rule 20.551 is first used to apportion losses between cruisers and one-factor ships. Once the number sunk cruiser, damaged cruisers, and sunk one-factor ships is known, 20.57 is used to determine which specific ships are affected. For example, one hit against a group of light ships comprised of one German cruiser, one German destroyer, and four Italian destroyers will damage a German cruiser; it will not sink an Italian destroyer even though there are more Italian factors than German factors. [2010 May 3]


Q: Are excess hits against light ships in a combat group sufficient to disrupt supply?
A: Not necessarily. To disrupt supply, all protecting naval units in the combat group assigned to "protect supply" must be sunk or withdrawn (30.381). If they are, and if there are also excess hits against light ships in that combat group, then sea supply is disrupted. "Sea supply" cannot be directly fired upon, so this is simply a mechanism to allow it to be "hit" in the same round as the protecting naval units are sunk; otherwise another round of naval combat would need to be fought to do damage to "sea supply". [Post #127590 -- 2010 Nov 21]

Q: If heavy fire against a combat group protecting supply sink all the naval units without scoring any excess hits, is supply disrupted?
A: Since there are no protecting naval units remaining, there will be no remaining targets other than the screened (and now-unprotected) sea supply. If fire vs. the screened sea supply scores at least one hit (which, against no defending naval units, is an "excess" hit), supply will be sunk. If fire vs. screened sea supply and possible submarine fire fail to score a hit, supply will continue and naval combat will proceed to the next round. [Post #112359 -- 2008 Jun 8]


Q: Does this rule apply to multiple task forces of the same nationality?
A: No. If multiple task forces are attacked with a single attack (which can only occur as the result of an air attack on light ships in a naval base), the player taking the losses may apportion them between his TFs as he sees fit.

Q: Does this rule apply to a mix of inverted and uninverted light ships that are otherwise identical?
A: No. In this case, the owner might choose to lose all the inverted ships before any of the uninverted ships; there is no requirement that he choose uninverted ships first, choose an equal number of inverted and uninverted ships, etc. [2012 Feb 11]


Q: May Western Allied transports be used to sea escort non-US units before the US is at war?
A: Yes. The transports in all three SW boxes are joint Western Allied transports and can be used by Britain for any otherwise-legal sea escort, even before the US is at war in either theater. [2011 May 31]


Q: Can a transport be deployed from one SW box to another in the same redeployment phase in which it is used to provide sea escort?
A: Yes. At the end of each Allied turn, the Allied player can put his transports wherever he wants, regardless of how they were used. [2017 Sep 21]


Q: How do the five "at large" transports (20.631D) affect the number of transports that must remain in an SW box?
A: The "initial level" is the level defined in 20.631 A,B,C -- the "at large" transports are irrelevant. Transports in excess of 15 (Atlantic), 5 (Indian), and 10 (Pacific) are eligible to be redeployed. [2013 Sep 17]

Q: Can transports be redeployed from a location, reducing that location to below its initial level, if transports are simultaneously redeployed into the location to bring it up to at least its initial level?
A: Yes. All redeployment is simultaneous. For example, if there are 10 transports in the Pacific SW box (the initial level), 4 transports may be redeployed from the Pacific SW box to the Indian Ocean SW box ... provided 4 transports are simultaneously redeployed into the Pacific SW box (perhaps transports just built in the Pacific US box) to keep it at least at its initial level. [2015 May 23]


Q: Do the Western Allies really start the game with no way to avoid penalties for too few transports in Europe?
A: Yes. The Western Allies start with 25 transports between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, but need 30 to avoid the penalty. The Western Allies begin with five unbuilt transports in their force pool, which can be built to increase the Atlantic/Indian Ocean transport count to 30 transports -- enough to avoid the penalty if none are sunk or damaged during the Axis player turn. This initially unavoidable penalty makes up for the Commonwealth BRPs being included in Britain's BRP total from the start of the game. [2006 Jan 25]


Q: Are the damaged transports vulnerable to being lost if they are made "usable" by this rule?
A: This rule allows a transport damaged by strategic submarine warfare to be used; it does not prevent it from being sunk while it is being used (say, to conduct a Murmansk convoy or a sea escort). [2015 Oct 3]


Q: If multiple transports are performing a single activity, must they still be protected individually?
A: No. Each activity is protected. See 25.36. [2013 Jan 1]


Q: If the Allies invade the Portuguese or Bordeaux beach from the Atlantic U.S. box, how can the resulting bridgehead be supplied?
A: Like the beach on which it is placed, a bridgehead placed by seaborne invasion in such a hex is considered to be on the front containing the water in the hex. [2010 Jan 2]

Q: Since "For the purpose of naval activities, including ... invasions, ..., beaches, ... are considered to be on the front which contains the water on which their hex abuts", does that mean when invading Casablanca the naval unit offensive BRPs are charged to the western front (water portion of the hex) while the ground unit offensive BRPs are charged to the Mediterranean front (land portion of the hex)?
A: No, both the naval and ground unit offensive BRPs are charged to the Mediterranean front, which is the front receiving the action (9.71, examples after 9.72). [2013 Apr 15]


Q: What may "American" ASW do in the Atlantic before the U.S. is at war with Germany?
A: ASW listed as American "at start" or "allowable builds" and ASW generated by production and built in American shipyards are referred to as "American" ASW. These ASW may deploy to the Atlantic SW box before the U.S. is at war (USAT 25, USAT 35), according to 25.32A. Once in the SW box, the ASW function normally, and may sink German subs even though the U.S. is not yet at war with Germany. [2006 Oct 26-28]

Q: How can American naval units end up in the Atlantic SW box before the U.S. is at war with Germany?
A: There is no USAT result that allows American naval units (as opposed to Western Allied transports and ASW) to leave the Atlantic U.S. box before war breaks out with Germany. USAT results do allow Western Allied transports built in the U.S. and Western Allied ASW deployed from the U.S. to enter the Atlantic SW box before war with Germany; these units function normally. The existing wording of this rule probably meant to say "Atlantic U.S. box" rather than "Atlantic SW box".


Q: Can ground/air units be sea transported from Suez, Basra, or Abadan to the South Africa box?
A: Yes; sea transport between South Africa and the Middle East is allowed in both directions. However, naval units based in South Africa may only conduct sea transport from South Africa to the Middle East. Other mapboard boxes are a set distance from the mapboard, and naval units based in those mapboard boxes may have the range to sail onto the mapboard, embark a unit, sail off the mapboard, and debark the unit. The South Africa box is "too far" (5.32) from the mapboard edge for a mission to make the trip twice before reaching its destination. The exception allows naval units in South Africa to complete a transport mission to the Middle East, but not to sail to the Middle East and then complete a transport mission back to South Africa. [2010 May 24 [off-list]]


Q: Do the general rules for naval movement apply to missions other than those in the Naval Activities Table?
A: The general rules of naval movement apply to all naval operations, including naval displacement and escorted and unescorted supply. Unescorted sea supply is still a naval "operation", if not a "mission", and may not be traced through a prohibited strait. For example, control of Saare is required for all uses of Parnu as a port, including unescorted sea supply. [2006 May 9] [2008 Mar 11]


Q: Can't submarines redeploy past an enemy-held Gibraltar (25.15, 73.42)?
A: One German and one British or American submarine may NR past a non-friendly Gibraltar each turn. This allows German submarines to operate in the Mediterranean as they did historically. [2009 Oct 19]


Q: May the Axis freely use the Suez Canal if these requirements are met?
A: The Axis may use the canal only as expressly allowed by 88.37 (reinforcing Ethiopia, raiding, submarine warfare). [2013 Apr 12]


Q: When naval units are moving off the mapboard (between the mapboard and a mapboard box), may they be intercepted or attacked by air units in those off-mapboard hexes?
A: The only case where interception and air attack is allowed in off-mapboard hexes is covered in 21.217C (naval missions leaving and returning to the European mapboard off the western edge). In all other cases, no interception or air attack is allowed except in a hex on the mapboard. For example, the Axis may not choose to intercept a mission between the Atlantic U.S. box and Britain before it reaches the western edge of the mapboard. [2007 May 24] [2008 Apr 1] [2008 Oct 22-24] [2011 Jul 5]


Q: May the Western Allies trace the path of a naval activity from one notional hex to another, both off the eastern edge of the Pacific mapboard?
A: If you use a notional Pacific hex as a port, you move into the notional hex and then out of it back onto the board. You can move off the Pacific mapboard to meet the range restrictions, but not to avoid interception. [2010 Jul 10]


Q: Are naval missions moving through the virtual hexes off the western edge of the European mapboard considered to be moving through the Atlantic SW box (which is adjacent to the western edge of the mapboard)?
A: No. Naval units moving off the west of the western mapboard edge may move either to the virtual onboard hexes or to the Atlantic SW box, assuming all other rule requirements are met. But the virtual hexes are not part of the Atlantic SW box. [2007 Apr 26]

Q: Is there no exception for moving or tracing supply off the southern edge of the Pacific mapboard? A Japanese sub patrolling out of Allied air range in LL28 can threaten sea supply to Townsville and the Australian hexes, when such was never a realistic threat.
A: There is no exception. The Allies can protect the supply line with a BB3+DD1 (or CA2+DD1), so there is not a large "cost". And a Japanese submarine in LL28 is not anywhere more useful. (The reason for such a sea supply line, rather than simply relying on the land supply line from the Australia box, is to allow using Pearl Harbor oil in on-board Australia, rather than needing oil in the Australian reserve.) [2015 May 25]


Q: If during a base change or NR, a naval unit withdraws from naval combat before the combat is ended, to where may it return to base?
A: A naval unit that withdraws from combat is considered defeated/aborted, and must return to the base of origin. Some of the units attempting a naval activity may abort (by withdrawing from naval combat) while other units do not (by remaining until the end of the combat, and then continuing the activity). [2007 Jul 19] [2007 Aug 6]


Q: May naval units be displaced other than by enemy occupation of their base?
A: Yes. For example, Allied naval units may be displaced from France during the resolution of a French surrender (58.41). The displacement mechanism is followed, including possible enemy interception and/or air attack vs. displaced naval units. [2009 Feb 23]


Q: May the owner of displaced ships choose a route to the closest port that is longer than the route to a different port, perhaps even passing through a different port on the way to the "closest" port?
A: The owner may choose any route. This allows the displaced naval units to take advantage of nearby friendly land-based air. [2010 Oct 11]


Q: What does it mean for ships on the "2" or "Launch" row to be displaced in the "normal manner"?
A: They are displaced like any other ship in the port, but are damaged (27.7281). [2018 Jun 8]


Q: If naval units are displaced and intercepted, may they withdraw after one round of naval combat?
A: Yes, they may withdraw after one round so long as the requirements (fleet combat, air attack vs. a combat group) for withdrawal are met. Per 21.232B, if any naval units withdraw, all naval units must withdraw together, and must continue along the same route they had been following to their destination. [2007 Mar 2]


Q: The Naval Activities Chart lists "fast carrier mission", "accompany seaborne invasion", "conduct shore bombardment", "protect fleets conducting shore bombardment", and "accompany shore bombardment missions" as separate activities. Does this mean naval units may perform only one or the other?
A: No. Any units in or accompanying the seaborne invasion mission may provide shore bombardment, provided they are not carrying ground units and are otherwise eligible to shore bombard. Fast carriers in or accompanying a shore bombardment or invasion force are considered to be on a fast carrier mission, and may perform air missions as described in 21.556. An invasion force consists of DDs/transports carrying the ground units, ships providing shore bombardment (up to the limit on shore bombardment), CVEs providing ground support (up to the limit on ground support), and other naval units (i.e., submarines, fast carriers) accompanying the invasion. In practice this is all shortened to "these ground units and these naval units are invading this hex"; the exact allocation of the naval units to the activities is only specified at the moment the invasion ground attack is resolved. There is no need to assign specific naval units to shore bombardment while others in excess of the 3:1 ratio are assigned to "accompany" the mission, so there is no chance that the bombarding naval units are sunk or damaged en route to the invasion hex leaving no shore bombardment while the naval units "accompanying" the mission stand by and do nothing. [2006 Dec 7] [2013 Mar 31]

Q: May a naval unit that patrols, supports a friendly naval force that is conducting a seaborne invasion, wins the naval combat and adopts the mission of the supported naval force then provide shore bombardment or ground support for the invasion?
A: Yes. The ability to adopt another mission under certain circumstances is a specific part of the patrol mission. A naval units that patrols and then adopts a seaborne invasion mission can then act as if it had begun by performing a seaborne invasion mission. Doing so does not violate the "one, but no more than one" phrase in 21.31. Note that while a patrol (in its patrol hex) cannot provide shore bombardment, once it supports a friendly naval activity and adopts its mission, it is bound by the requirements of that new mission, not the patrol mission. Hence it can provide shore bombardment (if the new mission is seaborne invasion or shore bombardment) but can no longer support an intercepted friendly naval force (which as a patrol it could have done). [2013 Mar 31]

Q: May a naval unit attempt a counter-interception and then (assuming the counterinterception fails and the naval unit is not inverted) perform another mission later in the player turn?
A: Yes. 21.31 limits a naval unit to performing one operation after which it is inverted (21.311), not to attempting one type of operation. A naval unit could attempt and fail to counterintercept an enemy interception of a supply line, then later escort a seaborne invasion. [2014 Feb 15]


Q: Can a naval force consist of more than one TF?
A: A naval force of ten or more factors must be in a TF to conduct an operation, but multiple TFs may conduct an operation in concert from a port, or from separate ports by traversing a common path at sea. A naval force may be comprised of one or more task forces plus a group of fewer than ten factors outside a TF. [2007 Jul 12]


Q: If all the surviving naval units carrying out a naval activity are damaged, must those naval units return to port?
A: Generally, yes. If undamaged naval units are still conducting a naval activity, damaged naval units which were also conducting the naval activity may remain with the undamaged naval units, but once there are no undamaged naval units remaining, all damaged naval units must withdraw. One exception is that a sea supply mission (and naval combat resulting from interception of sea supply) may be continued even after all escorting ships are damaged (22.71C). [official Q&A]


Q: May a TF in Noumea pick up a ground unit in Santa Cruz (five hexes away) and invade Rabaul? The only way to meet the range restrictions of the mission is by touching Noumea on the way from Santa Cruz to Rabaul.
A: This invasion is legal because of the "unless no alternate route to its destination is available" clause. Since returning through Noumea is the only legal route, it is allowed. If there were another legal route, returning to Noumea (even if only to "touch" the port to meet the range restrictions) would be prohibited. [2013 Jul 17]


Q: Is returning to base a separate naval activity from the portion of the mission prior to the destination hex?
A: No; the single naval activity comprises both the outbound leg and the return leg. 21.33 should read, "After carrying out their operation in the destination hex, naval units performing a naval activity may, subject to stacking limits, return [...]". [2006 Dec 4]

Q: If a naval activity takes advantage of the extended range exceptions from Japan (20 hexes) or Hawaii (15 or 20 hexes), may the naval units return to their original base after the mission?
A: Yes; naval units may always return to their original base. Although the rule says "subject to the same range requirements as for their activity", this is not meant to preclude using the range exception "in reverse" in order to return to base. The range exceptions in the Pacific are written to apply to legs outbound from Japan or Pearl Harbor, but they also include the reverse direction (but only for returning to base). [2016 Apr 26]

Q: What is a "failed base change, NR, or sea escort"?
A: If such a naval activity is intercepted or attacked by air units, any naval unit that withdraws from naval combat or aborts its mission is considered to have failed in its activity, and must return to its base of origin. It does not matter whether other naval units successfully complete the mission, or if a tactical failure can be considered a strategic success (perhaps by drawing the enemy into combat).

Q: May withdrawing naval units that are intercepted withdraw to the same port to which they were headed?
A: Yes. Naval units changing base or NRing that fail in their mission must return to their port of origin. But naval units that are withdrawing have no such restriction, and can withdraw (after a single round of naval combat, if the requirements for withdrawal are met) to the same port to which they were already withdrawing. [2007 Mar 29]


Q: How are transports or unprotected sea supply assigned to TFs if there are no accompanying naval units?
A: If there are no naval forces other than transports present, any sea supply and transports form a single "TF". If the naval activity is attacked, this "TF" will combine with other small naval forces present when combat groups are formed (or form its own combat group, if there are none); in either case it may also be strengthened by adding naval units from an unencumbered combat group (22.421). [2010 Jun 27]

Q: How is cargo assigned "to a specific TF" if there is more cargo than a specific TF can carry?
A: More than one TF may carry cargo, but each unit must be assigned to a specific TF, not split across multiple TFs (21.35A). [2015 Feb 2]


Q: If there are naval units accompanying transports, must the transports be assigned to a TF, or may they be left unassigned to avoid encumbering the other naval units?
A: Transports must be assigned to one of the escorting TFs when the mission is declared, and are placed into the CG with that TF (22.424). Only if there are no escorting naval units may they be left unassigned to form their own separate CG. [2008 Mar 16]


Q: Do the naval range restrictions apply from the naval units' base, or from the port of embarkation?
A: Naval range restrictions apply from where the naval units start. In the Pacific (unless some exception applies), naval units cannot move five hexes from a base to a one-hex island (without a port) to embark a ground unit, and then seven additional hexes to a port; that is twelve hexes between ports, while only ten hexes are allowed. If the invasion hex were within ten hexes of the original port, it might be possible to move from the base to the one-hex island (five hexes), back to the original port (five more hexes; ten hexes total), then to the invasion hex (ten more hexes; twenty hexes total). (21.321 allows a naval unit to return to the original port and leave again, but only if there is no other valid route.) [2010 Apr 5]


Q: How do the range restrictions for sea transports and NRs apply to one- and two-hex islands?
A: The official Q&A is outdated as of 2009 Jun 30. The island hex at which units are embarked is treated as a port when applying the range restrictions for sea escort (21.3612), although the island does not count as a port when applying the range restrictions to any other naval activities. There is no longer any exception for sea transport (21.3614); sea transport missions require a chain of actual ports. [official Q&A]


Q: How is the ten- or five-hex range of an invading commando measured?
A: The path traced from the commando's port of embarkation to the port being invaded must be ten (Europe) or five (Pacific) hexes or less. The general range restrictions also apply to the movement of the naval units carrying or accompanying the commando. [2007 Aug 22]


Q: May the Allies use the extended range (15 or 20 hexes) from Pearl Harbor during initial supply determination if the required islands were not supplied at the beginning of the turn, but are being simultaneously supplied?
A: The islands must be fully supplied at the start of the Allied player turn for the US to have the additional range from Hawaii. If one or more of these islands starts the Allied turn without full supply and then receives full supply, the increased range is available for missions in a subsequent [sub-]phase but is not available in the same [sub-]phase. This is no different than the rules governing when a port can be used to meet range restrictions during initial supply determination; the port to be used must already be in supply at the start of the supply determination. [2011 Dec 26]

Q: If the Allies are using the extended range (15 or 20 hexes) from Pearl Harbor allowed by controlling and supplying Johnston or Midway and Wake islands, must the missions pass through the required islands?
A: No. The analogous Japanese missions must pass through the required islands, but the Allied missions do not. [2005 Oct 28]


Q: What is meant by "within naval range of the Hawaiian Islands"? May these NRs be continued beyond Pearl Harbor?
A: The naval range is 10, 15, or 20 hexes, depending on whether Midway, Johnston Island, and Wake are controlled and fully supplied (21.3615A). As there are no overall range limits on sea escort (21.3612), these missions may be continued beyond Pearl Harbor by either destroyers or transports (21.64I). [2012 Oct 4] [2016 Apr 25]


Q: For naval activities to take advantage of the extended range (20 hexes before touching a port), must the naval units be based in Japan? Must any ground units participating in such a mission be based in Japan?
A: The naval units must be based in Japan; the "initial leg" of a "naval activity" begins when the naval units leave port. Any ground units involved need not necessarily be in Japan; naval units in Tokyo could sail to Kwajalein (16 hexes), pick up a ground unit there, and invade Makin (20 hexes total). For sea escort, a ground unit could be sea escorted to a port in Japan and then DDs based in that port (or a transport) could continue the sea escort from Japan, using the 20-hex range for their initial leg. (This is similar to the way sea escorts made by transport can be continued using DDs based in the port where the transports debark the unit or vice versa -- 21.64I.) For example, a transport could sea escort a ground unit from Truk to Tokyo (the transport's initial leg is from Truk to Guam, and its second leg is from Guam to Tokyo), and then DDs in Tokyo could continue the sea escort of the ground unit to Johnston Island (the DD's initial leg is from Tokyo to Johnston Island). Although Midway is within 20 hexes of Japan, the 20-hex range from Japan can only be used to allow a naval activity to Midway if Wake is controlled and fully supplied, and only if the activity passes through Wake (21.3616B). [2010 Nov 10-11]


Q: What is meant by "within naval range of Japan"? May these NRs be continued beyond Japan?
A: The naval range is 20 hexes (21.3616A). As there are no overall range limits on sea escort (21.3612), these missions may be continued beyond Japan by either destroyers or transports (21.64I). [2012 Oct 4] [2016 Apr 25]


Q: May naval units based in Port Moresby conduct operations up to 20 hexes away provided they touch Lae en route?
A: Yes. In this case, the mission must terminate within ten hexes beyond Lae, unless it passes through another port. [2011 Jun 16]


Q: Must the final destination (the patrol hex) be announced before beginning resolution of a patrol?
A: A patrol is a mission like any other, and one announces what one is doing at the outset. See 21.411 ("... move to an announced sea hex ..."). The defender need not guess at the location of the patrol hex any more than he needs to guess at the destination of a base change or invasion. [2010 Oct 9]


Q: May a patrol enter a hex (perhaps even the patrol hex) more than once along its route to the patrol hex?
A: Yes, the patrol may take any path it chooses (within the range limitations), including sailing in loops or circles so as to pass through a hex more than once. If the patrol passes through the patrol hex before completing its movement in the patrol hex, the hex is treated as any other hex along the path; the rules for being "in" the patrol hex do not come into play until the patrol completes its movement to the patrol hex. There are some restrictions on movement paths (21.321), but none apply to this situation. [2008 Feb 4]


Q: May a patrol be intercepted in every hex it enters?
A: The defender is allowed to intercept a patrol in any of the hexes it enters. The path of a patrol is not announced beforehand, so interception can only be attempted as the path is followed during the execution of the patrol. However, a patrol can be intercepted only once, the same as any other naval mission, with the exceptions given in 22.13. [2007 Jul 12]

Q: Why does it matter for spotting that interception is resolved before counterair?
A: It doesn't. 22.22F says that air units are considered to have spotted a patrol, even if eliminated by the patrol.


Q: Is naval combat entered if an enemy submarine (and no surface ships) intercepts a patrol?
A: Interception by a submarine does not trigger naval combat; only carriers or fleets cause naval combat. A submarine alone triggers only a submarine attack (22.92A). [Post #120858 -- 2010 Jan 12]


Q: May a patrol counterair an enemy base if it was intercepted by a submarine?
A: If a patrol is intercepted by enemy surface ships, it may counterair as part of naval combat (21.416D). However, there is no naval combat if one side has only a submarine (no surface ships), and so the patrol cannot counterair "as part of naval combat". 21.416G is meant to cover the case where there is no naval combat, and thus a patrol intercepted by a submarine can counterair. [Post #120858 -- 2010 Jan 12]

Q: During a patrol, before the patrol hex, and assuming no naval interception, NAS from the patrolling force can fly one counterair mission per hex. Afterwards, surviving unaborted enemy LBA can attack the patrol before it moves to the next hex. Are NAS that flew counterair in the hex eligible to fly CAP against the LBA attack?
A: This is an unusual situation (because generally a patrol will not sail into a hex where it cannot suppress all the enemy air), but the patrol's counterair could go poorly, or there could be enemy kamikazes which cannot be counteraired at all. In this case, the patrol can use all its air to counterair the enemy base; then if there are remaining defending air that choose to attack, the patrol can allocate one-third of its remaining NAS for CAP (23.34A). In this unusual case, the patrol is able to use its NAS twice in a hex: once for counterair and once for CAP. If the patrol is intercepted in the hex, the naval combat rules apply, and each NAS will be able to fly only one of counterair/CAP/strike per round. [2014 Oct 21]

Q: Are defending air units forced to abort by the counterair attack able to attack the patrol once the patrol enters the next hex?
A: Yes. Defending air units in other bases, including those forced to abort in some earlier round of counterair combat, are eligible to attack the patrol. Likewise, air units aborted in the current round of counterair combat are eligible to engage the patrol once the patrol moves to its next hex (beginning the next "round"). The "final" round of counterair combat may not be known until the patrol is finished (an air base could be counteraired repeatedly from the patrol hex, or during naval combat). Aborted air are inverted only during step 21.416M. Until then, aborted air units are out of action only for only one hex of the patrol's mission, analogous to aborted air units being out of action for only one round during naval combat. [2014 Jun 14]


Q: Defending air units in a naval base are forced to abort by a counterair from a patrol. If that patrol later attacks the naval units in the naval base from its patrol hex, are those aborted air units able to help defend their naval base?
A: Yes. Aborted air are inverted only during step 21.416M of patrol resolution, and until then defend as any other uninverted air units. Until they are inverted, aborted air units are out of action only for only one hex of the patrol's mission, or one sortie against the naval base -- analogous to aborted air units being out of action for only one round during naval combat. See also the group wisdom for 22.434, 23.54, 23.64. [2014 Aug 21]


Q: In the patrol hex, if there is no interception, at what point does the defender have the option of flying an air sortie vs. the patrolling naval units?
A: In hexes prior to the patrol hex, the ordering is interception (21.416C), then counterair by the patrol (21.416G, first bullet), then air sortie by the defender (21.416G, third bullet). Following that same sequence in the patrol hex, the defender would have the option of flying an air sortie only after counterair by the patrol, even though the patrol may fly multiple rounds of counterair from the patrol hex. Also, the defender has the option of intercepting before each round of counterair by the patrol (21.416J); for the air sortie to come after interception, it would have to come after the final option to intercept, which is not known until the patrol has finished its attacks against the defender's bases. Any ordering that allowed the defender to fly his air sortie against the patrol before all the patrol's attacks vs. bases were complete would allow for an air sortie to have been flown in the patrol hex before an interception attempt (since interception could occur before any later round of the patrol's attacks) in that same hex; yet if there is naval combat in a hex, all air attacks against those naval units must be made within the context of naval combat (23.84). Therefore the defender cannot fly an air sortie against the patrolling naval units until all chances to intercept have passed: that is, after the patrolling force's final counterair attack, and only if there is no interception. [Post #112338, #112369 -- 2008 Jun 7]


Q: May carrier-based air units from a patrol that remains at sea into the combat phase fly a counterair mission in conjunction with land-based air units?
A: No. Counterair missions by land-based air units are announced in step 6a and resolved in step 6c of the Sequence of Play. Counterair missions by carrier-based air units (for carriers on patrol as well as on other missions) are announced and resolved in step 6h. [2015 Jan 18]


Q: Can a patrol support and then adopt a shore bombardment mission?
A: The fact that a patrol cannot provide shore bombardment does not prohibit a patrol from supporting a shore bombardment mission and then adopting the shore bombardment mission; as a patrol it cannot provide shore bombardment, but it can certainly adopt a shore bombardment mission and then provide shore bombardment. [2012 Dec 2]


Q: How can a counter-intercepting patrol not reach the naval force being supported?
A: Patrols do not "fail to reach" an intercepted force, they are merely delayed (22.163C).


Q: If part of a patrolling TF counter-intercepts to aid a nearby intercepted naval mission, may the uncommitted part of the TF choose to join the naval combat after the first round?
A: No. A patrolling naval unit in its patrol hex acts like a naval unit in its base. In both cases, all counter-interceptions must be declared before any are resolved. [2005 Apr 18]


Q: If a patrolling submarine chooses not to return to base with other patrolling units during the combat phase, may it then return to base at the end of the friendly player turn?
A: If a submarine remains on defensive patrol, it must remain at sea until the end of the opposing player turn, unless it attacks, engages in naval combat, or is sunk. [2009 Oct 15]


Q: How are submarines on defensive patrol attacked by air units?
A: Submarines are attacked as any other naval force of one-factor naval units would be attacked by air, except for the lack of an air defense roll. Submarines are one-factor light ships (see 20.511) and any hit scored by the attacking air on the Naval Attack table will sink the submarine. [2005 Jun 18]

Q: What is the status of an air unit that attacks a patrolling submarine? Can it interact with other naval missions (23.161)?
A: No. Attacking a patrolling submarine is an offensive operation (9.21B), not an example of the general "interacting with naval activities" (which is not an offensive operation). The air would be inverted, as if it had performed any other offensive operation (such as counterair). [2013 Jan 9]


Q: If a patrol supports a friendly mission later in the movement phase (such as a sea transport) and is defeated, may the victorious defending naval force become a defensive patrol?
A: The defending naval force did not intercept the patrol -- it intercepted a sea transport mission -- so it does not meet all of the conditions in 21.4191. A defending naval force would have to intercept the patrol during resolution of patrols in order to become a defensive patrol. [2009 Jul 24]


Q: May units be sea transported between Basra and Suez?
A: Naval missions may not leave the map in the Indian Ocean other than to/from a mapboard box (21.217). The only legal destinations for sea transport from Basra are Abadan (on the map), the South Africa box (5.38C), the India box (5.48C), and the Australia box (5.58C). [2006 Dec 6]


Q: If additional DDs and transports are required for a sea transport mission, are all the DDs and transports assumed to be carrying the units (such that the loss of any sinks the ground units)?
A: Yes. If a mission requires DD2/factor plus one transport per 5 factors, and any DDs or transports are lost, ground units must be eliminated to bring the mission back to the above ratio. It makes no difference that on other missions, DD1/factor (and no transports) are sufficient; these missions require the additional ships, and require them to survive. [2007 Jan 18]


Q: In order to "accompany" the naval units conducting a mission, must the accompanying units trace a path through the port of origin of the naval units actually performing the mission?
A: No. The accompanying units may trace any otherwise legal path that reaches the destination hex of the mission; they need not go through the port of origin. Of course, they only "accompany" the mission for that portion of the mission where their paths are identical. In other words, the accompanying naval units must accompany the mission to its end, but need not accompany it from its start. The "naval units are subject to the same basing and movement restrictions as the destroyers conducting the sea transport" rule is referring to the range restrictions (no more than 40/20 hexes, must touch an operational port every 20/10 hexes) and the requirement that the accompanying naval units be based in an operational port. [2016 May 1] [2017 Jan 4]


Q: After sea transport, may units overstack in the port of debarkation if the overstacking is corrected by successfully executing an overrun?
A: Yes. The stacking limit does not limit the number of ground units which can sea transport to a port (21.437B). The stacking limits must be adhered to at the end of movement (12.22), which is after overruns are completed. Units cannot execute overruns before embarking on a sea transport (21.437A), but there is no prohibition on overrunning after debarking. Units could debark from a sea transport into a port in excess of stacking limits, so long as an overrun is attempted that would allow the stacking limit to be met at the end of movement (by having the overrunning units and/or other units that sea transported into the hex, moved into the hex, or began the movement phase in the hex, to move out. [2011 Jan 22]


Q: May NAS be sea transported if they begin their turn based on a carrier?
A: Yes; air units being sea transported must begin their turn in the port of embarkation, but need not have begun the turn based at the port. Simply being transferred from a carrier to the port does not make them ineligible for sea transport. [2007 Mar 6]


Q: When does a player announce the number of ships attacked in a Harbor Attack?
A: The number of ships attacked is part of the "nature of the attack", and is announced at the same time as the method of attack (submarine or carrier). [2009 May 22]


Q: May Italy use the free harbor attack with which the Axis start the game? Must it be carried out by submarine (as it was historically)?
A: No, it must be used by Germany; it may be delivered by a German submarine or German carrier. [2007 Jul 13]


Q: Is a seaborne invasion of Casablanca allowed from the Atlantic U.S. box?
A: Such an invasion historically took place, and is allowed. See 21.131, which explains that the beach is considered a western front beach because the water in the hex is on the western front, even though the hex itself is on the Mediterranean front. [2010 Jan 2]


Q: If two destroyers are carrying a ground factor towards a defended beach hex and one of the destroyers is sunk, may the player abort the invasion and return to port with the remaining destroyer carrying the ground factor?
A: No; a seaborne invasion mission of a defended hex requires two destroyers per factor. If the destroyer count drops below this limit at any point (including the return to base), ground units must be lost. That a single destroyer factor is sufficient to carry a ground factor on other missions is irrelevant. [2007 Dec 16]


Q: If a previously isolated ground unit is supplied during initial supply determination, may it be used to invade during the ensuing combat phase?
A: No. The unit must begin the turn supplied. [2006 Mar 12] [2006 Apr 14]


Q: Do the weather, 1:1 attack, and 10-factor naval force restrictions prohibit an invasion from being announced?
A: Weather may "prohibit" an invasion; in this case the mission may not even be announced. Ten factors of enemy naval units only stops the invasion from being "carried out"; in this case the invasion may be announced. Fast carriers, either accompanying the invasion mission or on a separate mission, could attack the naval units in port (21.55); the invasion can proceed if such attacks reduce the defending naval force below ten factors. The defending naval force could leave port to intercept, which would probably allow the invasion to proceed; naval units cannot return to a port that is the target of an invasion unless there is no other base available - 22.63C. Likewise, an invasion may be announced but not "made" if DAS reduces the attack to less than 1:1. In any case, if the invasion is announced, the BRPs for the naval units' offensive activity are paid and the naval units are inverted even if the attack is never carried out. [2008 Jan 19]


Q: How can a harbor attack affect whether an announced invasion may be carried out?
A: The mention of harbor attacks in 21.5153A is a red herring, as they are resolved in the movement phase, before any invasions are announced.


Q: May NAS on a fast carrier accompanying an invasion intercept DAS?
A: Yes. Fast carriers on an offensive mission in the combat phase, regardless of what activity in the Naval Activities Table they are doing, are on a 'fast carrier mission'. This does not have to be specifically announced; that is, a player is never required to say: 'This TF that is [e.g.] conducting/accompanying/protecting this seaborne invasion is also conducting shore bombardment and/or on a fast carrier mission'. The carriers with the invasion force are on a fast carrier mission in the invasion hex. NAS on a fast carrier performing a fast carrier mission may intercept DAS (21.556B), and thus the carrier-based NAS accompanying an invasion mission can intercept DAS. See also the entry for 21.31. [2011 May 4]


Q: If a hex is attacked by a combination of seaborne invasion and attack by land, what is the limit on shore bombarding factors?
A: The "total number of ground factors involved in the invasion attack" means the "total number of *invading* ground factors involved in the invasion attack". Attacking ground factors that are attacking by land rather than invading do not increase the shore bombardment limit, nor do invading ground factors that are not attacking (because they are held back for exploitation, for example). [2011 May 5]


Q: If a hex is attacked by a combination of seaborne invasion and attack by land, what is the limit on CVE factors providing ground support?
A: Although ground support in general is equal to three times the number of attacking ground factors, ground support from CVEs is further limited to one times the number of invading ground factors involved in the invasion combat. Attacking ground factors that are not invading do not increase the CVE ground support limit, nor do invading ground factors that are not attacking (because they are held back for exploitation, for example). [2011 May 5]

Q: Which destroyers is the rule talking about when it requires that one-third of the combat losses be taken from "destroyers"?
A: This rule pertains only to destroyers carrying the ground units. It matters because we want the second round combat odds to be correct: if an exact 2.5:1 attack suffers an 'a' result, the second round should be at exactly 2:1.

If you take a carrying destroyer as a loss, you have to reduce the combat factors by 1 in the second round, like the rule says, because that carrying destroyer is not counted in the combat odds. A shore bombarding destroyer *is* counted, and if you take it as a loss you do *not* want to reduce the combat factors by 1 for the destroyer loss; they already go down correctly because you've lost a factor of shore bombardment. If you reduce the combat factors again, a 2.5:1 turns into a 1.9:1 in the second round.

Other destroyers (carrier escorts, protection) are not even involved in the attack.

The rule was proposed as a way to force losses to "landing craft". If you run out of landing craft (you've already lost 100% of those involved), you shouldn't be forced to lose shore bombarding destroyers instead. [2017 Apr 15]


Q: May more than five ground units occupy the invasion hex if the invasion hex is a breakthrough hex and if the additional units are armor intending to exploit (21.5181)?
A: Yes. [2013 Feb 6]


Q: If invading marines could land on an invaded island without overstacking, may they still choose to return to port?
A: No. Only units that would be overstacked may choose to return to port rather than landing and then being eliminated for overstacking. [2012 Feb 22-23]


Q: If an undefended beach is invaded by an armor unit (to allow exploitation), may an armor unit adjacent to the invasion hex by land exploit?
A: No. As 21.5181 says, armor units adjacent by land may only exploit if the invasion hex was attacked by land, which is not allowed if it is not defended. In the case of an undefended hex, only armor units in reserve aboard the invasion fleet may exploit. [2013 Apr 1]


Q: What is the CTL of the exploiting armor units if the breakthrough hex was created by an attack with some units attacking by sea and others attacking by land?
A: If the breakthrough hex was attacked by sea, the CTL of all armor units exploiting from the hex will be reduced by 1. It doesn't matter whether the armor required to create the breakthrough attacked by land or by sea, nor does it matter whether the exploiting armor units were brought to the hex by sea or whether they arrived by land. Since the breakthrough hex was attacked by sea, all exploiting armor suffer the CTL reduction. [2012 Dec 15]


Q: How much shore bombardment may naval units with NDRM 0 (minor country naval units) provide?
A: Naval units with an NDRM of 0 may not provide shore bombardment. [2010 Dec 10] [2011 Mar 8]

Q: If a hex is attacked by a combination of seaborne invasion and attack by land, what is the limit on shore bombarding factors?
A: The "total number of ground factors involved in the invasion attack" means the "total number of *invading* ground factors involved in the invasion attack". Attacking ground factors that are attacking by land rather than invading do not increase the shore bombardment limit, nor do invading ground factors that are not attacking (because they are held back for exploitation, for example). [2011 May 5]


Q: If losses are assigned to fleet factors providing shore bombardment, what does it mean that two additional factors are prohibited from providing bombardment?
A: For each factor of losses assigned to shore bombarding naval units, two additional fleet factors are prohibited from providing shore bombardment in any further rounds of the same invasion ground combat. It takes three fleet factors to provide one factor of shore bombardment; so assigning a factor of losses to shore bombarding units would otherwise lower the factors available for a subsequent round of combat by only 1/3 factor. Prohibiting two factors from firing shore bombardment means that if a factor of losses is assigned to shore bombarding naval units, one factor of the three that contributed is lost and two factors of the three are prohibited from firing -- so that the number of factors available for the next round of ground combat correctly drops by one.

If a BB3 is damaged as a result of assigning losses to shore bombarding naval units, that BB3 may no longer contribute any factors to shore bombardment (21.314); this matches the requirement that three factors (the one factor of losses assigned plus two additional factors) may no longer contribute to shore bombardment (21.5281). If a CA2 is damaged, that CA2 may no longer contribute to shore bombardment, and in addition one factor of some other undamaged ship may no longer contribute to shore bombardment (21.5281). If a BB4 or BB5 is damaged, 21.5281 is automatically met as a consequence of 21.314; however, a factor of losses would only rarely be assigned to such a large ship because it reduces the number of factors contributing to shore bombardment in the next round by more (four or five) than the required number (one plus two, equals three). [2007 Aug 9, 2012 Nov 16]

Q: If losses are assigned to fleet factors providing shore bombardment, may additional fleet factors accompanying the invasion (other than those additional factors prohibited from firing shore bombardment) be added to the ground combat in subsequent rounds in order to keep the same combat odds?
A: No. Likewise, additional ground support cannot be added between rounds. AWAW does not allow a player to protect against losses by adding additional attack factors between rounds (15.73). Nor may a player allocate "extra" naval factors to shore bombardment (beyond those needed to reach the limit) in order to have "spare" factors available to replace losses; there is no provision for naval factors to provide shore bombardment but contribute zero factors towards the combat strength. [2010 Mar 6-8] [2012 Mar 3]


Q: May a raider group consist of more than 50% fast carrier factors?
A: No, raiders are still subject to 21.313, which require fast carriers conducting the operations listed in 20.32 (including "raid") to be accompanied by at least an equal number of fast fleet factors. [2007 Jul 9]


Q: May non-raiding ships accompany a raiding group during the on-board portion of its path to the SW box?
A: No; each raiding group travels alone (22.141C), and may not be protected by additional friendly ships. If intercepted on the mapboard, friendly naval forces may counter-intercept the enemy naval forces. [2007 Dec 13]


Q: May French naval units be used to intercept raiders?
A: Yes, if they are based in a western front port or the Atlantic U.S. box rather than the Mediterranean. The French NDRM is lower than the British NDRM, however. Although French naval units may not deploy to the SW box (25.31), they may combat raiders there. (Also, French naval units based in the South Africa box could intercept Indian Ocean raiders.) [2009 Jan 31]

Q: If a fast carrier engages raiders, must the required accompanying fast ships be satisfied from the ships specified by other ship type rolls?
A: Each ship type roll is independent. A '6' means a fast carrier plus its accompanying light ships engage, regardless of the results of any other ship type rolls. Four, six, or eight factors will engage to satisfy the '6' roll (depending on the size of the fast carrier chosen). [2012 Jul 14]

Q: In the second raider engagement, may a carrier be sent to engage raiders if the required fast fleet factors are already engaged with the raiders as a result of the first raider engagement roll?
A: No. The carrier will not sail unescorted. The required fast fleet factors must sail with it. [2012 Dec 11]


Q: How do Allied units in ports under enemy LBA make it to sea to fight raiders without risk of attack by the LBA?
A: Those units that are chosen to fight the raiders are considered to be based in the port, but not actually in the port at the time; instead they are considered to be out on convoy protection duty. It is just a curiosity of the rules. [2006 Mar 25]


Q: If a raider group is eligible to fire at the enemy transports, must it fire?
A: Firing is optional; the word "may" confers power to act, not a requirement. The raiding player may withhold fire, though under the current rules there is probably no reason to do so. [2007 Oct 18]


Q: If a raider group comprises a fast carrier and surface ships, must the player decide whether to hold the surface ships out of combat before or after he sees the result of the air strike from the carrier?
A: After -- if the air strike sinks all the defending ships (22.372C), then there would be no following round of fleet combat (22.372D), and the surface ships could freely fire on the transports (22.372E). It is during the round of fleet combat that the player would choose to hold surface ships back from combat. Alternatively, the player could hold the fast carrier back from combat during the air strike step in the hopes that the surface ships would sink all the defending ships, which would allow the fast carrier to air strike the transports. [2006 Nov 6] [2012 Dec 10]

Q: A cruiser damaged by heavy fire during fleet combat is automatically screened (22.54C, 22.54G); does such a damaged cruiser prevent raiders from firing on the transports?
A: A cruiser damaged by heavy fire does not prevent enemy ships from firing on other screened ships, but in order for the raiders to fire on the transports, they have to be sunk. A cruiser that stands up to raiders is sacrificing itself to allow the convoy to escape. It doesn't matter whether it confronts raiding heavy ships or cruisers. [2014 Aug 22]

Q: If the raiding player withholds ships from naval combat, may he then attack defending ships that are screened instead of the transports (which may not be attacked at all if there are screened ships still afloat)?
A: The transports are screened; however, they may only be fired upon if there are no other defending screened ships (for whatever reason: fast carriers, voluntary screening, damaged cruisers or capital ships, etc.) and there are raiding ships that did not fire on the unscreened defenders. A player may withhold ships from firing at unscreened ships; those ships will then have the opportunity to fire either at screened defending ships or transports depending on the circumstances. If there are screened defending ships, the withheld ships may fire at those ships (but not upon the transports); if there are no other unscreened ships, only then may the withheld ships fire at the transports. [2013 Jul 6]


Q: What happens to raiders damaged in combat resulting from the first raider engagement?
A: They remain with their raider group, and attempt to return home as part of their raider group. They cannot fire at the transports (obviously), but participate with their raider group in any combat resulting from the second engagement raider die roll. [2008 Apr 27] [official Q&A]


Q: May a player attempt to engage raiders with a second engagement roll after declining to attempt engagement with a first engagement roll?
A: No; it's two attempts, or none. 21.538A specifies that the second engagement roll uses the same modifiers as the first engagement roll, which necessarily means there must have been a first engagement roll. [2017 Jul 11]


Q: If a raider group contains three ships during the first engagement but only one or two ships for the second engagement, does the +1 modifier for three ships apply to the second engagement die roll?
A: The same net modifier is used for both rolls; there is no recalculation. In the situation described, the +1 modifier would apply because the raider group originally contained three ships. [2014 Nov 6]


Q: If the defender declines to fight the second engagement, are the ships that responded as a result of the second raider roll still inverted?
A: They are not inverted. Ships that intercept but do not engage in naval combat are generally not inverted. [2009 Dec 2]

Q: May raiders that didn't start in Bergen or Scapa Flow return to one of those ports after combat, in order to avoid on-board interception?
A: Yes. [2005 Jun 18]


Q: May NAS attack an enemy naval base and provide ground support during a fast carrier mission?
A: No; each NAS may do one or the other, but no NAS may do both. [2013 Jan 30]


Q: May a player assign more destroyers or transports than needed, in order to better absorb losses from an attack and still have enough destroyers and transports to carry the units (28.82)?
A: Yes; you only lose units if losses reduce the force below the minimum number required. [2016 Oct 2]


Q: If a sea escort using destroyers is continued by transports (for example, a sea escort from Italy through Suez to India), what is the destroyer's destination port for the purpose of determining to where they can return to base (21.33)?
A: The sea escort is a single sea escort mission (not multiple sea escort missions chained together), and it has a single destination -- the final destination (India, in this example). The destroyers can return to their base of origin, or to any base within range of the sea escort's final destination (India, not Suez). Since the destroyers are returning to base, not being redeployed, they can be uninverted afterwards, assuming all other conditions for uninversion are met. [2012 Oct 17]


Q: What is the "initial leg" of a sea escort mission?
A: The initial leg begins when the naval units leave port and ends when they next touch a port to meet the range restrictions of the mission: generally within 20 hexes in Europe and within 10 hexes in the Pacific, though range exceptions may apply. See 21.3615A, 21.3616A, and the 21.64 example for other uses of "leg". A destroyer cannot be based on the other side of the board from the unit it will sea escort. [2010 Dec 29] [2015 Jun 12]


Q: If three factors of infantry redeploy from the India box to Suez via transport, and two factors continue to redeploy to Malta via destroyers, how many Indian Ocean transports are needed?
A: One transport can sea escort up to five factors of infantry. The destination of the transport is the same (Suez) for all the infantry, so one transport is sufficient, even though destroyers based in Suez may continue the sea escort of some of the infantry to other destinations. This mechanic is explicitly stated for BRP grants (40.222). Note that naval units which protect the transport may not also protect the DDs beyond the initial destination port (28.73C). [2010 Oct 27]


Q: Must all naval units used to protect a sea escort mission travel through the port of embarkation (and be able to reach that port on the initial leg of their movement)?
A: Yes. 21.65F says that protecting naval units must abide by the same basing and movement restrictions of the destroyers actually providing the sea escort, and 21.65A requires that those destroyers reach the port of embarkation on the initial leg of their movement. Therefore, the protecting naval units must also reach the port of embarkation on the initial leg of their movement. This is different from range-limited missions such as sea transport (21.435E) and seaborne invasion (21.514D) and fast carrier missions (21.555B), which have no restriction on reaching any specific port in the initial movement leg; in those cases protecting naval units do not necessarily have to travel to/through the port of embarkation (or the port where the fast carriers are based). This is also different from sea supply, which has its own slightly different set of rules for naval units protecting the mission (30.361). [2017 Jan 12]

Q: When oil counters are shipped or BRPs are granted by sea, the player traces a sea supply line but sea escort is required. How is such a "merged" naval activity protected?
A: Although transports or destroyers are required to carry the oil counters or BRPs, the naval activity is sea supply. The range requirements and timing of a sea supply mission apply, and the mission is protected and interdicted as a sea supply mission. Naval units in ports through which the mission passes may protect it, but other naval units cannot protect the mission even if they could reach the port of origin on the initial leg of their mission. The protection requirements for sea supply (30.361) and sea escort (21.65A, 21.65F) could be made to match by allowing naval units in ports through which sea escort passes to protect sea escort and allowing naval units that could reach the port of origin on the initial leg of their mission to protect sea supply lines (the range and interception requirements already match), but they are currently slightly different. [2010 Jun 21 [off-list]]


Q: May transports used on the mapboard be intercepted?
A: Transports used to facilitate operations between ports and/or mapboard boxes are subject to interception only while on the mapboard, and only while between the origin and destination of the mission (inclusive). They do not "move" from the SW box to the port or mapboard box of origin, and are not subject to interception before the origin of the mission. Nor do they "move" from the destination port or mapboard box to the SW box, and are not subject to interception beyond the destination of the mission. [2008 May 11]


Q: If a naval force is intercepted in a hex where it picks up ground or air units, are those ground units involved in the naval combat?
A: Yes -- see 22.82A. Analogous to the case described in the rule ("picking up" naval units), the interception happens after the ground/air units are embarked. If the first naval force were picking up both ground units and additional naval units in a port, there would be no way to intercept the additional naval units (as required) without also intercepting the embarked ground units. [2007 Jun 23]


Q: May land-based air involved in naval combat attack the intercepted naval activity in other hexes?
A: Yes; land-based air may only attack in conjunction with naval combat in the naval combat hex, but may attack in other (non-combat) hexes as well. [2008 Apr 16]


Q: May a naval unit that fails to intercept an enemy activity (perhaps a base change) then attempt to intercept another enemy activity later in the same phase (perhaps sea transport)?
A: No. Each naval unit may attempt only a single interception per phase.


Q: If TFs that intercept separately are attacked by land-based air en route to the interception hex, are they treated as one naval force or multiple naval forces?
A: Different TFs must intercept separately (that is, make separate interception die rolls), but they need not sail separately. 22.141 defines whether such TFs are considered to be a single naval force while sailing. [2011 Feb 28]


Q: What does contemporaneous mean in the context of AWAW?
A: Contemporaneous actions are those that are announced at a single point in the sequence of play. [2005 Jun 6]


Q: How can sea supply, raiders, and NRs be contemporaneous (announced at a single point in the sequence of play) when they occur in different phases?
A: All sea supply is contemporaneous. All raiding is contemporaneous. All NRs are contemporaneous. These activities take place in different phases, and are not contemporaneous with each other. [2011 Oct 9]


Q: What happens if a patrol counter-intercepts in support of a friendly naval activity and adopts its mission, and is therefore out of range for using its carrier-based NAS in the way intended?
A: If the patrol counter-intercepts in support of a friendly naval activity, then it is "committed" to that naval activity and adopts its mission and sails with it. The result may be that the patrol is out of position for what was originally intended (ground support, interception of DAS, etc.). The patrol does have the option of remaining "on station" rather than counter-intercepting, or the patrol can be split (with only part of the patrol counter-intercepting). But there is no guarantee that the patrol can fully support one naval activity while also retaining the flexibility it would have had if it had not counter-intercepted. Counter-intercepting in support of a friendly naval activity does have a "cost", in that it may limit what else the patrol can do. [2010 Jul 19]


Q: When must a player announce the paths of his intercepting naval units?
A: The interception paths must be announced before making the interception die rolls (22.23). [2008 Apr 16]


Q: If a player wants to intercept a counter-counter-interception in a hex other than the counter-counter-interception hex, is this a new interception (and therefore legal) or would this be a counter-counter-counter-interception (and hence illegal)?
A: Intercepting a counter-counter-interception would be a counter-counter-counter-interception and is always illegal. It doesn't matter which hex is chosen. [2018 Feb 8]


Q: Are naval units returning to base involved in a "naval activity"?
A: Yes, returning to base is a part of the naval activity that began when the naval units left port (see 23.811). [2006 Dec 4] [2008 Apr 18]


Q: Must interceptions be announced before air attacks along the route prior to the interception hex are resolved?
A: Yes. All interceptions, counter-interceptions, and counter-counter-interceptions are announced and resolved before any naval force actually leaves port. If the original mission is aborted before the interception hex is reached, the intercepting naval force will not be inverted (22.26C). However, those naval units will not be eligible to intercept another naval activity until a later phase. Other uncommitted naval units could attempt to intercept the original naval force once it aborts (22.13G). [2007 Aug 2]


Q: Must a player specify a hex path for an intercepting naval force before the interception dice are rolled?
A: Yes. [2006 Jun 14]


Q: If there are ten or more naval factors in the intercepted force, but they are not in a TF, does this modifier apply?
A: No. TF-sized naval forces not in a TF do not generate an interception die. For example, if three 8-factor naval forces intercepting a mission are counterintercepted in the interception hex, there is no modifier for intercepting a TF even though 24 naval factors are being intercepted. Likewise, the modifier does not vary with the size of a TF; a 25-factor TF and a 1-factor TF (returning to base after the other factors were sunk) each generate one (and only one) die. However, note 20.164E, which mandates that smaller-than-TF forces form TFs in certain circumstances; if the three 8-factor naval forces above all arrive in the interception hex without any delay (so they will all be able to participate in round 1), then they will be legally able to form a TF and therefore must form a TF. [2013 Jan 15] [2014 May 13]

Q: Does the modifier for intercepting a TF also apply when counter-intercepting a TF?
A: Yes; a counter-interception is just an interception [of an interception]. [2013 Jul 25]


Q: At what point in the player turn must an air unit be uncommitted in order to assist naval interception by spotting?
A: In order to spot, an air unit must not already be committed at the point the interception is resolved. For example, during the combat phase, the non-moving player announces DAS and naval interceptions in step 6e, and the moving player announces interception of DAS in step 6f. However, the naval interactions are not resolved until step 6g. Any air units committed to DAS (6e) or interception of DAS (6f) are already committed, and no longer eligible to spot when interceptions are resolved (6g), even though they may not have yet been committed when the interception was announced. [2007 Mar 24]

Q: May an air squadron still spot after it has already searched?
A: No. Once an air squadron has searched, provided air cover, or attacked, it is committed to the "interacting with naval units" activity, and may no longer spot.

Q: If an air unit is eliminated by a patrol, in which interception hexes does the spotting modifer from the air unit apply?
A: The spotting modifer applies in all the interception hexes where it would apply if the air uniter were not eliminated: all hexes in range of the air unit, plus all further hexes passed through by the patrol mission, including the patrol hex. [2018 Mar 2]


Q: May a submarine both modify the interception roll of surface forces and itself simultaneously attempt an interception?
A: Yes. [2014 Apr 26] [2015 Mar 26]

Q: May a submarine modify an interception die roll to a hex to which the submarine may not legally travel?
A: No; common sense applies here. The "within three hexes" must be three hexes by sea, not on the opposite side of a prohibited strait, etc. [2011 Apr 12] [2013 Apr 23]


Q: If all counter-interception attempts fail, is this deemed a complete failure (22.24A) or a partial failure (22.24B)?
A: If the counter-interception is in the original interception hex, then it is only a partial failure, as there is naval combat taking place in the interception hex. The same is true for counter-counter-interception in the counter-interception hex. However, if the counter-interception is in a hex other than the interception hex, then if no counter-interception attempts succeed, it is a complete failure. [2016 Aug 9]


Q: Does a MAGIC interception count as having "at least one interception attempt succeed", so that additional naval forces (all of which failed their interception rolls) can continue their attempts?
A: Yes. [2011 Mar 30]


Q: Does this really mean that intercepting naval units are inverted (because they were involved in naval combat, by 22.26), even though they did not arrive in time to actually participate?
A: No. 22.26C is clear that naval units that were only "pending" because their interception roll was too low are not inverted. 22.26D allows a player to hold intercepting naval forces back from combat (which he would always do, at least until they could actually participate!); this also would allow the naval force to avoid inversion. What 22.252C really means is that all intercepting naval forces following a path through the counter-interception hex have the ability to participate in the naval combat (as opposed to never having the chance to participate). It also says that an intercepting naval force may not be able to participate in the first round of the counter-interception combat, which means that any delay applied to a naval force's participation in the interception combat is also applied to the counter-interception combat. [2012 Jun 29 [off-list]]


Q: If a naval force is counter-intercepted in the interception hex and then counter-counter-intercepted in the same hex, how do the modifiers for TFs and cargo apply?
A: Only the TFs in the counter-intercepting force (and no modifier for cargo) apply. Although the counter-intercepting force and the original naval force are in the same hex, only the counter-intercepting force is actually being counter-counter-intercepted. Clearly the TFs and cargo of the original force would not count if the CCI hex were not the original interception hex. If the CCI hex is the original interception hex, the +2d modifier (22.22C) applies, but only the TFs of the CI force being CCId count towards 22.22D, and 22.22A cannot apply. The submarine modifier (22.22G) may apply, even if the sub already rolled for interception, because the sub does not actually leave port until after the CCI rolls. [2014 May 27 [off-list]]


Q: Are naval units considered to have engaged in naval combat and inverted even if they did nothing during naval combat, or the naval combat was a mere formality (such as three TFs vs. an unprotected sea supply line)?
A: If there is a naval combat (surface naval units of opposing powers in the same hex), then all the naval units involved are engaged in naval combat. It does not matter if they are needed, whether they are found, whether they find anything, whether they fire, whether they are fired at, etc. Even the acts of forming CGs and rolling search are part of naval combat. [2011 Mar 13] [2012 Dec 9] [2013 Dec 6]

Q: Suppose a mission is successfully intercepted by an enemy naval force, which is then successfully counter-intercepted in the interception hex by an additional friendly naval force. The "last-to-intercept, first-to-sail" ordering (22.19) has the counter-intercepting force arrive in the interception hex first, then the intercepting force, and finally the original naval force. If the original naval force aborts before arriving (due to air or submarine attacks en route, what happens to the two forces already in the interception hex?
A: They engage in naval combat, and are thereafter inverted (22.81). The intercepting naval force may choose to withhold naval units from naval combat with the counter-intercepting force in order to avoid having them inverted (22.26D); this option would not be available to the intercepting force if the original naval force had arrived in the interception hex. If the original naval force does not arrive in the interception hex, the counter-interception is resolved as if it took place in a hex other than the interception hex. It makes no difference if the counter-intercepting force was based in port or if it was on patrol and counter-intercepted in support of the original (and later aborted) mission; in both cases the opposing forces (intercepting force and counter-intercepting force) that arrive in the original interception hex engage in naval combat and then return to port, inverted. [Post #106515 -- 2007 Nov 18-19] [2017 Jan 1] [2017 Jan 4]

Q: Are submarines always inverted if they are involved in naval combat?
A: A submarine involved in naval combat is only inverted if it has the opportunity to attack; if it has no chance to attack before the end of naval combat, it is treated as if it failed to intercept. See 22.92A.


Q: May intercepting naval units be withheld from naval combat with a counter-intercepting force if that combat occurs in the original interception hex?
A: The option to withhold intercepting naval units from combat with a counter-intercepting force applies only to naval combat in a hex before the interception hex. This allows the intercepting naval force to avoid inversion due to combat with a "harassing" counter-intercepting force, when they might otherwise not be inverted (because they never reach the interception hex in time to take part in the naval combat, for instance). However, this option is not available once the intercepting forces reach the interception hex. At that point, there is a single naval combat between the intercepted force, the intercepting force, and the counter-intercepting force. The intercepting force will engage in naval combat with (at least) the force it set out to intercept, and cannot be "withheld" to avoid inversion. [2015 Jan 23]


Q: May naval units in port that attempt but fail to intercept sea supply during initial supply determination later attempt to intercept a sea transport mission?
A: No. Naval units in port may attempt to intercept only once per phase. As both the above activities occur during the same phase (though they are announced at different points during the phase), a player must be careful not to overcommit to stopping the earlier actions lest he be unable to contest the later action. [2005 Jun 6]


Q: If a naval activity is attacked by multiple submarines in the same hex, may it be aborted between submarine attacks?
A: A naval activity aborted because of land-based air or submarine attack may not be aborted until all land-based air and submarine attacks in the hex have been resolved. [2008 Oct 22-23]


Q: Can carrier-based NAS be assigned to CAP during the simplified raider combat?
A: Yes, 1/3 of them may be assigned to CAP, as in normal naval combat. Air defense is also resolved as in normal naval combat. There are no surprise rolls, and neither player is forced to make an air strike if he chooses not to do so. [2006 May 29]


Q: How does screening work during raider combat?
A: The raiders fire on the unscreened ships normally. Then any raiders that withheld their fire either

Note that if there is at least one unscreened and one screened defending ship present (either an automatically screened CVL or a voluntarily screened ship), there will be no chance for the raiders to fire on the transports unless the raiders include a carrier. Without an air strike, there is no way to sink the screened ship before fleet combat, and thus no way to sink all the defending ships to allow fire against the screened transports. A cruiser damaged by heavy fire is automatically screened, and thus also precludes fire against the transports (because the withheld raiders can only fire on the damaged cruiser, not the transports). [2013 Jul 6]


Q: Are all non-surprise air strikes considered to be simultaneous?
A: See 22.461B. The order in which the air strikes are resolved is specified, but it usually makes little difference. Remember that carrier air leave the carrier to fly CAP or air strikes (against enemy CGs or bases) before air strikes are resolved. Thus, sinking/damaging a carrier has no effect on the air until the end of the round, when the planes try to land. However, the results of one attack could influence a player's later attack (whether air units already assigned to "strike" actually attack a target at all, or which which ships they target when they attack, etc.). [2013 Apr 1]


Q: If unencumbered TFs cannot be broken down, how can there be any "surplus" if an unencumbered combat group is used to strengthen an encumbered naval force?
A: Unencumbered TFs can be broken down when strengthening encumbered naval forces. They cannot be broken down in any other case. [2009 Jun 4]

Q: How do unescorted fast carriers fight if they are intercepted while sailing without escorts, for example during a base change (21.312)?
A: The rule states that unescorted fast carrier may not *voluntarily* engage in combat. If they are intercepted, that is *involuntarily* engaging in combat. [The question remains open, as to exactly how they form combat groups if sailing without escorts, or with insufficient escorts to form normal CGs.] [2018 Apr 13]

Q: May ground/air units, BRPs, oil counters, or transports (perhaps transports in a convoy) be assigned to a counter-intercepting combat group?
A: Cargo remains assigned to the TF (or smaller-than-TF naval force) to which it was originally assigned. However, any encumbered naval force may be augmented by any unencumbered naval force. It does not matter if the unencumbered naval force accompanied the original mission or counter-intercepted in the interception hex (so long as it was present in the interception hex before the first round of naval combat).

Q: When unencumbered non-TF naval forces enter a hex for naval combat, do they combine to a single combat group even if they were performing separate missions?
A: Yes. Thus, if a base change mission with a 9-factor naval force is intercepted, and 8-factor and 7-factor naval forces counter-intercepted in the interception hex and reached the interception hex before the first round of naval combat, all three naval forces would be combined before forming combat groups.

Q: If a naval force conducting a seaborne invasion has not yet picked up any ground units, is it encumbered or not encumbered when forming combat groups?
A: A naval force whose assignment is to pick up an infantry unit is encumbered the moment it leaves port. The troops might be in a different port which that naval force has not yet reached, but the reason a force is encumbered is because it has slow moving troop ships. And that is the case the moment the force leaves its initial port (even if there are no troops yet loaded on those slow moving troop ships), and that is the case even after the troops have been dropped off (at the mission hex). 22.552B and 22.9417B applies the "encumbered" modifier for such naval forces even if no ground units are actually being carried at the time of the attack. [2010 Dec 10-13]

Q: If TFs are "entangled" because naval forces merge and split in the process of forming combat groups, what happens to the TFs after naval combat?
A: At the conclusion of naval combat the surviving naval units still belong to their original TFs (20.164E). The CGs were formed of independent naval forces for combat purposes and no longer exist once the combat is over. Knowing which TFs your naval units belong to is important when sending those naval units back to port (21.33). [2017 Apr 3]


Q: When an air base is counteraired during naval combat, what is the status of enemy air units based in that location but already committed to a ground support mission?
A: The air units are "away" on their ground support mission, and are not involved in the counterair combat in any way. [2011 Mar 22]


Q: Why does the comment say that defending land-based air units may be inverted because of an earlier counterair result, when the rule clearly says the status of the land-based air units is determined by the final round of counterair?
A: The final round of naval combat does not necessarily include a counterair battle. If round 2 includes a counterair that scores some abort results, those defending air units are not available for use in round 2, but are available to be used in round 3 and beyond (assuming no further counterair). When the battle ends after (e.g.) round 5, the abort results from the final round (round 2) of counterair are applied, even if the final round of counterair was part of an earlier round of the battle.


Q: Does a distant combat group with an operational carrier need to have ten or more undamaged naval factors in order to generate a search die?
A: No. Active combat groups must be at least ten factors, but distant combat groups only need a fully operational carrier. [2012 Aug 1]


Q: Do search results carry forward from one round to the next? Does a found CG stay found in future rounds?
A: The search results from one round have no bearing on future rounds. A found CG may later become hidden (and still later be found again, etc.), and a hidden CG may later be found (and still later become hidden again, etc.). [2015 Nov 22]


Q: How does this rule ("If no search result is achieved, the enemy combat group remains hidden.") interact with the rules that require active combat groups to engage in fleet combat (22.452C, 22.521A, 22.523A)?
A: If no search results are scored against an active CG, that CG remains hidden as regards air strikes (only); an air strike against a CG (active or distant) requires a search result. But opposing active CGs must engage in fleet combat, even if they were not found by search. [2012 Sep 21]


Q: Must all air strikes be announced before any are resolved?
A: No. Strikes are announced and resolved one at a time. The NAS that will carry out the air strikes were all already assigned to strike, but are not compelled to attack and have not yet been assigned to specific targets. The results of one air strike (carriers sunk, for example) do not in any way inhibit the ability of the defender to carry out his own air strikes. [2014 Jan 20]


Q: Do kamikaze attacks require a search result in order to attack during naval combat?
A: Yes; the same searching rules govern kamikazes as govern other air strikes during naval combat. [2012 Jul 1 [off-list]]


Q: May a surprise air strike be launched even if a friendly CG was found in an earlier round?
A: Yes. Search results from one round have no bearing on later rounds. A surprise air strike is allowed in any round in which no friendly CGs are found, regardless of whether friendly CGs were found in a prior round. [2015 Nov 22]


Q: Can more than 25 fleet factors ever attack simultaneously?
A: No. It is not possible for more than 25 fleet factors (one full combat group) to attack in a single attack. Note that although air strikes against ships at sea are limited to 12 squadrons (or 15 squadrons of kamikazes), air attacks against ships in port may consist of any number of air units. [2014 Jun 21]


Q: If an active combat group is not found, is it still compelled to engage in fleet combat with an opposing active combat group?
A: Search results have no bearing on the algorithm described in 22.521 A, B, and even the first bullet of D. For example, if both players have a CG1, they must engage in round 1 even if only one (or neither) of them is found. Likewise, in a CG1 (only) vs. CG3 (only) naval combat, there will be fleet combat in round 3 (when both combat groups are active) even if only one (or neither) of them is found. [2012 Nov 21]

Q: How do you handle rare situations that might not be covered by this rule?
A: This should only happen if a player has a combat group that is so small that it can be entirely sunk in a single fleet combat. In that case, make the following additional checks:
-- After completing step 22.521C, if both players have at least one active combat group which either did not engage in fleet combat with an opposing active combat group, or which sank all the naval units in the opposing active combat group it engaged in fleet combat, then return to step 22.521B.
-- After completing step 22.521E, if a player still has one or more active combat groups which either did not engage in fleet combat with an opposing active combat group, or which sank all the naval units in the opposing active combat group it engaged in fleet combat, return to step 22.521D. [2014 Dec 13]


Q: May a combat group "pass" its chance to pair off in fleet combat, in order to allow a different pairing to take place?
A: No. The rule is followed exactly. If Japan has active CG1 and active CG2, and the US has active CG3 and distant CG4, Japanese CG1 must pair with US CG3. It cannot "pass", allow Japanese CG2 to pair with CG3, and then attempt to engage US CG4. Once Japanese CG1 and US CG3 fight, Japanese CG2 could also fight US CG3 (22.521D). [2013 Sep 11]


Q: In round 3 of a battle pitting CG1+CG2+CG3 vs. CG1, what happens after the engagement between the two CG1s is resolved?
A: CG2 and CG3 -- in that order -- have the option of engaging the enemy CG1. There could be three separate fleet combats; fleet combat always involves only a single combat group on each side. [2014 Dec 20]

Q: In round 2 of a battle pitting Allied CG1+CG2 vs. Axis CG1+CG6, Axis CG1 sinks Allied CG1; what happens next?
A: Axis CG1 fights Allied CG2. Because of that, Allied CG2 cannot fight Axis CG6 (unless it eliminates Axis CG1). You simply go down the line, "sequentially" determining whether 21.521D applies to a CG. In the case where Axis CG1 eliminates Allied CG1, the intent was to treat things as if Allied CG1 never existed. (The reason was to keep people from doing something like putting DD1 into CG1 to screen the other CGs.) So after the two CG1s fight and the Allied CG1 is eliminated, you look at what would happen if Allied CG1 wasn't there, and apply the rules. [2013 Jan 22]

Q: Fleet Combat: round 2; all active CGs are fast; both distant CGs are found. Japanese CGs: Active J1, J2; Distant J6. American CGs: Active A1; Distant A6. A1 engages J1, and sinks it. Now, according to 22.521D, what happens?
A: Active A1 engages active J2. [2014 Dec 16]


Q: If more than one enemy CG engages a single friendly CG (say there are two active enemy CGs and one active friendly CG), how is this multi-CG combat resolved.
A: Combat between opposing CGs is resolved sequentially. In this case, the lower-numbered enemy CG fights the friendly CG first. After it is resolved, the higher-numbered enemy CG fights the friendly CG. This does allow the friendly CG to fire twice (at least those ships that remain undamaged), though the damage it does will be split between the two enemy CGs. Meanwhile, it is being fired upon twice, with potentially devestating consequences. [2015 Jun 2]


Q: May an evading combat group move to a combat group slot that was found by the opposing search rolls?
A: Yes. The new slot must be empty, but it does not matter whether it was found or not. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: May ships be screened even if there are no ships with which to screen them? May cargo be jettisoned to avoid screening? If multiple DDs are carrying each factor of ground/air units, may any of them fight?
A: Ships may be screened even if there are no ships with which to screen them; if all ships in a combat group are screened (not very effectively!), none of them may fire. Cargo may not be voluntarily lost in order to avoid screening. If multiple DDs are required to carry a factor of cargo, then multiple DDs per factor of cargo are automatically screened. [2009 Feb 2]

Q: Are heavy ships damaged by heavy fire screened, or are they valid targets for excess light ship fire?
A: Except for cruisers damaged by heavy fire (which are automatically and immediately screened), ships never become screened or unscreened during a round of fleet combat. The category to which they are assigned at the beginning of fleet combat does not change until another round of fleet combat is begun. [2014 Mar 21]


Q: Do multiple combat groups from one side ever conduct fleet combat at the same time?
A: No -- see 22.426. When 22.53 refers to "the combat groups involved in fleet combat" it simply means the [exactly] two combat groups involved -- [exactly] one from each player. Note that if two enemy CGs fight one friendly CG in sequence, the surviving undamaged naval units in the one friendly CG will fire (and be fired upon!) twice. [2014 Jan 21] [2014 Jun 20]


Q: When do "non-surplus" capital ships select targets?
A: Although capital ships pair off in 22.54A, a ship will not necessarily fire against the ship with which it is paired. Surplus capital ships select targets in 22.54B. Non-surplus capital ships then select targets at the beginning of 22.54C, where each may select any of the opposing capital ships firing against it. A non-surplus capital ship could thus target the ship with which it was paired in 22.54A, or any enemy surplus capital ships that chose to target it in 22.54B. [2013 Feb 19]


Q: Do capital ships fire individually, or do all capital ships firing on a target combine into a single attack?
A: Only one attack is rolled per target, with all capital ships firing on the target combining their firepower. Thus a BB4 + BB3 firing on a single target (whether that is another capital ship or all light ships) roll a single attack of seven factors. [2013 Jun 29]


Q: What does it mean that CVEs are counted as destroyer factors in fleet combat?
A: Simply that each CVE factor contributes one to the strength of the group of light ships of which it is part, the same as a destroyer factor contributes. However, the lower Naval Nationality DRM of CVEs will lower the Naval Nationality DRM of any group of light ships of which they are a part. [2013 Feb 19]


Q: "If one of the combat groups involved is carrying out a naval activity that reduced its effectiveness", does the +/-1 fleet combat modifier apply to all the player's combat groups?
A: No. The wording above is used on Naval Attack Table so that it applies both to the attacking combat group (-1 modifier to attacks by the combat group) and the defending combat group (+1 modifier to attacks against the combat group). But only the combat groups involved in the fleet combat in question -- not all the combat groups involved in the naval combat -- are considered. Other combat groups are unaffected. [2006 Dec 11]

Q: Why does the presence of fast carriers not modify fleet combat dice rolls, when they clearly have a lower Naval Nationality DRM than other ships?
A: The modifier for Naval Nationality DRM does apply, if the carrier is being fired upon. However, there is no modifier for other fire by or against the combat group based simply on the presence of a fast carrier (or damaged ship) in a combat group. [2013 Feb 19]

Q: If a sea supply mission results in naval combat involving two CGs belonging to the player conducting the mission, do both CGs count as "protecting sea supply" and suffer the -1 modifier to fleet combat?
A: Only the CG to which sea supply has been assigned as cargo suffers the penalty. [2008 Aug 29]


Q: May naval units withdrawing from naval combat, after being again intercepted after withdrawing from a prior naval combat, withdraw to the same port as to which they were originally withdrawing?
A: Yes. [2007 Mar 30]

Q: Do withdrawing naval units return to base between rounds? Or do they withdraw, and then return to base with all other ships after naval combat concludes?
A: Ships that withdraw after a naval round return to base before the next naval round begins, and can be intercepted or attacked by air units as they do so. The entire process of withdrawal -- including any interdiction of the withdrawing units -- is resolved before the next round of naval combat begins. If the naval combat is being fought under enemy land-based air and you withdraw your forces piecemeal, it is quite possible they will be mauled by enemy air. (Fighting under enemy land-based air is not fun!) But the ships do have the option of continuing to fight rather than withdrawing ... [2015 May 28]


Q: If a naval force counter-intercepts in support of a sea transport (or seaborne invasion), is victorious, and adopts the mission of the supported force, must it pay BRPs for the offensive operation?
A: Yes; once it adopts the offensive mission, the naval force is no longer performing the (free) interception mission. Counter-intercepting allows you to hold back forces and commit them only if there is opposition (interception), but it doesn't also allow you to commit those forces to an offensive mission without paying the cost. Once the counter-intercepting forces adopt the seaborne invasion mission, they pay the BRP cost (though in many cases a 15 BRP full offensive would make this moot).
In the case of seaborne invasions, if a 1:1 invasion (DDs and ground units only) is intercepted, and then counter-intercepted, the victorious counter-intercepting ships join the mission. This could potentially change the odds to 7:1 (by adding shore bombardment and ground support) as well as push the faction over the 14 BRP limit for a limited offensive. That 7:1 attack should not be made with only the original DDs and ground units paying but the much larger shore bombardment and ground support contingents being free, nor should an attrition be allowed because only some of the attacking units paid.
Perhaps the "if otherwise permitted to do so" phrase in 22.81C covers the case where the intercepting force cannot adopt an offensive mission because the owner cannot pay the BRPs (no full offensive, and no BRPs or deficit spending availability to send additional ships on an offensive mission). [2013 Jan 9] [2013 Jan 11]

Q: If a counter-interception occurs in a hex other than the interception hex, may the counter-intercepting force adopt the original mission?
A: If the interception occurs in a different hex, then the CI force did not support a victorious intercepted force -- it merely intercepted an enemy [interception] mission. Even if you would term the CI in a different hex as "supporting" the original mission, there is no "victorious intercepted force", as the original mission was not involved in the naval combat and is not "victorious". So if the CI occurs in a hex other than the interception hex, 22.81C does not apply, and the CI force simply returns to port after naval combat; it does not, and may not, adopt the mission of the original force. [2013 Jan 11]


Q: After successful interception in the same hex by both submarines and other naval units, must the submarines attack? If the sub does not (or cannot attack), is it inverted?
A: The submarines engage in naval combat and may attack (22.914). They are not compelled to attack: in some cases they may be unable to legally attack, or they could wait for a better opportunity in a later round of naval combat. The submarines will be inverted only if they attack, or if they have an opportunity to attack but decline to do so (see also 22.26). A submarine which *could* attack, but chooses not to, is inverted. {Although I believe this answer to be correct, it does conflict with the official Q&A document. I believe the Q&A document to be in error, as it forces certain actions to be taken during naval combat that are not mandated and perhaps not even allowed by the naval combat rules.} {The June 2011 clarification also supersedes the official Q&A.} [2007 Jun 27] [2011 Mar 14] [2011 Mar 14]


Q: How much information does the player attacking with submarines receive on the contents of the defender's CGs before choosing which CG(s) to attack?
A: None, other than the information normally revealed during naval combat. For a submarine attack outside naval combat, the specific CG to attack will essentially be chosen at random. However, even outside naval combat, some non-random decisions are possible; for example, if two submarines attack a naval force of two TFs (which form two CGs), the owner of the submarines can choose to have the submarines both attack the same (essentially random) CG or each attack a different CG. (See also the entry for 17.47A, dealing with kamikaze attacks.) [2011 Jul 5]


Q: What is the "attacked naval force" for the purpose of determining the modifiers attributable to carriers (22.9413) and destroyers (22.9414)?
A: Submarines always attack a specific combat group; they "never attack a multi-TF naval force as a whole" (22.93A). Only carrier and destroyers in the specific attacked combat group apply towards the submarine attack modifiers; carriers and destroyers in other combat groups -- even if part of a multi-CG force carrying out a common naval activity -- do not count. [2013 Mar 29 [off-list]] [2016 Sep 26]

Q: Are any of the usual submarine attack modifiers relevant for an attack by an advanced submarine?
A: No; the net modifier for an advanced submarine attack is always +1; all other modifiers are ignored. [2007 Jul 19]

Q: May inverted submarines traveling with an intercepted naval force attack in any way?
A: Like inverted surface ships, inverted submarines can attack normally, although each submarine may attack only once per player turn. Being inverted of course stops the submarine from intercepting or performing any other mission, but does not stop the submarine from attacking if engaged in naval combat during base changes, displacement, or NR. Since submarines traveling alone cannot be intercepted, this can only occur if the submarine is traveling with a naval force including surface ships. [2007 Feb 24-25]


Q: If the attacker has air superiority and wants to generate a positive modifier, must he commit enough air (which will invert it) to guarantee a positive modifier, even though the defender will then choose to commit no air?
A: Yes, the attacker must commit first. If he doesn't commit enough to guarantee a positive modifier, the defender may commit enough air to generate a zero or negative modifier. On the other hand, if the attack commits enough air to guarantee a positive modifier, the defender will not commit any air (because there is nothing to be gained). This will result in all the attacker's committed air being inverted after the attack, but none of the defender's air (since none was committed). [2007 Mar 24]


Q: May a player decline to take destroyer losses from anywhere other than in the attacked naval force if that results in excess hits vs. light ships?
A: Yes. A player would generally only take destroyer losses from elsewhere if those "excess hits" were going to do some crucial damage (such as disrupt an important sea supply line). If the excess hits will have no effect, the player would likely choose not to lose destroyers from elsewhere.

Q: Must destroyers taken as losses from port be of the same nationality as any destroyers accompanying the naval mission?
A: Destroyers taken as losses from port may be of a different nationality than the destroyers accompanying the mission. The naval NDRM of destroyers in port does not affect the modifier for the submarine attack; only the NDRM of the attacked naval force matters. [2007 Sep 18]

Q: If a sea supply line escorted by DD1 incurs three hits, how many DDs must be lost to preserve the sea supply line?
A: Three. In the situation described, the effects of the '3' sub attack result are: the first hit sinks a DD (this loss can be taken from the port); if the escorting DD was sunk, the second hit disrupts the sea supply line; if the escorting DD was not sunk, the second hit sinks a DD (which can be taken from the port); if the sea supply was disrupted, the third hit has no effect; if the sea supply line was not disrupted, the third hit follows the same dynamic as the second hit. If you want the sea supply line to not be disrupted, you lose 3 DDs, all of which can come from port (or 2 from port, 3rd loss being the escorting DD). If you are OK with the sea supply line failing, you lose the lone escorting DD and the sea supply is disrupted. [2014 Mar 8]

Q: Which naval activities allow destroyers "in the SW box through which the naval activity passed" to be taken to satisfy losses to submarine attacks?
A: Naval activities between a mapboard box and the mapboard "pass through" an SW box. Naval activities that may be carried out or protected by units in an SW box "pass through" that SW box. [2011 Mar 27]

Q: If destroyer losses are taken from a base or SW box (somewhere other than from the destroyers assigned to the mission), how does this affect any cargo being carried?
A: The most obvious reason for taking destroyer losses from elsewhere is to preserve cargo that would be lost if the destroyer losses were taken from the mission itself. If enough destroyers and transports remain with the mission to carry the cargo, 22.82 does not apply and no cargo would be lost. [2016 Jan 31]


Q: May submarine losses to destroyers carrying cargo be taken from elsewhere (22.9432)?
A: Yes. The references to 20.58B and 20.59 in 22.9435 are not meant to exclude portions of the more specific rules in 22.943, but merely point to relevant parts of the general rule identified in 22.9431. [2010 May 16]


Q: Does using air units for search during naval combat, or to modify a submarine attack, invert the air units?
A: Unlike spotting, any use of land-based air units during naval combat -- including adding search dice or modifying submarine attacks -- commits the air unit to "interacting with naval activities" and will invert those air units (usually at the end of redeployment - 23.161, 23.164). Note that the meanings of the AWAW terms "spotting" and "searching" are the reverse of the meanings the U.S. Navy ascribes to those two terms. [2007 Oct 22]


Q: If AAF attack a port at which NAS are based, and counterairs the NAS with some fraction of his force, how are the conversions between AAF and AAS done?
A: The counterairing AAF (only) are converted to AAS and the counterair is resolved (23.131A). Only if the defender scores excess results are any bombing AAF converted to AAS. Once the excess results are applied, the bombing force is converted back to AAF for the attack on the port (23.141A). [2005 Jun 25] [2010 Feb 16]


Q: When assigning air cover during naval combat, which player breaks their AAF into AAS first?
A: Air cover during naval combat is assigned secretly and simultaneously. The conversion to AAS occurs when the air cover is assigned, and is also secret and simultaneous. [2012 Feb 26]


Q: Once created by conversion from AAF, may the types of AAS be changed?
A: AAS types cannot be changed; they are fixed. You can convert AAS back to AAF, but unless you have an uninverted squadron of each type, the AAF you create is an *inverted* AAF unable to do anything for the rest of the turn. If you convert 5 AAF to 5 Attack, 5 Cover, and 5 Search squadrons and then lose all the Attack AAS, you can convert nine squadrons back to 3 *inverted* AAF. Converting those inverted AAF into AAS would give you 3 Attack AAS ... but inverted Attack AAS cannot attack. [2016 May 1]


Q: AAF attack naval units in port. In the first round of combat, all AAF attack a mix of defending AAF and NAS in the port; the attacker's AAF are therefore converted to AAS for the counterair combat. Suppose not all the defending air is destroyed, and so the attacker wishes to again attack the defending air rather than the naval units in the second round. Do the attacking air units convert back to AAF after the initial counterair round, only to convert back to AAS for the second counterair round?
A: Although the mission is "attacking naval units in port" (which requires AAF), it is also a counterair operation (and AAS are not converted to AAF between counterair rounds). I think the answer is "definitely not" because the players shouldn't waste the time converting AAF to AAS to AAF to AAS again. The question is not completely moot; the conversion could cause the gain or loss of a squadron, due to the rounding when AAS are converted to AAF. [2009 Dec 12]


Q: When combining one or two AAS into an AAF, are there any restrictions on the placement of the newly-formed AAF?
A: Where one airbase has two AAS and another has one AAS, you would convert the two AAS to an AAF (inverted) and take the other AAS off the board. If multiple locations have an equal number of AAS, the owner chooses which such location receives the newly-formed AAF. One cannot choose to form an AAF in a location with a single AAS, while simultaneously removing two AAS from another location.

At the end of a player turn, unbuilt AAS are converted first, and that determines the number of unbuilt AAF. The remaining AAF must be on the board. At most one AAS is removed from the board (to allow two unbuilt AAS to convert to an unbuilt AAF). If there is an extra unbuilt AAS that is not converted to an unbuilt AAF (for instance, if there were four or seven unbuilt AAS), it is returned to the board to some location that has AAS. When converting on-board AAS, an extra one AAS is not eliminated, but relocated; likewise when converting two AAS to an AAF, the additional AAS is taken from elsewhere. Converting onboard AAS at the end of a player turn cannot result in unbuilt AAS; those have already been converted. Likewise, converting onboard AAS at the end of a player turn cannot change the number of unbuilt AAF; that was already determined when unbuilt AAS were converted.

There should be another example (after 23.143?) that says something like "Britain uses five AAF (15 AAS) in a naval battle and loses *twelve* AAS, leaving *one* AAS in each of three hexes. At the end of the turn, the *one* AAS in each hex *is* converted to *zero* AAF. Since this results in the British having one *fewer* AAF than their force pool limit permits, one AAF (in any of the three hexes) is *added to* play." [2010 Oct 4-5] [2013 May 1]


Q: Are built and unbuilt AAS ever converted at the same point during a turn?
A: For the moving player, most unbuilt AAS will be converted during construction (by 23.141B), while most on-board AAS will be converted at the end of the turn (23.141C); however, even in this case unbuilt AAS are converted first (in different phases, even). The moving player may be converting both unbuilt and on-board AAS at the same time at the end of the turn (23.141C) if any squadrons were lost during the redeployment phase (defending NRs or sea escort). And the non-moving player will always convert both unbuilt and on-board AAS at the end of his turn (23.141C). In these latter cases, 23.142 specifies that -- if they would otherwise be converted simultaneously -- unbuilt AAS are converted first. [2007 Dec 9 [off-list]]


Q: May the same air units attack during round one of naval combat, and also attack naval units that withdraw between rounds one and two (possibly in multiple hexes), and also attack during round two of the naval combat?
A: Ships that withdraw from naval combat can be attacked by air in each hex as they withdraw (not counting the hex of the naval combat). This withdrawal is independent of the naval combat, and air can both participate in future rounds of naval combat and attack the withdrawing forces. It is a bad idea to fight under a lot of enemy air (unless you also have a lot of air); if you do find yourself in that situation, don't split up the naval force or it will be picked apart piecemeal. Of course, any air units eliminated while attacking would not be able to participate in any later attack against any naval force whatsoever. [2012 Nov 16]

Q: May land-based air units interact with unprotected supply lines (with no ships involved) as well as other missions that do involve ships?
A: Yes. Tracing unprotected supply is a naval activity, even if no ships are involved. Land-based air can attack or provide air cover for unprotected supply lines in addition to doing the same in relation to other naval activities. [2014 Jan 1]


Q: If land-based NAS attack enemy naval units in port and those naval units escape, may the attacking NAS "change roles" and search or provide air cover rather than attacking the fleeing naval units?
A: Yes. Although normally land-based air flying a mission cannot interact with naval units at sea, 23.462B specifically allows both attacking and continued interaction with the escaping naval units (but no other naval units). Although 23.163 refers to "different hexes" and first hex along the path of the fleeing naval units is the same hex as that in which the NAS attacked the naval base, it is best to view the two actions as separate. The "attack enemy naval base" mission allows the NAS to both attack the naval base and (if the enemy naval units escape) interact with the naval units at sea. 23.163 only speaks to attacking naval units at sea; the fact that the NAS attacked the naval base is immaterial. Once the naval units escape, the NAS can interact with them normally, including choosing which role to play in each hex -- including the first hex (the sea portion of the naval base hex). [2012 Aug 22]


Q: How are jets converted between jet squadrons and jet factors?
A: Each jet factor is converted to three identical jet squadrons. Three uninverted jet squadrons convert to one uninverted jet factor; otherwise three jet squadrons convert to one inverted jet factor. Two jet squadrons (inverted or not) convert to one inverted jet factor. One jet squadron (inverted or not) is eliminated. Jet units are converted at the same times as army air units (23.13, 23.14). [2007 Aug 22]


Q: How are air transports converted between air transport squadrons and air transport factors?
A: Each air transport factor is converted to three identical air transport squadrons. Three uninverted air transport squadrons convert to one uninverted air transport factor; otherwise three air transport squadrons convert to one inverted air transport factor. Two air transport squadrons (inverted or not) convert to one inverted air transport factor. One air transport squadron (inverted or not) is eliminated. Air transport units are converted at the same times as army air units (23.13, 23.14). [2006 Apr 28]


Q: Can air cover be flown over an unprotected supply line?
A: Yes. [2013 Aug 11]


Q: Can air cover be flown over an unprotected supply line?
A: Yes. [2013 Aug 11]


Q: What does it mean to "prorate" air cover between multiple combat groups?
A: The air cover squadrons are divided as evenly as possible between all the combat groups, rounding in favor of the attacked combat groups. Neither the size nor contents of the combat groups matter. [2017 Jun 21]


Q: May air cover be concentrated over a single combat group during naval combat?
A: Yes. There is no naval combat rule that corresponds to 23.23C (pro-ration of air cover outside naval combat). Note that the number of squadrons which can engage (either during naval combat or outside naval combat) may be limited by the Air Nationality DRM of the defender (23.415A). [2014 Mar 3]


Q: Is there any opportunity for carriers attacked by land-based air to counterair the attacking air?
A: An air attack on naval units at sea confers no special ability to counterair. If the carriers were patrolling, they could counterair as part of the resolution of the patrol mission. If engaged in naval combat, the carriers could counterair as part of naval combat. However, if the carriers are merely escorting another mission (such as sea supply) and are attacked by land-based air outside of naval combat, the carrier-based air would be restricted to flying CAP. [2013 Jun 21]


Q: Is there any limit to the amount of air cover that can be assigned to a specific CG in naval combat?
A: There is no limit to the number of air squadrons that can be assigned, though there is a limit on the number of squadrons that can engage while defending against any one air strike. A player may choose to assign more squadrons than can engage at once in order to be able to engage with the maximum allowed number of squadrons against a second or later strike, even after taking losses defending against an earlier strike. [2015 Feb 3]


Q: Does a port add two or four to the air defense of a target?
A: It adds two. The port is a city; there is not a city and a port. Compare Tokyo (two ports) and Hanoi/Haiphong (a city and a port); those combinations both add four. But Kagoshima (one port) adds only two. [2013 Feb 23]


Q: Does air defense research allow submarines and/or unprotected sea supply lines to make an air defense roll?
A: No (23.4211D). [2013 Apr 10]


Q: When resolving an air strike vs. fast carriers at sea, are the enemy NAS on the carrier decks revealed?
A: Yes. During naval combat, this will almost never be the case. Carrier-based NAS are allocated to counterair, CAP, or air strikes near the beginning of each round of naval combat (22.41B, 22.41C). None of these allocated NAS will be "on deck" during the enemy air strikes, as they do not return to their carriers until after all air strikes are completed (22.463). NAS allocated to air strikes are not compelled to attack ("may" -- 22.462), so that is generally preferable to leaving NAS "on deck". Outside of naval combat, when carriers at sea are attacked by air, 1/3 of their NAS can fly CAP but there is no option of being assigned to counterair or air strikes. The 2/3 of NAS that cannot fly CAP will be on the carrier decks. NAS which cannot be launched because they are carried by a damaged carrier will also be on the carrier decks. [2008 Mar 11]


Q: Why can't submarines in port be attacked by air?
A: Subs often operated from ports so far away from the action (such as Perth or Hawaii) that they would never [in AWAW mechanics] intercept any enemy activity. Rather than give subs an incredible range, AWAW forces them to base in ports near the action, but effectively makes them immune to attacks on those ports. [2011 Mar 3]


Q: Do British AAS have a -1 Air Nationality DRM if attacking ships at sea?
A: No. AAF break into AAS and may perform many of the same activities as NAS, but that does not make them naval air units. [2015 Oct 28]


Q: Do kamikazes receive the +1 modifier for naval air units attacking ships at sea?
A: No; they are not naval air units. Naval air units and kamikazes are dealt with in separate rules (17.3 vs. 17.4), and kamikazes can be created by converting army air units (17.44A). Although kamikazes are treated as elite naval air units when attacking naval units (17.464), this refers only to their Air Nationality DRM -- see 17.47H. [2013 Nov 6]

Q: Do Attack AAS receive the +1 modifier for naval air units attacking ships at sea?
A: No; they are not naval air units. AAF break into squadrons, but that does not make them naval air units. [2015 Oct 28]


Q: May damaged ships withdraw immediately after an air strike?
A: No. According to the sequence of naval combat segments (22.41), withdrawal happens only between rounds of naval combat (22.411A). There is also an option to "withdraw" damaged naval units from a combat group between fleet combat engagements (22.524), in order to initiate or evade fleet combat. But this "withdrawal" from a combat group results in the actual withdrawal of the damaged ship at the end of the combat round (or its loss). 23.443A does not override the normal sequencing of naval combat. It simply makes it clear that a damaged ship is not required to leave its naval force, and that a damaged ship has the option of returning to base. That option is exercised during the appropriate segment of the naval combat in which it is involved, or [outside of naval combat] after all air and submarine attacks in the hex have been resolved. See also the entry for 22.28A. [2013 Apr 11]


Q: As a patrol moves to its patrol hex (but has not yet reached the patrol hex) and counterairs air units in a hex, may the naval units in that hex escape? Does a counterair mission against an air & naval base during the movement phase allow the naval units based in the hex an opportunity to escape?
A: Any attack against air units triggers the opportunity for naval units based in the same hex as those air units to escape, even if an attack against the naval units is not possible at that particular point in the turn sequence. If escaping in these cases were forbidden, it would allow the air units to be neutralized without giving the naval units chance to escape, and the now-unprotected naval units could be attacked at a later point in the turn. There is no general relationship that allows air units to escape only after an attack on air units, or allows naval units to escape only after an attack on naval units. (23.46B allows both air and naval units in a base to escape after an attack on a nearby base, without regard to whether air or naval units or both were attacked. Likewise, in a combat-phase attack on a naval base with air units in the hex, the naval units are allowed to escape after the first round even if only air units were attacked in that round.) Air units based with naval units cannot be neutralized without the naval units being allowed to escape. [2010 Apr 6] [2010 Apr 7]


Q: If the nearest eligible naval base has available capacity for some, but not all, of the fleeing naval units, what happens?
A: The mechanism for fleeing is similar to the mechanism for displacement (21.23B): "If the nearest port is able to base only some of the displaced naval units, the owning player chooses which naval units go to that port, and the remainder go to the next closest port." [2007 Nov 12-13]

Q: What does it mean to be out of air range of patrolling naval forces?
A: Although a the final patrol hex for a patrol is announced before the patrol is executed, the actual path of the patrol is not announced; this leaves some leeway in what hexes might be in air range of the patrol. If a naval force escapes a patrol, it may not escape to a port that *could* be brought within range of the patrol on its way to its (known) patrol hex. The naval units must escape to the nearest port that could not be brought within air range of the patrol by any legal potential patrol path. It does not what path the patrol then takes to reach its patrol hex and complete its mission. [2016 Apr 2 [off-list]]


Q: If AAF are attacking naval units in port, and the naval units leave port to avoid continued attacks, how does the AAF attack the fleeing naval units?
A: AAF must split into squadrons to attack naval units at sea. The AAF split into squadrons, and the Attack AAS attack the fleeing naval units. The Cover AAS and Search AAS are not necessarily involved, though they could participate in naval combat involving the fleeing naval force. [2007 Oct 28]


Q: When land-based air units attack naval bases, may additional air be added to subsequent sorties?
A: Although attacks on naval bases are in many ways similar to counterair, and additional attacking air units can be added to subsequent sorties of a counterair attack, the two operations are different missions. There is no provision for committing additional attacking air units to subsequent sorties against a naval base. [2012 Feb 24]

Q: If the attacker counterairs the defending air and intends to attack only the defending ships in subsequent sorties, are the air units aborted as a result of the counterair combat inverted?
A: Aborted air are inverted only after all sorties against the base are complete. The mission is to attack an enemy base; when executing that single mission, you sequentially conduct sorties against that base. In each of those sorties an attacking air unit chooses between attacking defending air or defending naval units. But there is only one mission; a player cannot terminate the "counterair part" of the mission (so as to have the abort results applied "after the last round of counterair") without also terminating the rest of the mission. Although the rules refer to "counterair" combat during an air attack on an enemy base, the mission is not "counterair". Each sortie may eliminate enemy air units but no sortie will cause any surviving air to be unavailable if the moving player elects to conduct another sortie against that same enemy base. [2013 Jan 30]


Q: How do carrier attacks vs. enemy bases work?
A: While in their patrol hex (23.61A) or on a fast carrier mission (23.61B), the attacking air may fly additional sorties as described in 23.54. (23.54 should be repeated in the 23.6 section for these two situations.) Within naval combat (23.61C), only a single sortie may be flown during each round of naval combat, as described in 22.41B. [2013 Jan 30]


Q: If the same naval force is attacked in multiple hexes, are combat group assignments made from scratch in each hex?
A: Each time a naval force is attacked by air outside of naval combat, the naval force is allowed to reassign its combat groups. The attacker will not know much about an enemy CG (e.g., he will not know if the naval units in a CG were attacked in a previous hex). The attacker will not know which naval units are assigned to a CG until after the attacking air are assigned to target a specific CG, and even then only if at least one attacking air remains after any air cover and air defense rolls (23.425). [2012 Nov 6] [2017 Jun 21]


Q: When there are multiple defending TFs, how are the defending TFs/CGs chosen?
A: The attacker may have some information on the defending TFs, but once the defender deploys into combat groups there is still no way for the attacker to associate the information known about a specific TF to any specific combat group. No search rolls are made, and none of the information normally revealed by search results is made known; the air squadrons will essentially attack random TFs. (The defender must reveal only which combat groups are filled.) The rules forbid attacking the same combat group twice in the same hex, so with ADRM 2 and 15 squadrons of air, the attacker might announce an attack on CG2 with 8 squadrons and on CG5 with 7 squadrons (hitting whichever naval forces were assigned to those combat groups). If submarines also attack in the same hex, air attacks may provide information on one or more combat groups, making the choice of which combat group to attack with a submarine less random. Once the naval units advance to the next hex, if they are again attacked by air, the assignment to combat groups is redone, allowing the defender to again deny any information to the attacker. [2012 Oct 22] [2012 Dec 20]

Q: Does the limitation on the size of an air strike apply to attacks on naval units in port?
A: No; the limitation only applies against naval units at sea. [2013 Apr 16]

Q: If the maximum number of air squadrons attack in one round and some are eliminated, may the player attack again with a maximum number of squadrons in a later round? The limit is applied to each individual air strike. Assuming the player still has the maximum allowable air to allocate to an air strike in the later round, he may again attack with the maximum number of squadrons allowed, even if squadrons were shot down during an earlier strike. For example with twelve squadrons, the U.S. or Japan may only attack with ten squadrons. However, if one of those ten is eliminated, the player would still have eleven squadrons remaining and could again attack with ten squadrons in a later round. [2012 22 Nov]

Q: Can a player send more squadrons on an air strike than the limit specifies in the expectation of losing some to air cover or air defense?
A: No. Attacks on naval units at sea are not like strategic bombing, where there is a bombing component and an escorting component. It is the number of squadrons participating in the air strike that is limited, not the number of squadrons that can actually roll on the Naval Attack Table after getting through the defender's air cover and air defense. [2013 Jan 11]


Q: What are the surprise effects if the modified surprise roll is '0'?
A: If the modified surprise roll is '0', there are no surprise effects. [2008 May 7]


Q: If naval units withdraw from naval combat or abort their mission, when are they subject to enemy land-based air attack?
A: Naval units are subject to air attack whenever they enter a hex. In each hex there is either naval combat (in which case all air and submarine attacks are conducted as allowed by the naval combat rules), or the naval units are subject to air and submarine attacks outside of naval combat. If a naval unit withdraws or aborts or simply returns to base after completing its mission, it is first subject to air attack in the *next* hex that it enters. If a unit withdraws from naval combat, it is first subject to air attack in the hex adjacent to the naval combat hex; if a unit aborts its mission because of a submarine attack, it is first subject to air attack in the hex adjacent to the submarine attack hex; if a unit completes its invasion mission and returns to base, it is first subject to air attack in the hex adjacent to the invasion hex. In each case, the chance to attack *in* the decision hex (naval combat hex, abort hex, mission hex) has already passed; the naval unit is not subject to an additional attack in the same hex simply because it aborts, withdraws, or completes its mission. The naval unit is subject to additional attack only once it enters the next hex on its path. [2014 Jan 22]


Q: Can air units from the same base split up and attack separate combat groups?
A: Yes. [2012 Jun 30 [off-list]]


Q: Can land-based air that attacked naval units during a naval combat round also attack naval units that withdraw after that same combat round?
A: Yes; withdrawal occurs after a combat round has ended. 23.161 governs, and allows the land-based air to attack the withdrawal activity as well as participate in naval combat. The withdrawing naval units are first subject to air attack once they enter the hex adjacent to the naval combat hex. [2014 Jan 22]


Q: When a naval force returns to base after completing its activity in its mission hex (or after aborting an activity), in which hex are those units first subject to air attack: the mission hex (or the hex in which they abort) or the hex into which they first move?
A: Returning to base, whether after completing a mission, aborting a mission, or withdrawing from naval combat, is a continuation of the naval units' movement, not a different activity. Naval units may be subject to only one air sortie (or one air sortie per round of naval combat -- 23.751B) per hex along their route. If they have already been attacked by air units in the mission hex (or the hex in which they abort), they may not be subject to another air sortie until they move into another hex; if they have not already been attacked by air in the mission hex (or the hex in which they abort), they may be attacked in that hex. [2006 Dec 4]

Q: If land-based air is flying one sortie per hex against an enemy naval mission, and friendly naval forces intercept the enemy forces, may the land-based air fly a sortie in the interception hex before naval combat commences?
A: No; naval combat commences as soon as the naval force enters the interception hex (22.132B). All combat in the interception hex will be full naval combat, according to the sequence in 22.4. The land-based air does not get "one last sortie" in the interception hex before naval combat begins. Naval combat begins, and the land-based air attacks within (and only within) naval combat, subject to successful search rolls. Likewise, once the naval combat ends, the land-based air cannot fly another sortie until the enemy naval units move to another hex. In a hex, there will either be air attacks and no naval combat, or air attacks as part of naval combat -- never both air attacks separate from naval combat and naval combat. [2005 Jun 17] [2007 Feb 26] [2007 Sep 29]

Q: Isn't a cargo-carrying TF particularly vulnerable to land-based air attacks, since deploying to combat groups means the other non-cargo-carrying TFs contribute nothing to its defense?
A: That would be true ... if the attacker could be assured of attacking the cargo-carrying combat group in each hex. But although the defender deploys into CGs, the attacker has no information on the contents of those CGs, and must choose which CG to attack essentially at random (23.72B). (The moving player should re-assign his CG number in each hex, to keep the attacker's choice random.) Some fraction of the time, the non-cargo-carrying CGs will "defend" the cargo-carrying CG by absorbing the entire air attack. Even if the attacker has enough air to attack all the defending CGs, he is still splitting his air among the CGs so that only a fraction of his air is attacking the cargo-carrying CG. [2012 Jul 3]


Q: Don't the Western Allies share a single force pool for ASW?
A: There are no separate British or American ASW counters in the counter mix -- only shared Western Allied ASW. However, "British" ASW (starting ASW, allowable build, produced ASW built with British shipbuilding) may be freely used immediately, while "American" ASW (starting ASW, allowable build, produced ASW built with American shipbuilding) is limited by USAT or USJT until the U.S. is at war (25.32).


Q: May the Germans conduct submarine warfare if both Britain and the U.S. are at peace with Germany?
A: No. The German submarines are shooting at the Western Allied transports, which belong jointly to Britain and the U.S. Germany may not attack the transports unless it is at war with at least one of the transports' owners. [2005 Apr 20]


Q: Do SW modifiers favoring the defender still apply if the defender has no ASW units and therefore makes no SW combat roll?
A: Yes. The attacker's SW roll is still reduced by any modifiers favoring the defender; the net modifier is the same regardless of whether there are any ASW units present. In addition, if the net modifier favors the defender, the additional losses for submarines reaching the convoy (24.64B) are reduced even if the defender had no ASW units. In practice, the Western Allies often oppose a Japanese submarine SW effort with modifiers [only], but no ASW in the Indian Ocean or Pacific SW boxes. [2011 Apr 7]


Q: Do these additional losses apply to strategic warfare by advanced submarines as well as strategic warfare by conventional submarines?
A: These losses only apply to SW warfare by conventional submarines. Advanced submarines conduct strategic warfare as described in 25.73. 24.64A would never apply because no modifiers apply to SW combat by advanced submarines (25.73B); 24.64B does not apply as it is superseded by 25.73D.


Q: At what point are the "number of subs operating in the SW box" counted for determining the limit on additional losses due to a favorable modifier?
A: "These additional losses are unaffected by the defender's SW combat results," so the limit is not lowered by any sunk or abort results. The number of subs operating in the SW box is effectively counted before strategic warfare is resolved, and that fixes the limit. [2009 Nov 2]


Q: May the defender incur losses for a net positive SW combat modifier even if no bombing air units survived air combat?
A: If no bombing air units survive air combat, then there is no bombing attack: no attack roll, no defense roll, no additional losses. [2009 Feb 22]


Q: When may additional subs be redeployed to the SW boxes? The turn they are allowed to be in the SW box, or the turn before (so they could be used in the SW box on the first allowable turn)?
A: The restriction is on the number of subs conducting strategic warfare in the SW boxes, so the subs may be deployed there one turn earlier (so that they can conduct strategic warfare) on the first allowable turn. However, only as many subs as might possibly conduct strategic warfare in the following turn may be deployed to the SW boxes. In Wi'42 Japan could deploy two subs to the SW boxes, so that they would both be available for strategic warfare when allowed in Sp'43; Japan could not deploy a third submarine to the SW boxes in Wi'42, because three subs could not legally all conduct strategic warfare in Sp'43. The limit is applied at the start of each of the owning player's player turn, and all subs in the SW boxes count against the limit. [2005 May 26] [2006 May] [2007 Sep 1] [2009 Sep 5]


Q: What does it mean to "transfer" a submarine past an enemy-held Gibraltar?
A: It means to NR the sub. The other reference to this mechanism is in 73.42, which clearly only refers to NR past Gibraltar. [[off-list]] [2007 Dec 28]


Q: When deploying to an SW box, must the naval unit begin the phase in one of the locations listed?
A: Yes. A Japanese cruiser cannot, for example, NR from Singapore to Truk and deploy to the Pacific SW box all in the same phase. Note the difference in wording between the rules governing deployment to an SW box ("must be based in" -- 25.31, referenced by 28.77) and deployment to any other mapboard box ("must begin in or pass through" -- 28.75). [2007 Aug 27]


Q: When transports are used to accomplish some activity on the mapboard (a Murmansk convoy from Britain, sea escort between two ports on the mapboard), are the transports vulnerable to interception between the SW box and the port of origin, or between the destination port and the SW box?
A: No. See the more detailed answer in the entry for 22.11A. [2008 May 7-8]


Q: May a DD in the SW box conduct a mission (such as sea escort) that a transport could conduct?
A: No. Naval units in the SW box can only support missions being carried out by transports -- they cannot initiate similar missions on their own (5.931D). For sea escort, 21.65A requires the DDs to be based in or near the port of embarkation; the SW boxes are not listed as possible "base". [2015 May 20 [off-list]]


Q: May German submarines transfer between the Atlantic and Indian Ocean SW boxes?
A: No; German submarines can only enter the Indian Ocean SW box by being transferred from a Mediterranean port (5.935). [2017 Mar 15]


Q: Do the SW modifiers for war between Germany and the U.S. affect the Western Allied rolls?
A: Yes; the modifiers are symmetric, with a positive pro-German modifier on the Axis rolls and a negative pro-German modifier on the Western Allied rolls.


Q: Does an advanced submarine eliminate an extra transport beyond what is described in 25.73 because it always reaches the convoy (24.64B)?
A: No; 24.64 is applicable only to conventional submarines. Advanced submarines would always reach the convoy, as there is no ASW roll. The additional transport eliminated by each advanced submarine (25.73D) already accounts for "reaching the convoy". [2010 Jan 20]


Q: May interceptors be used offensively to escort flying bombs, in order to fight against any defending air units that intercept the flying bombs?
A: No. [2010 Sep 1]


Q: If the Western Allies have three air range results, what targets may be bombed from the U.S. box?
A: Normal range restrictions still apply; the "three air range results" restriction is in addition to the normal range limits, not a replacement for them. However, since two air range results yields a 16-hex bomber range in Europe and the Atlantic U.S. box is 16 hexes from the map edge (5.22A), the requirement for three air range results is totally redundant in Europe. Two air range results yield a 12-hex bomber range in the Pacific and the Pacific U.S. box is 8 hexes from the map edge (5.22B); the requirement for three air range results only prohibits bombing missions between the Society Islands and the Pacific U.S. box. With three air range results, Germany could bomb the U.S. from bases in western Europe and Japan could bomb the U.S. from bases in the eastern Pacific. Bombing from the U.S. boxes is also constrained because most targets are out of range even with three air range results (captured KEAs may not be bombed - 26.34), thus limiting the choice of bombing targets to rocket bases or naval units in certain shipyards. [2005 Sep 7] [2006 Mar 26] [2006 Oct 26]

Q: Do strategic bombers and interceptors using an air base count against any limit on the number of air factors allowed in the country providing the air base?
A: Strategic bombers and interceptors base in an SW box (26.21), and only abstractly use the required air base to determine range. They never appear on the map at the air base, and do not count against the limit on factors in a minor country that has granted hex control (82.32) or against the limit on Axis factors in Finland (86.23). Strictly speaking, strategic bombers and interceptors are "SW units", not "air units" (17.13). Also, the bombers and interceptors don't count against the basing capacity of the air base they use to determine range; any number of bombers/interceptors can fly from a single air base. [2009 Jun 11]

Q: The French KEAs are not listed as potential bombing targets. May French KEAs be bombed?
A: No. [2005 Jun 6]

Q: May the Atlantic, Pacific, and Australian shipyards be bombed?
A: Yes, if the Axis or Japan can get within range. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: Do AAF that strategically bomb from different bases constitute one bombing force, or multiple forces? If they constitute a single force, what route is used from the bases to the target?
A: AAF of the same nationality flying from multiple bases still form a single force bombing force, though each AAF must fly a route from its own base to the target. This implies that an interception hex might be chosen that intercepts only a portion of the bombing force. Like naval units performing a joint mission from multiple bases, the AAF could possibly choose routes so that they merged into a single force somewhere before they reached the target hex. One the forces merged, they could no longer be intercepted individually. [2015 Oct 6]


Q: If there are no defending air units within range of a strategic bombing mission, is the attacker still required to allocate 2/3 of his AAF as escorts?
A: Yes. Only 1/3 of the AAF may bomb; the others escort, even if they have no chance of engaging in air combat. [2015 Nov 11]


Q: How can Russian interceptors protect China against strategic bombing, since Communist China contains no bombing targets and cooperation restrictions (26.54) prevent Russian and Western Allied units from protecting each other's targets?
A: Nationalist China only becomes "Western Allied" once Japan goes to war with the Western Allies. The number of games where Japan is at war with Russia, Japan is not at war with the Western Allies, Japan has "spare" resources to bomb China, and Russia has "spare" resources to defend China may be vanishingly small, but it would be possible for Russian interceptors to defend Nationalist China before China joins the Western Allies. [2013 Mar 5]


Q: May German interceptors based on the western front defend against Allied bombing of Italy?
A: Yes; the list of German options is not meant to be exclusive; it does not say "only". German units may defend against bombing of Italian targets in all the same ways they may defend German targets. This rule only limits Italian AAF to defending targets in Italy. [2016 July 16]

Q: May minor country AAF defend targets against strategic bombing?
A: Yes; the only restriction is that Italian AAF may defend only Italian targets. [2006 Nov 15-16]


Q: Does the West Wall add to the defense of Cologne and Essen vs. strategic bombing?
A: Yes. The West Wall is a directional fortification, and adds one to the strategic bombing defense of the hexes. If an additional fortification is built in a West Wall hex, the resulting directional fortress will add two to the strategic bombing defense of the hex. [2007 Feb 16]

Q: Does a port add two or four to the SW defense of a target?
A: It adds two. The port is a city; there is not a city and a port. Compare Tokyo (two ports) and Hanoi/Haiphong (a city and a port); those combinations both add four. But Kagoshima (one port) adds only two. [2013 Feb 23]


Q: To which targets does the excess bombing range modifier apply?
A: The modifier applies if the bombers have at least 8 (Europe) or 4 (Pacific) hexes of excess range to the specific target being bombed. If the bombers have a range of 16 and the specific (European) target is 9 hexes away, the modifier does not apply, even if there were other potential targets within 8 hexes. If the specific target were 8 hexes away, the modifier would apply. The modifier also applies to bombing with AAF, which have a mission range limit of 4 (or 3 in the Pacific) hexes; if bombing range in the Pacific is 12 (two air range results), AAF bombing a target three hexes away (the maximum for the mission) have 9 hexes of excess range, enough for two modifiers. The modifier represents not only increased range, but also increased payloads. [2005 Apr 3, 2005 Jun 19]


Q: May interceptors from one major power escort bombers from another major power?
A: No. The rule applies to all air units. Any interceptors participating in a bombing mission must belong to the same major power as the bombers. [2017 Jan 30]


Q: How many rocket bases may be placed on the board each turn?
A: If you get the maximum rocket research result, it takes six turns to get all six bases into play (one per turn). In addition to placing a new one, you can recycle one already on the map or in the force pool. See the explanatory comment below the research table for rockets. [2008 Nov 3] [2013 March 5]

Q: When are rocket bases placed?
A: Just as for airbases (18.142), rocket bases are placed during the movement, unit construction, or redeployment phase. [2013 March 5]

Q: How many rocket bases may be placed in a single hex?
A: Just as for airbases (18.142), there is a limit of one rocket base per hex. [2013 March 5]

Q: How are rocket bases that have been destroyed (by bombing or units in their hex) placed back on the board?
A: Germany may always place one rocket base each turn, whether one that was destroyed or one that is already on the board. In addition, a rocket base added by research may be placed in the turn of addition. Although the rules (26.61A) mention recycling "undamaged" rocket bases, it really means recycling "existing" rocket bases, whether undamaged, damaged, or destroyed. One such base may be placed each turn. So at most two bases may be placed each turn: one new base from research, and one recycled base (it makes no difference whether this base comes from elsewhere on the board or is a destroyed base from the force pool). Also, even though a major power might be able to place or recylce two air bases in a turn (18.14), a major power cannot place or recycle two rocket bases in a turn (unless one of them was just added via research). [2018 May 21]


Q: Can flying bombs and rockets really do an entire year's worth of BRP damage to a target in every turn?
A: Yes. A target worth 10 BRPs/year to the owner can be dealt 10 BRPs of damage each turn, for a maximum of 40 BRPs/year. [2005 Oct 10]


Q: Does the salvo modifier for relative Air NDRM apply even if no air units defend the target from flying bombs? If the target is defended with interceptors but no AAF, does the defender receive the +1 bonus to Air NDRM for defending interceptors?
A: The salvo modifier applies regardless of whether any air defends the target. Since the modifier is not specific to any particular air units, the nation's base Air NDRM is used (modifiers for NAS, interceptors, weather, or supply/oil effects are not counted). Interceptors are no better than AAF at defending the target of a flying bomb attack; each interceptor or AAF reduces the losses by 1 BRP.


Q: What is the economic value of a hex containing an IC?
A: The economic value of a hex containing an IC is the value of the IC. [Post #112346 -- 2008 Jun 7]

Q: What is the economic value of Palembang?
A: Minor country capitals are not legal bombing targets; Palembang has no economic value as a strategic bombing target. Only the oil center in Palembang is affected by the bombing; the minor country capital (and the 10 Sumatran BRPs it represents) is not affected in any way. However, strategic bombing can damage the oil center (26.72A,C) or force Japan to spend BRPs on repairs in lieu of having the oil center damaged (26.72D). [2010 Mar 14]


Q: If an objective with a synthetic oil plant takes 20 BRPs of bombing (or flying bomb or rocket) damage, is the plant destroyed?
A: Yes. 20 BRPs of damage is two damage markers (26.72A), which destroys the installation (26.73). The defender may immediately offset up to 9 BRPs of losses (26.72D), but that still leaves 11 BRPs of damage. 11 BRPs is still two damage markers (26.72A, 26.72D), and the plant is still destroyed. [2005 Jun 28]


Q: If a Russian IC is bombed, what is the limit on damage? If the IC is worth 10 BRPs, what options does the Russian player have if 8 BRPs of damage is done? 10 BRPs of damage? 25 BRPs of damage?
A: In either case, the Russian player may accept the damage (either 8 BRPs or 10 BRPs; since bombing damage is limited to the economic value of the hex, 25 BRPs of damage cannot be done to an IC worth only 10 BRPs -- the damage is reduced to 10 BRPs though the target will be firestormed) or eliminate the IC and take losses according to 37.5 (which will also reduce Russia's UCL). Choosing to destroy an IC will thus never immediately save BRPs, but prevents the IC from being bombed again for further damage in a later turn. ICs are not "industrial facilities" that must be repaired under 26.72. [2005 Sep 13, 2009 Nov 24, 2010 Jul 7]


Q: Is the surrender or resistance level of the target reduced even if the target loses control of the firestormed city?
A: Yes; the penalty (55.11B, 57.11, 59.21, 60.11) is permanent. For example, if Moscow is firestormed, Russia would suffer the resistance penalty even after Germany gained control of Moscow. [Post #120771 -- 2010 Jan 7]


Q: If an isolated unit pays to attack but is still eliminated anyway, must double BRPs be paid to rebuild it?
A: 27.13A refers to "units eliminated by isolation", which is described in 30.54; it does not include other isolated units that happen to be eliminated. An isolated unit that pays to attack (or attacks as part of a full offensive), but is eliminated by the combat result, may be rebuilt in the same player turn at normal cost. [2009 Nov 1]

27.13, 27.14

Q: If a nation pays double or triple cost to construct units, does the entire doubled or tripled cost count against the UCL?
A: Yes. The number of BRPs actually spent on construction are counted towards the UCL; this may be more than the theoretical face value of the units built. [2006 Jul 29] [2009 Mar 19]


Q: What does it mean that Vlasov, Wang, and INA units cannot be rebuilt?
A: Vlasov, Wang, and INA units are not part of the force pool, so cannot simply be rebuilt if eliminated. These units have a construction rate depending on a research result and a maximum number of units in play (depending on objectives controlled for the INA, and on the counter mix for Vlasovs and Wangs). Since eliminated units are not part of the force pool, they cannot be "rebuilt"; however they could be "built" anew and would then count against the allowable per-turn construction rate. [2013 Sep 28]


Q: If multiple grants are received in a turn, is the UCL effect determined individually, or are the grants totaled first?
A: The UCL increase from a received grant can be no more than the UCL decrease the grantor suffered for sending the grant (27.334). (If BRPs are lost en route, the UCL increase may be less than the grantor's UCL decrease.) Since grants can come from different powers or lose BRPs en route, the UCL impact should be computed separately for each grantor/grantee pair each turn. [2005 Apr 16]


Q: How does the construction oil effect affect construction in Canada?
A: Oil affects apply to an alliance faction only within an affected supply zone (33.61) -- not to the entire faction. Supply is never traced into a mapboard box (30.331D), and Canada will never be part of the supply zone containing the British Isles. Canada (represented by the U.S. mapboard box) has unlimited oil (33.4715A). The cost of units built in Canada is never increased due to Britain taking the construction oil effect. [2015 Jun 7]


Q: What does it mean for all hexes in Britain to be "isolated"?
A: For the purposes of rules 27.42D (construction of British units in Canada) and 33.63 (application of the construction effect to Britain), London is considered to be "isolated" if it is unable to trace a supply line from the Atlantic U.S. box. [2015 Oct 17]

May British units be constructed in Canada if Britain surrendered, but is again fighting?
A: Yes. So long as Britain surrendered and the resistance level is zero or yes, construction in Canada is allowed. Britain does not need to be in a state of surrender. [2015 Oct 6]

Q: May the US pay for British units constructed in Canada, or grant BRPs to Canada to pay for them?
A: No. The British units must be paid for by Britain, and US grants to Britain to pay from them must follow the rules for granting BRPs to Britain, not to Canada. The intent is to allow the building of British units in the case where building would not otherwise be allowed -- solely because all hexes in Britain were lost or isolated. Likewise, Britain (not the US) must pay for any offensive operations undertaken by the British units. Note that London may be "isolated" for the purposes of this rule even though it is an unlimited supply source (30.61H). [2015 Oct 17]


Q: May Russia build additional units in Siberia if it pays an increased BRP cost (such as the construction oil effect)?
A: "Normal BRP cost" here means that the units built in Siberia are subject to the usual BRP costs as described in the rules. They are not "free", nor is there a "surcharge" simply because they are being built in Siberia. Russia can spend up to 6 BRPs building air/ground units in Siberia each turn. That might be a 3x2 and an AAF, or a double-cost 2x2 (that was voluntarily eliminated in Europe at the beginning of the turn) plus two 1x2s, or a 3o3 armor, etc. [2015 May 25]

Q: Is Kamchatka considered part of Siberia for unit construction?
A: Yes; Kamchatka is part of Siberia, connected by a land route not shown on the board (30.311). [Post #127606 -- 2010 Nov 23]


Q: Can an out-of-supply shipyard still be used?
A: The shipbuilding points from a shipyard captured by the enemy can still be used to construct submarines, ASW, and transports in other supplied ports still controlled by the original shipyard owner; a shipyard merely out of supply still provides shipbuilding points to construct those types of ships in other ports. Shipbuilding points from an isolated or captured shipyard could also be used to raise a ship sunk elsewhere in a supplied port. However, other types of ships (DDs, CAs, BBs, etc.) are units and can be constructed only in shipyards, and units must be constructed in fully supplied hexes (27.43A, 30.61D). Therefore, an out-of-supply shipyard cannot be used to lay down, launch, or advance these types of units. [2006 Oct 17]

Q: Can Britain use Glasgow's shipbuilding points to build submarines in Canada (27.711C)?
A: A mapboard box is not a "port" (3.11, 4.614, 27.211A). Losing the shipyard does not give Britain the ability to build submarines, transports, or ASW in any location other than those in which it could have built the naval units before the shipyard was lost. In Britain's case, Canada has its own shipbuilding points, which must be used for units built in Canada. Glasgow's shipbuilding points only allow naval units to be built in a port in Britain's home country (27.711A). If there are no British-controlled ports in Britain (including Ulster - 87.21), Glasgow's shipbuilding points may not be used. [2009 Feb 22] [2009 Jun 22]


Q: Can ships built with Atlantic SBPs be placed in the Pacific box when launched?
A: No; ships must be placed in a location corresponding to the shipbuilding points used to build them. [2009 Jun 22]


Q: If Germany gains hex control of Vichy, may it use the Marseilles shipyard shipbuilding points?
A: Axis ships may be repaired in Marseilles. Although not strictly "captured" as the title of the rule says, the Axis do control the shipyard and France has surrendered, so the preconditions in 27.713 are met. The Axis naval units in the shipyard would count against the allowable ten ground/air/naval units allowed in the minor country. [2010 Apr 13]

Q: May shipbuilding points from a captured shipyard be used to raise a ship sunk in port?
A: The country that actually controls a captured shipyard may use the shipbuilding points to raise its own ships sunk in port, but not to raise the ships of an ally (27.7263). [2009 Mar 22]


Q: If the U.S. and Britain have signed a separate peace with Germany and the resulting USAT level is very low, is there any way for the U.S. to build CVEs for use against Japan?
A: No, but (practically speaking) the USAT level will likely have risen to a level allowing the U.S. to again build CVEs before they are needed in the Pacific. [2010 Nov 7]


Q: May Britain build named two-factor capital ships?
A: Yes. Two-factor capital ships are heavy ships; cruisers are light ships. Compared to cruisers, two-factor capital ships take six months longer to build, take three months longer to repair (and cost 3 BRPs) to repair, and cannot help protect one-factor naval units in the special way cruisers can, but fire before cruisers and influence the determination of attacker & defender in fleet combat differently.


Q: May British ships be repaired in Australia beginning in Fall 1939?
A: The campaign scenario rules limit the British naval units beginning in Asia to British ports on the mapboard (not Australia); they also limit any additional British ships sent to the Far East to India (including the India box), Burma, Malaya, or Singapore (not Australia). French units may not deploy to the Pacific theater at all (75.51). So although Australia is a legal repair location from the beginning of the war, there is no way to legally deploy a damaged ship to Australia until Britain is at war with Japan. [2011 Jan 31]


Q: Do the additional BRPs spent to accelerate shipbuilding count against UCL?
A: Yes. All BRPs spent on shipbuilding, whether 3, 6, or 9 BRPs, count against the power's construction limit. [2009 Feb 3]


Q: May France spend BRPs on an offensive option if doing so would leave it unable to advance the ships in its shipyards?
A: No. Much like Russia taking actions that leave it in a position where it is unable to meet its garrison requirements, France cannot take actions that leave it unable to comply with the rules. Doing so forfeits the game. [2010 Feb 24]


Q: If a DD is displaced from the Launch row of a shipyard, it is "damaged"; what does this mean for a DD?
A: Ships displaced from the Launch row of a shipyard (any one-factor ship, a damaged larger ship undergoing repairs) are simply launched and displaced. [2011 Mar 2]


Q: May U.S. shipyards be used to construct Western Allied ASW while the U.S. is neutral?
A: Yes, but produced Western Allied ASW constructed in U.S. shipyards (as well as the American "at start" and "allowable build" ASW units) must abide by tension restrictions until the U.S. is at war in both theaters (25.32).

Q: May the U.S. use the Pacific shipyards to build Western Allied transports, U.S. CVEs, and British CVEs for Europe before the U.S. is at war in Europe?
A: Yes. However, naval units build in the Pacific shipyards must be initially placed in the Pacific US box and then deployed to Europe legally. Transports in the Pacific US box can be deployed to the Pacific SW box (and potentially, a transport already in the Pacific SW box could be simultaneously deployed to the Atlantic SW box). British CVEs could be deployed from the Pacific US box to the Pacific SW box or Atlantic US box, and subsequently to the Atlantic SW box or onboard European ports. American CVEs in the Pacific US box could be deployed to the Atlantic US box, but cannot deploy to the Atlantic SW box or onboard European ports until the US is at war in Europe (21.14). [2005 May 27] [2013 Aug 6]


Q: If the U.S. and Britain have signed a separate peace with Germany and the resulting USAT level is very low, is there any way for the U.S. to build transports to increase the number available for use against Japan?
A: No. The U.S. may only build transports to replace those sunk by Japan, but (practically speaking) the USAT level will likely have risen to levels allowing the U.S. to again build transports before they are needed in the Pacific. There may also be an option to transfer unneeded transports from the Atlantic to the Indian or Pacific Oceans, if the Atlantic has more than the minimum number of transports (20.632C). [2010 Nov 7]


Q: Does the continued construction or launch of the Graf Zeppelin allow the U.S. to lay down a carrier in a European scenario?
A: No, the Graf Zeppelin was already laid down before the start of the war. Only additional carriers laid down by the Axis after the war starts allow the U.S. to lay down a corresponding carrier. [2007 May 8]


Q: May transports built with U.S. Atlantic shipbuilding be placed in the U.S. Pacific box and deployed to the Pacific SW box?
A: Submarines, ASW, and transports must be placed in a location corresponding to the SBPs that built them. For shipbuilding from a mapboard box, this is the corresponding mapboard box. For shipbuilding from an on-board shipyard, this is a fully-supplied (27.43) port in the major power's home country (27.42) that is not in enemy ZoC (27.44) and was controlled at the start of the player turn (27.45). (Some of these restrictions are repeated in 27.711A and 27.712A.) With regard to submarines, ASW, and transports, an onboard shipyard is an aggregation of smaller shipbuilding facilities spread across the major power's home country. On the other hand, a mapboard box is already an aggregation of off-map territory. A transport built with U.S. Atlantic shipbuilding must be placed in the U.S. Atlantic box, and may be deployed only to the Atlantic SW box (27.94A). In many (but not all) cases it will be possible to deploy a transport already in the Atlantic SW box to the Pacific SW box, which would have the same net effect as deploying the transport built in the Atlantic to the Pacific. [2009 Jun 20-22]


Q: May a unit redeploy adjacent to an enemy naval unit sunk in port?
A: Although sunk, the unit is still an enemy naval unit, and redeployment is prohibited. [2007 Dec 18-19]


Q: May a unit redeploy into or through a coastal hex containing an enemy submarine on defensive patrol?
A: Yes; as in the case of an enemy unit adjacent only across water (28.26C), an enemy unit in the same hex across water has no effect on redeployment. [2010 Nov 5]

Q: May a Japanese unit redeploy adjacent to a Nationalist Chinese unit that is out of supply (and thus cannot move)?
A: No; 28.26B allows the redeployment if movement is prohibited for political reasons, but not for weather (or supply) reasons. [2012 Oct 23]

Q: While Paris is occupied by the Axis, may Axis units redeploy adjacent to French units? (75.44 prohibits French units from entering enemy-controlled hexes.)
A: The French inability to enter Tripoli is a temporary prohibition due to the collapse of French resistance. The French surrender rules are simper than those of other countries (there is no resistance level to calculate) in order to make play easier; however, the 75.44 restriction on French units is still a "temporary prohibition because of ... resistance effects". Redeploy next to French units is still prohibited as normal, even if Paris is occupied by the Axis. [2015 Apr 24]

Q: May Japanese units redeploy through Hanoi if there is a Chinese unit adjacent?
A: Redeployment is blocked if the Chinese unit is not barred from entering Hanoi due to a political restriction. (Temporary effects based on the Chinese resistance level are irrelevant.) Chinese units may not leave China until the second Allied player turn after the outbreak of war between Japan and the Western Allies. Thus redeployment would be allowed during Japan's DoW and DoW+1 turns, but a Chinese unit adjacent to Hanoi would block redeployment in Japan's DoW+2 turn. [2014 Aug 7]


Q: May the naval units providing sea escort for NRing ground or air units begin or end their mission adjacent to enemy counters?
A: Redeploying units are generally prohibited from starting, passing, or ending adjacent to enemy counters, but that restriction only applies to the units being redeployed (28.25). For NRs of ground or air units, the ground or air units are redeploying and subject to the prohibition; the prohibition also applies to naval units that NR. But naval units that are providing sea escort to ground or air units are not NRing -- they are performing a mission. There is no such restriction for the sea escort mission (21.65), even if the mission occurs during the redeployment phase, and even if the naval units return to a base other than their base of origin. Unlike NRing a naval unit, the sea escort mission requires uninverted naval units, inverts those naval units, requires oil, cannot be combined with NRs of naval units for protection, etc. [2010 Jan 26-28]


Q: If a unit NRs and immediately TRs, is its movement factor for TR reduced for the cost of debarking during the NR segment?
A: No. Unlike sea transport, redeployment has no cost to debark. [2011 Aug 22]


Q: If a unit SRs-NRs-SRs in a single redeployment phase, must the ports used for the NR be objectives?
A: Each segment of the redeployment phase is distinct, and must meet the requirements. The first SR must terminate at an objective, and the NR must begin at a port, so the common "point" must be an objective port. Likewise the NR must end at a port and the second SR must begin at an objective, so the common "point" must be an objective port. [2010 Jul 12]


Q: Must an Italian unit be in the hex where the railhead is to be constructed to allow Italy to construct the railhead?
A: No; the Italian unit must be somewhere in the colony or on the island, but need not be in the same hex as the construction takes place. [2012 Oct 31]


Q: Does a railhead increase the air defense of a hex, as an objective would?
A: No; a railhead acts like an objective for SR purposes only -- not for air defense purposes. They also have attrition and ground combat effects similar to objective hexes, but they are not objectives. [2008 Mar 15]


Q: When units being sea escorted from a mapboard box onto the mapboard are trans-shipped from transports to DDs in order to continue their NR, must the DDs be based in the port where the transfer takes place, or is it sufficient for the DDs to reach the port of transfer on the initial leg of the sea escort, as they can for simple sea escort (21.65A)?
A: The DDs must be based in the port; the specific rule 28.73C overrides the more general rule 21.65A. If a unit is sea escorted by transport from the Atlantic U.S. box to Gibraltar, any DDs that continue the sea escort must be based in Gibraltar; DDs based in (for example) Marseilles could not be used. [2006 Aug 28]

Q: May units deploying from an SW box onto the mapboard continue their NR from the initial destination port? May units deploying from the mapboard to an SW box begin their NR elsewhere and merely pass through one of the locations connected to the SW box?
A: No. Units deploying from an SW box onto the mapboard are technically "deploying" or "transferring" or "entering" or "leaving" or "withdrawing" -- not "NRing" -- even though the deployment may happen during the redeployment phase. (The rules are not 100% consistent in terminology unfortunately -- 5.934A, 28.77.) 28.77, the only mention of the SW boxes in all of 28.7x, says that deployment to/from an SW box is governed by 25.31. 28.7x does not apply, which is why the SW boxes are never mentioned in 28.75. The governing rules for transferring to/from SW boxes are 5.932B and 25.31B; the transfer must begin or end in one of the listed locations (not merely pass through the location). [2014 Apr 24 [off-list]]


Q: Can a unit NR from the Atlantic (or Pacific) U.S. box all the way to India in a single redeployment phase?
A: Yes. A redeployment must stop once it reaches a mapboard box, and may have to (if being sea escorted) switch from being sea escorted by transports to being sea escorted by destroyers (or vice versa) one or more times en route. But such long NRs are possible. A unit can NR from the Atlantic U.S. box through Gibraltar and through Suez to India (or Australia), or from the Pacific U.S. box through Pearl Harbor and through Colombo to India, for example. (The Mediterranean was important; the Suez route from England to India cuts travel time by half.) [2006 Aug 17]


Q: May a naval unit in a mapboard box redeploy onto a mapboard to locations others than those indicated?
A: Yes; rule 28.75 requires redeploying units to "arrive in or pass through" one of the listed areas. For example, a naval unit could redeploy from the Atlantic U.S. box to a Mediterranean or eastern front port via the western edge of the mapboard and a western front port, assuming all range requirements are met and all straits are passable. Likewise, a naval unit could redeploy from South Africa to a Mediterranean or eastern front port via Suez or a western front port. Similar maneuvers are possible from the Pacific U.S. box onto the Pacific mapboard (via the eastern edge and Dutch Harbor or a Hawaiian or Society Island port), from the India box onto either mapboard (via Suez or CC2), and from the Australia box onto either mapboard (via Suez, NN24/Townsville, or NN31/Noumea).


Q: Are hexes in Arabia vulnerable to hex control by isolation? (Arabia has no supply source.)
A: Yes. Arabia has no supply source other than what its controlling major power supplies. While neutral, a minor's hexes are assumed to be in supply (even if there is no supply source, such as in Arabia). Once attacked and associated with a major power, supply must be traced into Arabia to prevent hex control by isolation.

Q: Are hexes controlled by no one (such as happens after a '0' diplomatic result deactivating Vichy France) vulnerable to hex control by isolation?
A: Only "enemy" hexes are covered by this rule. Hexes controlled by no one are not enemy hexes, so will not come under control by isolation. [2010 May 31]


Q: If a player captures a hex during the movement or combat phases or by conquest, and can supply that hex during post-combat supply determination, may such a hex be used as the "supplied hex controlled by the moving player" for the purposes of gaining control of adjacent hexes by isolation?
A: Yes. Any hex taken before post-combat supply determination (step 7c) can be supplied during post-combat supply determination; at the end of post-combat supply determination, hex control by isolation is determined and the newly-controlled and supplied hex may be used as the "supplied hex controlled by the moving player". Hexes gained via isolation may then be supplied as part of the hex-control-by-isolation supply mechanism (29.32). [2007 Jun 27] [official Q&A]

Q: Is it possible to gain control of Kamchatka by isolation?
A: No. Although supply can be traced between A37 in Siberia and A41/A42 in Kamchatka (30.311), the hexes are not adjacent, and so A37 does not satisfy the adjacency requirement to gain control of A41 or A42 by isolation. [2012 Dec 28]

Q: For the purposes of 29.31C, must a hex gained by isolation be adjacent to a fully-supplied hex controlled by the moving player, or is limited supply sufficient?
A: Full supply is required. There should be an analog to the last sentence of 30.51 that covers the case of hex supply (not just unit supply). [2016 Apr 7]


Q: What happens to Allied air units in the Philippines upon initial Japanese conquest?
A: Air units are displaced, or eliminated if there is no base with capacity in range. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: Does London provide full supply if Britain surrenders but keeps fighting?
A: Yes; the intent is that London ceases to provide full supply only if Britain surrenders and exits the war. [2015 Oct 6]


Q: Is London ever an Axis supply source?
A: If Britain surrenders and exits the war, and London is controlled by the Axis, then it is a limited supply source for the Axis. [2015 Oct 6]

30.265, 30.266

Q: Is Hong Kong a limited supply source for the side that controls it?
A: No. Hong Kong is neither a colonial capital (30.265, not identified by a star on the map) nor a Chinese objective hex (30.266). Hong Kong is not in Nationalist or Communist China (78.21, 79.21), and Nationalist China does not lose 5 BRPs for not controlling Hong Kong (78.41). Hong Kong is simply a colony (74.11, 82.91E, 83.441) and minor country (3.11, 82.91) without a capital (83.12G). [2008 Feb 5]

Q: Is Yenan a limited supply source for Japanese units?
A: No. Yenan is a limited supply source only for Communist Chinese units and (if the Chinese Resistance level from last turn is +2 or more) Nationalist Chinese units. [2008 Feb 12]


Q: If a land supply line can be traced only across the territory of a hex-control minor, tracing such supply reduces the 10-factor limit for units that may be in the minor. May a player choose not to trace such a supply line?
A: The rationale for the rules (applying 30.351 in general, not just to sea supply) seems to be that a player is cannot voluntarily withhold supply from his units; he must make a legal attempt -- although perhaps only a token attempt (such as unprotected sea supply) -- to supply them. Thus, if the land supply line across the minor is the only way to supply the units, supply must be traced. If a sea supply line is possible, the player may elect to supply the units by sea (risking enemy opposition) rather than by land (reducing the ten-factor limit); the rules do not require that a land supply line be traced in preference over a sea supply line. However, if sea supply is then cut, the player may not then decide to supply the units by land; land and sea supply are simultaneous in the sequence of play (step 5i). Air supply may also be possible, though that requires that units be committed, inverted, and possibly lost; if air supply is the chosen method for supplying a unit, the mission must be attempted. [2008 Jan 11]


Q: Is off-board land supply from Norway to Finland allowed, analogous to off-board land supply from Sweden to Finland?
A: No. There was a railway around the Gulf of Bothnia between Sweden and Finland; there was no such railway between Norway and Finland. [2005 Nov 24]


Q: May Russia trace supply lines through hexes controlled by the Western Allies?
A: .Although Russia and the Western Allies may not trace supply from each other's supply sources, supply lines may be traced through hexes controlled by an allied faction. The Russian and Western Allied factions become allied once Russia and a Western Allied power are jointly at war with Germany, Italy, or Japan (3.11). Also 29.24B allows Russia and the Western Allies to trace supply through hexes controlled by the other faction, even if they are not allied. [2009 Jun 5] [2015 Feb 24]


Q: Can sea supply be traced from the Atlantic U.S. box to Casablanca?
A: See 21.131, which explains that the port is considered a western front port because the water in the hex is on the western front, even though the hex itself is on the Mediterranean front. See also the example after 33.533; supply lines from the U.S. to Casablanca are allowed. Similarly, supply from the U.S. to a bridgehead [placed by seaborne invasion] bordering the Atlantic is allowed. This may be clarified by expanding 21.131 to include bridgeheads placed by seaborne invasion. [2010 Jan 2]

Q: Can supply be traced from India or Australia to Suez/Basra/Abadan?
A: Other naval activities are possible between the Middle East and India or Australia (base changes, sea transport, sea escort, NR, and even supply lines from Abadan to India for oil - 33.4733A). Oil cannot be shipped to Australia across the Indian Ocean (33.4732B). The omission of supply lines to the Middle East from India or Australia in this rule (and in 71.6 and 72.6) keeps supply drawn from Pacific mapboard boxes in the Pacific theater. Other naval activities are allowed so that units, oil, and BRPs can move between theaters. [2009 Jul 17 [off-list]]


Q: May supply be traced to a port (say from A to B) and through the same port (say from A through B to C) in the same supply segment?
A: Yes. This doesn't violate the rule prohibiting both sending and receiving supply from the same port because the supply to C is from A, not from B. If B were supplied in the previous turn, then tracing supply as described during initial supply determination would allow naval units in B to protect the B-to-C leg of the A-to-C supply line. Sea supply lines are simultaneous, so the A-to-C supply line may succeed even if the A-to-B supply line is cut. Only after all sea supply is resolved would B lose its operational status carried over from the prior turn. [2007 May 10]


Q: Does enemy ZoC break an area of friendly contiguous hexes into multiple supply zones?
A: Since supply cannot be traced through enemy ZoC, ZoC can cause multiple supply zones within an area of contiguous friendly hexes. The fact that supply could in theory be traced through a hex is not sufficient to meet the criteria; supply must be able to be traced through the hex when the supply zones are being defined. [2007 Jun 2-13]

Q: How does the presence of enemy ZoC in one or all of the ports by which supply might enter a contiguous set of friendly hexes affect the definition of a supply zone?
A: If there is any port by which supply might enter the area and flow to all hexes in the area, then there is only one supply zone. If there is no port through which supply might pass to supply the entire area, then there are multiple supply zones: one (one-hex) supply zone for each port in enemy ZoC, and one supply zone for the remainder of the (non-port) hexes. [2007 Jun 13]


Q: If there are two ports in a supply zone, and supply to one of them will supply the entire supply zone, but supply to the other will not (because it is in enemy ZoC), may the player still choose freely which port into which to trace supply, even though one choice might leave most of his hexes/units out of supply?
A: The player tracing supply always has free choice of which port into which to trace supply, even if his choice results in only a portion of the supply zone actually receiving supply. If a player chooses to trace sea supply to a port such that supply does not reach the entire supply zone, he is still limited to the restriction of one sea supply line per supply zone (unless it is not possible for one sea supply line supply the entire supply zone.) All hexes in a supply zone do not necessarily have the same level of supply. Although there are other rules that assume that a supply zone has a uniform supply and oil status (for example: 30.332C in reference to the type of supply that is traced from a supply zone; 33.533, 33.61, 33.74F, 33.741 in reference to the oil status of a supply zone), those issues are not being dealt with at this time. Where these rules say something like "... meets the oil needs of any supply zones tracing sea supply ...", they really mean something like "... meets the oil needs of any units and hexes tracing sea supply ...". [2007 Jun 12-15,19]


Q: Do naval units protecting a sea supply line continue to protect the sea supply line throughout an island group, even if some of the islands are beyond the normal range restrictions of the mission?
A: Yes; the "without regard to range restrictions" applies to the entire mission (the "supplies" as well as the escorting naval units). The naval units will protect the supply line to each island to which the supply line is run. [2014 Feb 2]


Q: Does supply within an island group run from the first island like vertebrae in a spine or like spokes in a wheel?
A: The supply line runs sequentially like vertebrae in a spine. The sequence of islands along that single sequential supply line determines the "sequence in which they are being supplied" (30.343D). [2012 Jun 17]

Q: May naval units protecting a sea supply line within an island group elect to turn back and not protect the sea supply line beyond some point?
A: Naval units protecting the sea supply line protect the supply line to its end; the rules have no provision for abandoning the protection of a mission while the mission continues. If the waters are deemed too dangerous for the protecting naval units, the supplying player may choose to not supply some of the islands in the island group (so as to not put the protecting naval units at risk). However, there is then no supply line (protected or unprotected) to those islands, and they will not be supplied (regardless of whether the enemy makes any attempt at interdiction or not). The islands being supplied (or not supplied) must be made when the route of the sea supply line is declared within the island group, before any interceptions are announced. [Although a player may not refuse to provide sea supply to a supply zone (30.351) and therefore must attempt sea supply to at least one island in an island group, he is not compelled to attempt to supply all the islands in the island group.] [2012 Jun 17]


Q: May supply to an island group be attacked by submarine before it reaches the first island, and then intercepted a second time by naval forces within the island group?
A: The supply is subject to only a single attempt at naval interception, "as with other naval activities". However, as with other naval activities, there are exceptions: an activity can be attacked by multiple submarines plus one interception by surface forces, and activity can be intercepted by surface naval forces on both sides of a prohibited strait, etc. The rules for intercepting the island group supply line are no different, and the supply line can be intercepted both by subs (potentially multiple subs) and surface ships (only once, unless one of the exceptions applies). [Post #134940 -- 2012 Jun 17]


Q: Does the supply status of a supply zone affect whether sea supply is presumed?
A: Sea supply is presumed to be traced to all supply zones that can legally receive sea supply, even if the supply zone is already in partial or full supply. For example, sea supply to France is presumed (before France falls) from the start of the game, allowing British attrition losses in France to be taken from locations other than the French attrition zone. Sea supply lines are independent of the need for supply. [2007 Jun 15]


Q: If protection for sea supply (not carried by a transport) is added at ports along the supply line, must every naval force assigned to protect sea supply contain a DD?
A: No. The DD requirement applies at the point the supply line is initially protected; naval forces added to protection along the supply line do not need additional DDs.


Q: Under what circumstances can the Naval NDRM of an unprotected sea supply line matter?
A: Unprotected sea supply lines are automatically cut if they are actually attacked (30.381); no dice rolls are made, and hence no DRMs are relevant. Enemy air units unable to attack because of air cover do not disrupt the sea supply line, but enemy units that are able to attack (because the defending air cover is insufficient to eliminate/abort all the attacking air) automatically disrupt supply, no dice rolls are made, etc. -- and the Naval Nationality of the unprotected sea supply line does not matter. [2013 Apr 7-8]


Q: May naval units based in ports protect more than one sea supply line?
A: No. The limitation on naval units based in the SW box (each may only protect one sea supply line) is explicitly stated because normally naval units in the SW box may perform multiple (non-contemporaneous) actions. Although they must be intercepted separately, all sea supply lines are contemporaneous; therefore each naval unit in the SW box may protect only one. Naval units based in ports are normally limited to one action; there is no change for protecting sea supply, so the general limitation was not explicitly restated.


Q: May an unprotected sea supply line be turned back by a damaged enemy naval unit?
A: No. This situation may arise if the intercepting enemy forces are damaged by friendly air, naval or submarine attack. A sea supply line fails only if it is disrupted (22.63D) or if the moving player voluntarily abandons an attempt to sea supply at the end of a round of air or naval combat (30.381B). A sea supply line, whether protected or not, is not "compelled to withdraw" after "three consecutive rounds of naval combat in which neither side has a naval unit damaged or sunk" (22.63). [official Q&A]

Q: Does an air attack vs. an unprotected supply line automatically disrupt supply, or might an Air Defense roll (earned via research) foil the air attack?
A: If air units get past any air cover to attack the supply line, it is automatically cut. No Air Defense roll is made, even if the owner of the supply line has one or more air defense research results. [2012 Sep 16-17]


Q: How does a sea supply line incur losses at the same time its escorts are sunk?
A: If all the naval units in the combat group to which sea supply has been assigned are sunk, and if there was at least one excess hit vs. light ships in that naval combat, that excess hit vs. light ships is deemed to have disrupted the sea supply line (20.56). Excess hits against named ships never disrupt supply (20.527). [2014 Dec 13]

Q: If a submarine attack sinks the only ship escorting a sea supply line, is supply disrupted (because the now-unescorted supply line is under attack)?
A: Not necessarily. The reference to 30.381A applies to supply lines that are unprotected when they are attacked, not to supply lines that become unprotected as a result of the attack. Either an "extra" hit against light ships must be scored to disrupt the supply line (20.56), or the supply line must be attacked again now that it is unprotected (30.381A). If no extra hit was scored, the escorting ships screened the supply line just long enough ... at least temporarily. [2018 Feb 25]


Q: Do these rules for tracing post-combat supply apply to supply lines traced solely for the purpose of shipping oil counters?
A: No. There is a difference between tracing supply (which is a supply line traced for the purpose of determining supply status) and tracing a supply line (which could be used to ship oil counters, send BRP grants, or to determine supply status). Supply lines are the mechanism by which one determines supply status, ships oil counters, or delivers grants. Although the organization of Rule 30 is not perfect, 30.3 addresses the mechanism (supply lines) while 30.4-30.6 deal with determining supply (just one of several possible uses for supply lines). 30.43 does not apply to supply lines traced to carry oil counters or BRP grants. For example, Japan can ship oil from Palembang/Brunei to Japan during the post-combat supply segment of the player turn -- without regard to any restrictions on determining post-combat supply of units or hexes in Japan. [2013 Apr 2] [2016 Dec 8]


Q: Is supply determined "instantaneously" during the appropriate segment of the turn, or at some fixed point? May air units left out of supply by a failed sea supply line attack the enemy naval units that cut the supply line as they return to port?
A: According to the Sequence of Play, supply is determined (steps 5.i.6 and 7.e) only after all air/naval interactions (steps 5.i.2 and 7.d) are complete. The supply status from the prior turn is in effect until the end of supply determination (30.47). [2014 Oct 26]


A: Full supply is required. This arises in the rules for acquiring hex control by isolation in 29.31C. [2016 Apr 6]


Q: May submarines in fortified ports conduct offensive missions or protect sea supply or sea escort?
A: Naval units in non-operational ports may never conduct offensive operations, protect sea supply, or protect sea escort. Submarines [only] in fortified non-operational ports may intercept [only]. All naval units in non-operational ports are subject to the Naval Nationality DRM penalty of -1; this penalty may be increased for submarines intercepting out of non-operational ports if the port has been non-operational for more than a single turn. See 22.11B, 33.61B, and the comment after 33.61C. [2013 Mar 27] [2015 May 19]


Q: May minor countries place bridgeheads?
A: Yes. [official Q&A]


Q: If Russia surrenders, are Axis bridgeheads removed if they are near no Allied units besides Russian units?
A: Yes, so long as no other conditions apply that would allow the bridgehead to remain. Russia in a state of surrender is not an enemy to the Axis. [2007 Feb 21] [2007 Mar 26]


Q: May the Western Allies build a fort in a jungle hex subject to invasion?
A: Yes. Japan may build forts in jungle hexes that it would otherwise be unable to fortify; the Western Allies are not prevented from building forts in jungle hexes they are otherwise able to fortify. [2010 Mar 8]


Q: May fortifications be constructed in hexes that received no oil?
A: Yes. Fortifications require full (not partial) supply, but do not require oil (of any type). This is one of the few cases where full supply without oil is different from partial supply. [2012 Jun 27]


Q: May the U.S. pay to construct forts and railheads in India after being at war in the Pacific theatre?
A: Yes. 29.25B specifies that hexes controlled by Britain and the U.S. are jointly controlled once the U.S. is at war in the theatre. [2005 Apr 25]


Q: May submarines operating from isolated ports be uninverted as if they were supplied? If submarines are uninverted before the end of the owning player's turn, they must follow all the normal rules for uninversion (full supply and oil required, etc.). Even though they may operate from isolated ports, "operating" does not include any special uninversion privileges. Submarines based in isolated ports may be uninverted at the end of the owner's turn, but not before. [2008 Oct 14-15]


Q: What happens to a fortification in a hex that comes under control of another faction (but not an enemy faction)?
A: This could occur, for instance, if a neutral Russia attacks, conquers, and builds a fortification in Persia. Later the Western Allies open the Persian BRP route and gain control of the fortified hex. The fortification is eliminated. [2015 Jan 13]


Q: Does an island group fortification really protect an island that was not supplied when the fortifications were placed?
A: No. Fortifying an island group places beach defenses on the islands in the island group. 32.52, the rule for beach defenses, requires that the island be fully supplied when the beach defenses are placed, and that it have been controlled at the start of the player turn. 32.65 should say the same thing, fortifications do not benefit an island to which supply was cut during the player turn in which they were built. [2013 Dec 13 [off-list]]


Q: For what purposes can the oil associated with full supply from a minor country capital (to that minor's units) be used?
A: The oil associated with full supply from a minor country capital offsets the air, naval, and army oil effects for the minor's own units. It also allows uninversion of the minor's air and naval units, and exploitation of the minor's armor units. However, construction of minor country air and armor units costs the allied major power BRPs, counts against the allied major construction limit, and requires the allied major power to supply construction oil to avoid paying double construction costs. It is as if the allied major power constructs the air or armor unit and then gifts it to the minor power to operate. The underlying principle seems to be that a minor country should not be worse off, oil-wise, after association or alliance than it was as a neutral. Thus an associated or allied minor may continue to use "its own oil" to operate its units just as it could while neutral. But an allied minor may not use "its own oil" to construct air or armor units, which is something it could not do (at all) while neutral. [2011 Feb 21 [off-list]]


Q: If the Allies declare war on Persia and capture Abadan and Ahwaz on the same turn, are the oil centers damaged?
A: Although there are specific exceptions that often allow oil centers not to be damaged if captured immediately after a declaration of war, none of them apply to an attack on Persia. The general rule (33.321) applies, and the oil centers are damaged. [2009 Nov 4]


Q: Which neutral oil centers produce oil in each player turn?
A: Neutral oil centers produce oil in those player turns when the moving player might possibly draw the oil. Thus a neutral Ploesti produces oil in the Axis player turn, and a neutral Abadan and Ahwaz produce oil in the Allied player turn. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: What does it mean for an oil reserve to be associated with an unlimited supply source?
A: It means only that oil consumed in the reserve affects the oil status of units supplied from that unlimited supply source. It does not mean the supply source contributes anything to the capacity of the reserve (33.422), nor does it mean that oil can be shipped to the reserve via those supply sources (33.43), since the supply source is not necessarily an "objective containing the oil reserve". For example, units supplied from Paris have their oil status determined by the oil consumed in the Western Allied European oil reserve, yet Paris does not contribute capacity to the reserve, nor can oil be added to the reserve via Paris; on the other hand, Birmingham contributes capacity to the reserve, and oil can be added to the reserve via Birmingham, yet Birmingham is not an unlimited supply source.

Q: What can oil in a reserve be used for if all the associated unlimited supply sources have been lost?
A: Oil counters from the reserve can be used to offset the army/navy/air oil effects within the supply zone; full supply may need to reach the supply zone from elsewhere. Regardless of whether full supply reached a supply zone containing a reserve normally used to offset the construction oil effect, oil counters from such a reserve can be used to offset the construction oil effect. [2006 Jan 28]


Q: If oil counters are shipped by sea during initial supply determination, is the supply line for oil separate from the supply line for supply?
A: Although sea supply lines to different destinations must be protected and intercepted separately, contemporaneous sea supply and oil shipments to the same destination may be combined for mutual protection (21.65I) at the moving player's option. [2007 Nov 29 [off-list]]


Q: Does the oil Japan receives from the international market need to be delivered with Japanese transports?
A: No. The "market" will deliver its own oil, so long as there is not a war going on. The unlimited oil Japan can receive when not under an embargo is not limited by the number of Japanese transports.


Q: If Japan uses oil in Palembang or Brunei to offset the naval oil effect in the hex, may units in the hex be uninverted?
A: Yes. Offsetting the naval oil effect includes the ability to uninvert naval units. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: How can Russia control Abadan or Ahwaz if the Allies have opened the Persian BRP route and gained control of the Persian hexes?
A: If the Allies open the Persian BRP route, they gain control of the Persian hexes (40.524). If the Axis then conquer Abadan or Ahwaz, and one of those oil centers is reconquered by Russia, Russia will control the oil center. Russia may then draw Persian oil directly from the Russian-controlled oil center, rather than receiving an Allied oil grant. The Allies must have opened the Persian BRP route to provide the necessary infrastructure across Persia. [2008 Sep 5]

Q: When can Russia ship oil from Mosul through Turkey?
A: The Allies must control Turkey. If Turkey was an Axis minor, the Allies will control Turkey when they conquer it (that is, take control of Ankara from the Axis; see 83.11). Simply being able to trace a supply line through Turkey is not sufficient. This is the same requirement as for granting BRPs to Russia through Turkey (40.61A). [2008 Jan 10]


Q: Is the shipment of Russian oil by land from the Russian oil centers in the Caucuses through Persia to the Urals affected by any of the limits on shipping Persian oil?
A: No. Russian oil can be shipped by land around the south shore of the Caspian Sea if the Allies control the hexes. This does not affect the capacity of the Persian oil route for shipping Western Allied oil into Russia. Russia cannot ship oil by sea across the Caspian. [2005 Dec 9]


Q: Must Russia begin tracking oil consumption if the Russian oil centers are cut off from the Urals box?
A: No, an oil center must actually be captured to trigger the Russian tracking of oil. Isolation or damage from strategic bombing is not sufficient. [2007 Mar 5] [2008 Feb 10]


Q: What does it mean for Western Allied units whose supply was determined while in mapboard boxes to be not subject to oil effects?
A: Western Allied ground units whose supply was determined while in mapboard boxes are not subject to the oil effects listed in 33.61C; their oil status is determined during supply determination and does not change even if they leave the mapboard box. Western Allied air and naval units have the supply and oil status of their base; although the mapboard boxes are operational bases, air and naval units do not remain operational if they move to a non-operational base on the mapboard. [2006 Feb 21] [2006 Mar 15]


Q: If an oil effect is taken by consuming less than three oil in the Allied Indian reserve, may a sea supply line be traced from Manila (where the oil effect was not taken) to Calcutta to upgrade the oil status of the Indian supply zone?
A: Yes, although if Japan is at war with the Allies, a successful sea supply line from Manila to India is likely to be difficult. Also, the oil status of a mapboard box cannot be upgraded by sea supply, so the oil from Manila would not be available in the India box itself (only in the on-board hexes). [2007 Jun 23]


Q: If oil is shipped into Abadan from South Africa and consumed in Persia, does the oil flow throughout the supply zone or is it limited to Persia?
A: Oil produced in Abadan or Ahwaz is limited to Persia unless shipped out on Indian Ocean transports, but there is no restriction on oil shipped into Persia. Oil shipped to Abadan from South Africa may be consumed to provide oil throughout the Middle East. [2009 Mar 20]


Q: Does Western Allied oil consumed "locally" in Palembang or Brunei affect the oil status of supply zones tracing supply from Palembang or Brunei?
A: No. Compare the wording for Mosul in 33.4722 with the wording for Palembang and Brunei. Mosul's oil can be used to affect the oil status of supply zones tracing supply from the local zone (so long as they are on the Mediterranean front); the DEI's oil only affects the immediate local supply zone unless it is first transported to a reserve. [2005 May 3]


Q: May the Allies ship oil to India from Australia, Pearl Harbor, Manila, or the Pacific US box across the Indian Ocean?
A: No. 33.4733A lists the allowable sources for oil being sent across the Indian Ocean to India; it must come from the Middle East or via South Africa. Oil cannot be shipped to India through the Pacific or from Australia. [2016 Apr 1]

Q: Why can't the Western Allies ship oil from Australia to India across the Indian Ocean?
A: Although units can be shipped between Australia and India using Indian Ocean transports, oil counters cannot. At the beginning of the war, there was no infrastructure for shipping oil to India from Australia; the U.S. built the Pacific oil infrastructure it needed for the war, but only for the needs of the Pacific front -- not for India. (Historically, most Indian oil came from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.) Allowing oil to flow to India across the Pacific and through Australia would allow Britain to too easily avoid strategic warfare pressure on its transports. And, following a "design for effect" methodology, an Atlantic oil counter represents much more oil than a Pacific oil counter; that methodology breaks down if oil counters can be shipped between theaters. [2012 Jun 27]


Q: How do the three transports inverted to "ship oil and units to India" in a European scenario affect the number of Indian Ocean transports available to ship oil?
A: The three transports inverted can be assumed to carry something other than oil. The total number of Indian Ocean transports (including the three inverted transports) is used to determine the number of transports that can be used to ship oil (33.473), and all of those may be used to ship oil within the ETO. [2006 Nov 9-13] [2012 Feb 12]


Q: During the oil adjustment phase (prior to initial supply determination), in what hexes is the oil effect offset?
A: The oil effect is offset within the supply zone as it will be defined during initial supply determination; areas which were part of the supply zone during the previous turn but are now cut off from the oil retain the oil status from the previous turn. If the Axis cut the Middle East into two supply zones (Iraq and Egypt), consuming oil in Mosul offsets oil effects only in the Iraqi supply zone (as it will be traced during initial supply determination), not in the Egyptian supply zone, even if the entire Middle East was a single supply zone in the previous turn. [2006 Nov 15] [2007 May 12] [2007 May 15]


Q: How can the Axis use the oil from Mosul if they cannot trace a supply line from Mosul to Germany (in order to add the oil to their oil reserve)?
A: The Axis can consume the oil in Mosul, which provides oil to the supply zone containing Mosul and any supply zones tracing supply from that supply zone. For example, a supply line traced from Haifa to Trieste would provide oil to Italy. If the Axis also traced full supply from Venice to Beirut, then all supply traced from Haifa and the Middle East would provide full supply and oil. [2009 Feb 18]


Q: May the air, naval, or army oil effects be offset in an area with only partial supply (such as using oil from Mosul to offset oil effects in the Middle East, if supply is traced only from a colonial capital and not from an unlimited supply source such as South Africa)?
A: Yes, though providing oil to units without full supply does not accomplish anything. The effects of partial supply on air, naval, and ground units are the same as the oil effects, and are neither lessened by the use of oil nor exacerbated by the lack of oil. One difference between partial supply and oil effects that comes to mind is that some actions can be done with full supply and no oil, but cannot be done with partial supply regardless of oil (e.g., building fortifications). [2011 May 13]


Q: If air units are redeployed from a location that has full supply and has offset the air oil effect to a location that has full supply but is suffering the air oil effect, what is their status?
A: Air and naval units inherit the supply and oil status of their current base; unlike ground units, they don't retain their supply and oil status when they move to a new location. [2010 May 18]

Q: Does defending count against the 25 factors of air units that can be used after expending one oil counter? At issue is whether the first oil counter offsets the oil effects for *all* air units (but still limits the number that can be used), or whether the first oil counter only offsets the oil effect for a limited number of units. For example, if a single oil was spent to offset the air oil effect, and a player's units defend against counterair, do those defending air units count against the 25-factor limit (or suffer a -1 Air NDRM if they are not counted against the limit)?
A: No clear answer was agreed upon. Many people thought the rule should read "One oil counter is required to offset the air oil effect. This eliminates oil effects for all air units and allows 25 air factors to be used for operations", but that is not how the rule currently reads. 33.73C implies that the oil effect is offset only for unts that "use" oil, which would mean the oil effect is offset for 25 air factors only. [2017]


Q: If the naval oil effect applies in a supply zone, can ports in that supply zone be used to modify submarine warfare rolls?
A: Yes. 25.723, 25.811, and 25.92 specify that the modifiers apply if a player "controls and fully supplies" one of the listed ports. (Manila is an unlimited Western Allied supply source, so is always fully supplied if under Western Allied control.) There is no requirement for operational status, so the naval oil effect need not be offset. However ... submarine warfare is prohibited if there is no operational port from which to conduct submarine warfare at all (25.51). For example, Germany needs an operational port (25.51A) to conduct submarine warfare in the Atlantic; under the naval oil effect such a port will be hard to come by (Gibraltar supplied with oil from Mosul?). [2005 May 6] [2015 Mar 8]

Q: Does defending count against the 2 TFs of naval units that can be used after expending one oil counter? At issue is whether the first oil counter offsets the oil effects for *all* naval units (but still limits the number that can be used), or whether the first oil counter only offsets the oil effect for a limited number of units. For example, if a single oil was spent to offset the naval oil effect, and a player's units are intercepted while NRing, do those defending navl units count against the 2-TF limit (or suffer a -1 Naval NDRM if they are not counted against the limit)?
A: No clear answer was agreed upon. Many people thought the rule should read "One oil counter is required to offset the naval oil effect. This eliminates oil effects for all naval units and allows 2 TFs to be used for operations", but that is not how the rule currently reads. 33.73C implies that the oil effect is offset only for unts that "use" oil, which would mean the oil effect is offset for 2 TFs only. [2017]


Q: If Britain has no builds, it requires no oil for construction; does it incur the construction oil effect for resistance purposes?
A: As the rule says, unless an oil counter is consumed for construction, Britain takes the oil effect. Britain could choose to consume an oil counter for construction (even though this has no effect on construction in this case) in order to avoid the oil effect. Likewise, an oil counter must be used to offset the air oil effect in order to avoid that penalty, even if the power has no air units in play. The oil effect rules do not attempt to discern whether a power needs the oil or not -- only whether they consume the appropriate oil. [2012 Jun 11]


Q: If all hexes in Britain are isolated or under enemy control, does the construction oil effect have any effect?
A: The construction oil effect have no effect on Britain (33.63), other than its effect on the British resistance level. It contributes a -1 to the British resistance level (59.22C), even though there is no other effect on Britain. Note that London may be "isolated" for the purposes of this rule, even though it is an unlimited supply source (30.61H). [2007 Mar 31] [2008 Mar 24]

Q: What does it mean for all hexes in Britain to be "isolated"?
A: For the purposes of rules 27.42D (construction of British units in Canada) and 33.63 (application of construction oil effects to Britain), London is considered to be "isolated" if it is unable to trace a supply line from the Atlantic U.S. box. [2015 Oct 17]

Q: What sources of oil are allowed for offsetting the construction oil effect?
A: Oil for construction use must come from an oil reserve. One exception is in Britain, when the Axis control (or have isolated) London, Birmingham, and Manchester -- in that case the oil may be shipped to a supply zone in England and used. [2008 Mar 24]


Q: Must additional oil always come from the same place as the oil used to offset the oil effect?
A: In most cases, additional oil will come from the same location as the oil used to offset the oil effects. However, 33.73B allows for oil to be used from a different location than that initially used to offset the oil effect. For example, the WAs may consume all three oil in Mosul to offset the air, naval, and military oil effects, then use oil from South Africa to allow additional TFs to be used in the Middle East. The supply line from South Africa must have already been traced; supply lines are traced only during supply determination, not "as needed". In the case of additional oil from South Africa or a U.S. box, a transport (to carry the additional oil) would have to be inverted. The supply line is established (and perhaps contested) during supply determination, but the oil capacity of that existing supply line can be increased later as needed. [2017 Jan 1]

Q: What does it mean that addition oil is subject to the same restrictions and transport requirements as the oil counters used to offset the oil effect?

Here is an example: The Western Allies have naval units in Gibraltar (supplied from London, oil effects offset from the Allied European oil reserve) and Egypt (supplied from South Africa, oil effects offset from Mosul). During the Axis player turn, the Allies need to use "additional" naval units to intercept supply to Libya.

For the naval units in Gibraltar, the Allies can simply consume another oil in the European reserve. The supply line from London to Gibraltar already exists, and the oil automatically flows along that supply line. For the naval units in Egypt, the WAs can ship an oil counter into the Egyptian supply zone from South Africa (or from Persia, if they had the foresight to trace a second sea supply line into the Egyptian supply zone from Persia - 30.342); in either case they would again be required to invert an Indian Ocean transport. [2017 Feb 22 [off-list]]


Q: How can air and naval units be uninverted and used to protect supply lines during initial supply determination? They need oil to be used, but oil does not arrive until supply determination is complete (after they are used).
A: This case was overlooked when the new oil rules were drafted; this explanation tries to carry forward the same mechanism as was used under the previous oil rules (where the same situation could arise): A supply zone retains the supply and oil status of the previous player turn until the end of the initial supply determination segment of the current player turn (33.535). If the air or naval oil effect was already offset in the prior turn, air or naval units may be uninverted in the current player turn, prior to initial supply determination. The number of oil counters consumed in the prior turn governs the number of air and naval units that can be used prior to initial supply determination in the current turn (for example, to counterair, patrol, or protect supply lines). Air and naval units beyond this limit may be used only if additional oil is consumed (33.71B, 33.72B), based on the supply lines traced during the prior turn. It is possible, therefore, for the single oil counter used to offset the the air oil effect to allow the use of 25 air factors at three separate times: during the the current friendly player turn, during the following opposing player turn, and prior to initial supply determination during the next friendly player turn. Air and naval units used prior to initial supply determination are also counted against the limit on air and naval units that can be used during the current full player turn, once the current turn's oil status is determined during initial supply determination. [2017 Jan 1]


Q: Do transports used for on-board sea escort count towards oil use?
A: No. [2018 Mar 29]

Rule Update [Clarication - Tim Schroeder, Bruce Harper; 2018 Mar 31]
[33.72] G. SW BOXES: Naval units based in SW boxes are not counted towards oil use, even if used for naval activities on the mapboard.


Q: During the oil adjustment phase (prior to initial supply determination), may air naval units be uninverted if oil to offset the oil effect must arrive by sea?
A: Until initial supply determination (including during the oil adjustment phase), units retain the supply and oil status they had from the previous turn. This oil flows along the existing, not-yet-expired supply line, and does not rely on the same supply line being again traced in the current turn (or even on any attempt to retrace that supply line). Enemy interdiction of this oil is not possible; the opportunity to interdict was at the time the supply line was traced, during the prior turn. Uninverting air/naval units during the oil adjustment phase allows those units to protect a new supply line that will be traced during the upcoming initial supply determination segment.

In many cases, oil flows automatically along supply lines without the need for any dedicated sea escort for the oil counters. Such is the case for supply lines from unlimited supply sources associated with oil reserves. For instance, if supply was traced from London to Gibraltar (or Tokyo to Truk) during the prior turn, oil in the Western Allied European reserve (or Japanese reserve) can be consumed to offset an oil effect and allow uninversion in Gibraltar (or Truk) during the oil adjustment phase of the current turn. Likewise, if a supply line was traced from the oil source in Mosul to Famagusta during the prior turn, oil in Mosul can be consumed to offset an oil effect and allow uninversion in Cyprus during the oil adjustment phase of the current turn. No dedicated sea escort for oil was needed when any of these supply lines were traced, and none is needed to use oil based on those supply lines.

However, oil does not automatically flow across supply lines from the U.S. boxes or the South Africa box onto the mapboard (33.533); transports are required to sea escort each oil counter. The Western Allies may invert a transport to ship additional oil counters to offset oil effects and allow uninversion. Note that this transport is not tracing a new supply line; an additional oil counter is being shipped along the existing supply line. In the case of offsetting an oil effect to allow uninversion during the oil adjustment phase, the supply line was traced during the prior turn, and the inversion of the transport merely reflects the additional oil counter being carried along that supply line. [2006 Oct 30] [2013 Feb 24 [off-list]]


Q: If the sea escort of an inverted AAF is turned back; can the AAF be uninverted at the end of the turn?
A: If the air unit is in the same place (hex or mapboard box) at the end of the redeployment phase as it was at the beginning of the redeployment phase, it can be uninverted (unless it TRd or SRd while inverted). [2007 Aug 24]

Q: If an inverted carrier carrying NAS redeploys, may the NAS be transferred off the carrier and uninverted at the end of the turn?
A: The carrier redeployed while inverted, and so cannot be uninverted. While simply transferring NAS between a carrier and a land base does not preclude uninversion, in this case the NAS redeployed along with the carrier. Thus they cannot be uninverted. When determining whether the NAS can be uninverted, the situation where the inverted NAS redeployed aboard a carrier is really no different than the situation where the NAS redeployed aboard destroyers or transports. The NAS ended the redeployment phase somewhere other than where they started, and they were inverted the whole time; that's "redeployment while inverted". [2013 Mar 24 [off-list]]


Q: How are units attacking into the mud region (across the Pact line from the west) affected by mud?
A: The hex receiving the action governs (9.71). Air units based west of the Pact line flying missions into the mud region and ground units west of the Pact line attacking into the mud region are both limited by mud. Only 14 BRPs of offensive actions may be performed in the mud region (34.25A). [2017 May 6]


Q: If Russia creates a breakthrough in a hex afflicted by mud, are the exploiting armor units still subject to the -1 CTL penalty (reduced exploitation movement, etc.) if they exploit into a hex not afflicted by mud?
A: Once the armor unit moves into a hex without mud, the penalty no longer applies. However, the armor unit must have enough MP (while still in the mud hex, and subject to the mud restrictions) to move into the mud-free hex; the restriction is lifted only after the armor actually enters the mud-free hex. [2007 Jun 13]

Q: When exactly does an armor unit become an "exploiting" armor unit?
A: An armor unit becomes an "exploiting" armor unit upon being placed on the breakthrough hex. Thus, if Russia's CTL is 1 in a mud turn, Russia can create a breakthrough and place CTL 1 armor units onto the breakthrough hex, at which point they become CTL 0 armor units and may not move or attack during exploitation (CTL 0 armor may not exploit - 15.82C). This is analogous to creating a breakthrough in a rough terrain hex in the PTO; the breakthrough can be created, armor units may be placed on the breakthrough hex, but exploitation from the breakthrough is prohibited (16.31D). [2008 May 19]


Q: Does ground support against partisans count towards the "14 air factor" limit on Axis use of air factors for offensive operations in winter?
A: Yes. Ground attacks against partisans do not count against the number of allowed attacks, but all uses of air (even ground support against partisans) count against the allowed limits on air use. [2006 Feb 21]

Q: If the Axis are allowed a certain number of ground attacks during a Russian winter, do exploitation attacks count towards the limit on ground attacks?
A: Exploitation attacks count. Attacking a hex to create a breakthrough, exploiting from that breakthrough, and attacking during exploitation would require at least three "attacks". Note that the placement of armor units onto a breakthrough hex is considered "exploiting from a breakthrough", even if those armor units do not move further or attack during exploitation. [2006 Nov 8] [Post #121467 -- 2010 Feb 14]


Q: Do the movement limitations of monsoons apply to ground units passing through swamp/jungle/jungle-mountain hexes by sea during a sea transport or seaborne invasion?
A: No. Ground units on board ships, even if the ships pass through the port hex or "touch" the port for range purposes, may pass through prohibited hexes on their way to a destination hex not affected by monsoons.


Q: May the Axis use Swedish and Finnish AAF in excess of 14 AAF without having it count towards the limit on Axis attacks?
A: If the (non-Scandinavian) Axis use more than 14 AAF, it counts against the limit on (non-Scandinavian) Axis attacks. If the Axis (including Sweden/Finland) use more than 14 AAF, it counts against the limit on Swedish/Finnish attacks. The use of 14 German AAF + 1 Finnish AAF therefore counts as one Finnish "attack", but not as one German "attack", and will often be allowed (because Finland/Sweden are allowed six more "attacks" than Germany until Germany increases its winter preparation). [2008 Mar 31]

Q: May the Finns & Swedes make additional attacks in Russia during winter turns beyond the number of Axis attacks permitted by the German winter preparation level?
A: Yes. The total number of Axis attacks allowed is actually determined by the Axis troops with the best winter preparation, but the number of attacks permitted by Axis forces with a lower level of winter preparation would be further limited to a subset of those attacks (determined based on their lower winter preparation). Or, put differently, the number of Axis attacks is limited by the general Axis winter preparation level; Finns & Swedes may make additional attacks beyond that limit, up to the number allowed by their winter preparation level of '6'. [2005 Apr 30]

34.32A, 34.32B

Q: Does a nation's winter preparation affect the winter effects applicable on the Mediterranean front, western front, or western Poland?
A: Winter preparation limits the winter effects felt in every area of the map. The winter preparation rules do not limit the effects of winter preparation to the Russian winter zone (34.41). [2008 Jul 9]


Q: Does winter preparation really modify the winter die roll?
A: No. Only location and season modify the winter die roll. The winter effects applicable to each nation are determined by subtracting that nation's winter preparation level from the winter die roll and consulting the list of winter effects in the Winter Table.


Q: May an airborne unit in a hex subject to winter effect level '3' airdrop into a hex not subject to any winter effects?
A: Yes; the hex which receives the action determines the applicable limitations. [2014 Feb 17]

Q: If exploitation is prohibited (winter effect level '6'), is exploitation combat prohibited as well as exploitation movement?
A: If exploitation is prohibited, armor units may not even be moved to the breakthrough hex, much less move or attack. Only "armor units which are eligible to exploit" (16.21) or "exploiting armor units" (16.23) may be placed on a breakthrough hex; if exploitation is prohibited there are no such armor units. According to the Sequence of Play, "exploitation" (step 6.n) is comprised of placing exploiting armor units onto breakthroughs, exploitation movement, and exploitation combat; all of this is prohibited if exploitation is prohibited. [2014 Jun 22]

Q: May air units based outside the winter zone fly DAS over a hex subject to winter effect level '9'?
A: No; the hex which receives the action determines the applicable limitations. [2014 Feb 11]


Q: How many winter preparation research results may be announced at once?
A: A maximum of two could be announced at any one time. Results must be announced at the start of every winter turn. By triggering one result later during the winter turn, it would not be available to be announced at the start of the winter turn (and it would also have no effect during the turn). However, it would have to be announced at the start of the following winter turn (next year). By triggering a second result before the winter turn of the following year, there would be two results to announce. There is no way to accumulate any more than two without announcing them. [2015 Feb 5]


Q: Do BRPs of deferred mobilizations and production count as unbuilt units for the purposes of computing growth?
A: No. They are not "unbuilt units" until they have been added to the force pool. Likewise, units mobilized but waiting on the turn track to be added to the force pool do not count as "unbuilt units", as they are not yet part of the force pool. [2005 Jun 16]

Q: While at war only with China, do unbuilt Japanese units increase negative Japanese growth as well as decreasing positive Japanese growth?
A: The cost of unbuilt units is deducted from "unspent BRPs". If there are no unspent BRPs (because Japan has engaged in deficit spending), or once unspent BRPs have been reduced to zero, any further unbuilt units have no effect. Japan does not incur a deficit because it has unbuilt units; it just can't grow by leaving units unbuilt. [2010 Sep 25]


Q: If a major power has a base of 3 BRPs and a deficit of -50 BRPs during a YSS where its growth rate is 50%, what happens?
A: The power should incur negative growth of -50 * 50% or 25 BRPs. However, its base cannot drop below 0 (35.46) so its base is reduced only 3 BRPs (to 0) rather than 25 BRPs. The remaining 47 BRPs of deficit (the original deficit of 50 BRPs less the 3 BRPs subtracted from base) are subtracted from the BRP total for the ensuing year. [2010 Nov 8]


Q: Do lost KEAs have any effect on how far a major power's base may drop?
A: No. Lost KEAs are subtracted from a power's base when determining whether voluntary deficit spending is allowed (39.22); no one would loan BRPs to a country with no collateral. But lost KEAs are not considered when determining how far a power's base may fall due to involuntary losses (insufficient transports, bombing losses, lost conquests, indemnities, etc.). For example, if Britain has lost all three KEAs (60 BRPs) but retains the Commonwealth (40 BRPs), Britain may no longer deficit spend if such spending would reduce the base below 100 BRPs. But other losses could continue to reduce the base all the way down to 40 BRPs. Deficit spending would again be allowed once KEAs were recaptured or the base again rose above 100 BRPs. [2010 Nov 8]


Q: If the Axis first capture a minor country capital in the Winter Axis player turn and the Allies immediately recapture it in the Winter Allied player turn, do the Axis receive the BRPs during the ensuing YSS?
A: No; this situation does not satisfy the "for which an Axis major power received BRPs" clause of the "contested areas" rule. The rule keeps the Axis from losing BRPs for a contested area, but does not allow them to gain BRPs for a contested area for which they have not yet received BRPs. [2011 Mar 2]


Q: What does it mean that the U.S. economy is handled slightly differently than the other major powers in the game?
A: Just like other major powers, the U.S. starts with a base and a BRP level, grows from year to year, and mobilizes. However, the size and frequency of mobilizations and the U.S. growth rate will compound to generate a U.S. economy much larger than those of other major powers. [2010 Mar 23]

Q: What can the US do with its BRPs before it starts to mobilize and eventually enters the war?
A: The US may build units entering its force pool (there are automatic force pool additions detailed on the force pool charts in addition to any additions from production or mobilization); launch, advance, or lay down ships in its shipyards as allowed by its shipbuilding rate; or grant BRPs as allowed by USAT or USJT. In addition, BRP growth will generate RPs as well as the larger base needed by the U.S. later in the war. [2014 Oct 30]


Q: Does the actual USJT or the effective USJT govern when Japan must mobilize?
A: During the Allied player turn, the effective USJT governs whether Japan must mobilize (49.852C). During the Japanese player turn, there is no "effective USJT", and the actual USJT determines whether Japan must mobilize. [2007 Jan 9]

Q: If status modifiers leave the USJT below 30 in the turn Japan declares war on the U.S., the declaration of war against the U.S. will still push USJT to 50 before the Pearl Harbor patrol is resolved. Must Japan mobilize before the Pearl Harbor surprise level is determined?
A: If the USJT reaches 30 only as a result of the declaration of war, then Japan need not mobilize until after the declaration of war. Pearl Harbor surprise is determined based on the USJT at the moment of the declaration of war, not when the patrol mission is resolved. In this case, the third Japanese mobilization (and any mobilized shipbuilding point) would not affect the USJT level used to determine Pearl Harbor surprise. [2010 Sep 1]


Q: May Japan mobilize armor?
A: Yes. The bullet point are additional limitations on mobilizations, not an exhaustive list of which countries can mobilize which units. Japan can mobilize armor. They cannot mobilize 1o3 or 2o3 armor (because their force pool already contains the maximum number of those units), but can mobilize 3o3 armor (the force pool is not yet at the maximum number of 3o3 armor). There is no specific limit on when or how Japan may mobilize these armor units, so there is no bullet item covering Japan. [2012 Oct 1]

Q: May Russia mobilize all infantry (besides the required armor)?
A: No; 36.32A requires Russia to mobilize at least one AAF. [2015 Nov 8]


Q: May Russia produce and construct an IC the same turn another IC is placed from mobilization?
A: Yes. Production of ICs is limited to one per turn and two per year (42.24G), but there is no restriction on producing an IC in the same turn that an IC is mobilized. [2010 May 2]

Q: May a new IC be placed in an enemy ZoC?
A: Yes. ICs are produced or mobilized and placed; they are not "constructed". The prohibition against constructing units in enemy ZoC (27.44) does not apply to counters (3.11) like ICs and airbases. The placing of fortifications and railheads in enemy ZoC is explicitly banned (32.14B, 28.654B), although these are counters and not units; there is no comparable restriction against placing an oil plant in enemy ZoC (33.234).

Q: When are new ICs placed?
A: Although the BRPs for a new IC are not added to the Russian total until the beginning of unit construction (37.62), the IC itself is placed on the board at the start of the turn, before initial supply determination (so it is the supply status from the prior Russian turn that determines if a hex is fully supplied). A newly-placed IC could then provide limited supply to the units in its hex during initial supply determination. If the IC is devoted to oil production, it then produces an oil counter immediately (37.65). [2012 Dec 8] [2016 May 24]


Q: Does a Russian unit drawing limited supply from an IC in its hex retain its supply status if it moves out of the IC?
A: Yes; supply for units is only determined during the two specific supply determination segments of the turn. No matter what it does, a unit in limited supply during initial supply determination is in at least limited supply until initial supply determination in its next player turn. A Russian unit in a surrounded IC could move out of the IC to contact the enemy, and then potentially advance after combat or make an attrition advance to help break the encirclement. [2010 Jul 6]


Q: What are the implications of KEAs being "integral to BRP base"?
A: Nothing. It simply means that a major power does not add the value of its KEAs to its base in order to determine its BRPs, as it would add the value of a colony or conquest. But none of the BRPs in the base are specifically associated with any particular KEA, and the value of a KEA is not the number of BRPs it contributes to the base. A country's base can be greater than, less than, or equal to the sum of the values of its KEAs. Deficit spending is not associated with any particular KEA, and a KEA always retains its value (and the associated penalty to the original owner's BRP level if it is lost), even if the country's base has been reduced to zero by accumulated deficits or the economic oil effect.

Although losing an originally-owned KEA has some of the same effects as reducing the country's BRP base by an equivalent amount (the construction limit is reduced by the same amount, the BRPs received during a YSS are reduced by the same amount, etc.), there are differences:

[2006 Nov 30] [2011 Jan 18]


Q: Does a major power lose BRPs when an originally controlled KEA is captured by the enemy, even if its base has already been reduced below the sum of its KEAs?
A: Yes. The power's BRP total is reduced, regardless of the power's base. [2006 Dec 12]


Q: If Germany receives BRPs for the conquest of Lyon or Marseilles, and then establishes Vichy France, does it lose the prorated BRPs for the "loss" of the French KEAs?
A: Yes. Germany no longer controls the KEAs, and so must lose the BRPs. Germany can choose not to establish Vichy if it prefers to keep the BRPs. [2006 Mar 18]


Q: If Germany loses a KEA during the Allied player turn, immediately recaptures it during its next player turn, and then immediately loses it again during the ensuing Allied player turn, does the "double jeopardy" rule protect Germany from losing additional BRPs for the second loss?
A: No. If Germany loses Breslau in fall, it loses 12 BRPs (50% of 25). If it recaptures Breslau in winter and immediately loses it again in winter, it loses an additional 6 BRPs (25% of 25). Germany did not retain Breslau long enough to regain any BRPs, but "double jeopardy" does not protect it from losing a total of 18 BRPs. [2017 Sep 22]

Q: If a Russian IC is bombed by the Axis (and repaired, rather than eliminated, by Russia) and then captured by the Axis in the same turn, does Russia take a double "hit", potentially losing the value of the IC twice in the same turn?
A: Yes. Although this is "double jeopardy", the rule prohibiting double jeopardy applies -- both by its location and its terms -- only to key economic areas, not ICs. [2011 Mar 30]

Q: If a KEA is hit by a rocket and then captured, does the prohibition against double jeopardy apply?
A: One has to consider that rocket attacks have a disproportionate effect on UCLs - the "terror effect" is represented by a 1:1 ration of BRP losses to UCL reduction, rather than the 3:1 ratio for bombing. The rocket attack eliminates 5 BRPs, but rather than reduce the UCL by 1.66, it reduces it by 5 - an extra 3.33 BRPs. Then the KEA is captured. The overall loss of 25 BRPs reduces the UCL by 8.33, but you add in the extra 3.33 = 11.66. This is because the KEA was attacked by rockets, not bombers. The effect on losing the KEA would be the same whether or not it was bombed, but rockets have an extra effect. [2015 Feb 17]


Q: How are the Japanese KEAs related to the Japanese base and its mobilizations?
A: The value of the Japanese initial base (70 BRPs) plus mobilizations covers the value of the KEAs (95 BRPs). In playtesting, it was found unwise to reduce the values of the Japanese KEAs to fit into the prewar base because then it became too hard to hurt Japan with strategic bombing and/or conquest of KEAs. Once Japan mobilizes, its base will be greater than the value of its KEAs. [2005 Aug 6]


Q: How are the Chinese KEAs related to its base?
A: China has a base of 40, but lost 20 BRPs of "originally-controlled KEAs" (Peking, Shanghai, Canton, and Nanking) to Japan in the 1937-1938 time frame, prior to the start of the game. China's UCL in 1939 is (40 base -20 lost originally-owned KEAs)/3, or 6. If China recaptures its KEAs, its UCL could rise as high as 40/3, or 13. [Post #114543 -- 2008 Dec 18]


Q: Does deficit spending have any effect on the values of a major power's KEAs?
A: Deficit spending does not change the values of any KEA, even though the value of uncontrolled KEAs is part of the formula that limits the amount of deficit spending. [2006 Dec 12]

Q: If a country has a negative BRP total and may not deficit spend, but receives a BRP grant, how much may it spend on construction?
A: A country that cannot deficit spend (or has reached its deficit spending limit) may only spend to the extent that it has a positive BRP level; once its BRP total drops to zero, it may no longer spend on construction (or anything else). Incoming grants are added to the recipient's BRP total and increase the recipient's UCL, but do not otherwise confer any special ability to construct units. If Britain has -9 BRPs, a UCL of 13, cannot deficit spend, and receives a BRP grant of 30 BRPs, it would have 21 BRPs and would have a UCL of 13 + 30/3 = 23. But it could only spend 21 BRPs, because it cannot spend what it doesn't have without deficit spending. [2008 May 20] [2008 Sep 20] [Post #121775, #121780 -- 2010 Feb 26] [2010 Feb 28]


Q: Do all BRP grants arrive immediately, even if they pass through a mapboard box (which normally terminates a redeployment)?
A: All BRP grants arrive immediately. BRP grants are not redeployments; they occur during supply determination. [2012 May 20]


Q: If Germany grants 2 BRPs to Italy, is there any effect on UCL?
A: No. Whenever the rules say, "for every X, there is Y" (such as "[f]or every three BRPs granted ... the grantor's construction limit is reduced by one BRP"), there is no Y unless there is an X. Granting 2 BRPs has no effect on the grantor's UCL, and no effect on the grantee's UCL.


Q: May BRP grants received by a major power be spent to construct units regardless of the recipient's BRP total and/or deficit spending limit?
A: Granted BRPs are immediately added to the recipient major power's BRP total; the received BRPs are not "available" for any other purpose. A received grant does not alter the basic spending rule (39.11), which limits expenditures to the number of BRPs available, together with any allowable deficit spending. If the recipient's BRP total is still negative after adding the grant, then the only allowable spending of any sort would be deficit spending; if such a recipient cannot deficit spend for any reason (39.22), then it cannot spend at all. The only way to allow unit construction by a major power that cannot deficit spend is to grant enough BRPs to bring the recipient's BRP total positive. Note that American grants to Commonwealth countries (rather than to Britain) allow Commonwealth unit construction regardless of the British BRP level (40.244). [2011 Jun 1]


Q: When all the Allied naval forces escorting grants via Murmansk convoy "merge into a single convoy" does this mean they all form a single CG for Murmansk naval combat regardless of size?
A: No; it simply means that they travel together as a single naval force while in the Murmansk box and the rules for resolving Murmansk convoys are applied only once. The usual rules for assigning naval units to CGs apply. [2006 Jun 17]


Q: May Italian air units modify submarine attacks vs. Murmansk convoys?
A: No. Only German units may oppose Murmansk convoys; modifying a submarine attack is "opposition". (Under the earlier rules that included a Murmansk mapboard box, Italian units could not even be present in the mapboard box, much less modify a submarine attack in the mapboard box.) [2015 Jul 17]


Q: Are transports vulnerable to sinking from attacks against a Murmansk convoy?
A: Transports are vulnerable to air, fleet (though they will be screened), or submarine attacks against a convoy, but they are not trivial to sink. Half the hits against light ships will affect cruisers, and hits vs. one-factor ships will be apportioned between DDs, CVEs, and transports. If there are enough cruisers and more DDs and CVEs than transports, it could take 7 hits (in a single attack) to sink a transport. Since the transports are so difficult to hit, the additional effect of 1 BRP lost for every hit vs. light ships (for air and naval attacks) or for every hit (for submarine attacks, which choose targets randomly) is applied. [2005 May 22]

Q: Do hits against named ships (submarine attacks only) or light ships in a Murmansk convoy reduce the BRP grant if they were in excess of the hits needed to sink the target?
A: A hit is a hit; the language of the rule is "hits", not "factors sunk". If 3 hits are scored against a group of lights consisting of a single CA2, 3 BRPs are lost. [2010 May 29] [2011 Feb 5]


Q: Does opening the BRP route really give the Allies control of *Axis* hexes in Persia? What is the status of Persia after the Allies open the Persian BRP route?
A: The analogy for opening the Persian BRP route is a minor garrisoned by the Axis entering the war on the Allied side via diplomacy; unoccupied Axis hexes then do fall under Allied control. The Allies gain control of the Persian hexes (except for those occupied by Axis units) and the Axis can enter (88.642) and build partisans (11.341A) in Persia. Persia is effectively conquered (82.11G) by the major power that pays to open the BRP route during the unit construction phase; it is no longer neutral. Therefore, Axis ZoCs immediately extend into Persia, and an Axis unit in Basra would prohibit Allied redeployment into Abadan. [2009 Oct 29] [2010 May 25]


Q: May the U.S. grant BRPs to Russia by shipping them across the Pacific to Australia, then across the Indian Ocean to Persia, then by land to Russia?
A: No; BRPs sent via Persia must come across the Atlantic. BRPs sent to Russia across the Pacific must use the Siberian route. (See also the entry for 40.63B, dealing with grants via Turkey.) [2012 Feb 5]


Q: May the U.S. grant BRPs to Russia by shipping them across the Pacific to Australia, then across the Indian Ocean to Turkey, then by land to Russia?
A: No; BRPs sent via Turkey must come across the Atlantic. BRPs sent to Russia across the Pacific must use the Siberian route. (See also the entry for 40.54, dealing with grants via Persia.)


Q: Is "over the Himalayas" meant literally?
A: There is no requirement that the air transport fly over a white-bordered Himalayan hexside. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: In a European-only game, what is the U.S. RP allotment?
A: In addition to RPs from its BRP level and growth, the U.S. receives one RP for every 10 USAT levels, plus 1 RP in 1941, 3 RPs in 1942, and 5 RPs in 1943 and beyond for the assumed contribution towards ETO research from the PTO (USJT and "Pacific" BRPs). The U.S. does not receive the basic allotment of 10 RPs (41.21G) once the U.S. & Japan are at war in an ETO-only scenario. The resulting number of RPs is less than would be available in a global game (by approximately the contribution from BRPs gained via Pacific mobilizations and their compounding growth); the "missing" RPs are assumed to be used in research and production projects primarily relevant to the PTO. [2005 Jul 22, 2006 Nov 6]


Q: May an alliance faction allocate RPs up to the limits specified here, even if there are accumulated RPs remaining in a project from prior years?
A: Yes; the allocation limits apply year by year. If the limit is 3 RPs, an alliance faction could allocate 3 RPs one year and 3 RPs in a later year, and therefore have 6 RPs in the project when rolling. [2016 Feb 13]


Q: Are the projects with pre-war results or bonuses considered to have had RPs allocated pre-war (such that 1939 is not the first year of allocation)?
A: No. Only 1 RP may be allocated to high technology projects such as ASW, Strategic Bombers, and Radar in 1939 (or in the first turn the player allocates RPs to them). [2016 December 18]


Q: May research results be kept secret if the player is willing to forego their benefit until a later point?
A: No. When the research result would affect play, it must be revealed. For example, suppose a faction gains a Combat Training research result. CTL is a modifier for attrition combat. If that faction attacks by attrition or defends against attrition, its CTL modifies the die roll. There is no choice of pretending to have a lower CTL, even if a harsher attrition result would be acceptable. [2007 Oct 1] [2007 Oct 5]


Q: Can a country benefit from a CTL increase obtained while it was neutral or even in a different faction? Can a minor country lose a CTL increase if it switches sides?
A: Yes. The CTL increases obtained by a faction apply to all current members of the faction (and only to current members of the faction) regardless of whether they were in the faction, neutral, or in another faction when that CTL increase was actually obtained. This is primarily for playability; players do not have to keep track of which minor countries benefit from a CTL increase based on the countries' past status. [2014 Mar 5]


Q: Why can the projects for airbases, ports, fortifications, and railheads be named several times per year, while other projects that likewise add only one item per turn (such as shipbuilding) can only be named once per year?
A: A player can decide on which turns in a year to add each individual airbase, port, fortification, or railhead, or whether to hold the production for a later turn or year. Therefore, they need to be named separately on each turn an item is produced. For shipbuilding, naval air training, synthetic oil plants, and ICs, once the project is named, the effects take place on that turn and the immediately succeeding turns. [2006 Nov 28]


Q: Do the limits on production apply to the categories individually or as a group?
A: They apply individually. For example, in 1940 a country could produce one increment of air, one increment of strategic bombers, one increment of air transports, one increment of military, and one increment of specialized units. An increment triggered and then deferred into a later year counts against the year it is triggered. [2014 Jan 19] [2014 Nov 18]

Q: How does this rule interact with deferring production BRPs?
A: It is the "triggering" of the increments of BRPs that is limited, whether or not they are deferred. Russia could trigger 5 BRPs of military production in 1940, producing a 3x3 and deferring 2 BRPs; then trigger another 5 BRPs of military production in 1941, producing 2 3x3s and deferring 1 BRPs. This is legal, even though 6 BRPs of infantry are added to the force pool in 1941. [2015 May 27]


Q: When air or ground units are produced, when must the exact units being added to the force pool be announced?
A: When the increments of production are triggered, the units are immediately added to the force pool and/or some BRPs of production may be deferred. If BRPs are deferred, they may either be used for production in a later year (42.336A), or combined with mobilization in a later turn (42.336B). There is no provision for using deferred BRPs for production in a later turn of the same year; therefore the decision as to what units to add to the force pool by production cannot be spread over several turns in the same year. [2007 Jan 10]


Q: If two shipbuilding points, NAT increases, oil plants, or ICs are produced in a year, when are the increases announced?
A: You select the project and activate the RPs in a single turn (probably spring), even though you might achieve multiple results. The number of results is based on the number of RPs activated and the number of breakthroughs achieved at the time the project is selected. The turn the project is selected fixes the schedule for announcing the results (one result per turn, starting that turn). Unlike airbases, ports, forts, and railheads, these projects can only be selected once per year; you must have all the breakthroughs needed for the number of results you want before selecting the project and announcing any of the results. You only announce and can use the first result in spring; the second result is announced and can be used in summer. Your opponent will not know whether there are multiple results until each is announced. This is the same mechanism as is used for "phased" research projects, such as ASW research. If there is a choice in how to apply the second or subsequent result (which shipyard to expand, which major power to which to assign the NAT increase), the choice need not be made until that subsequent result is announced. [2009 Dec 3]


Q: When are winter preparation production results announced?
A: At the start of each winter turn. If the winter preparation project is not selected until later in a winter turn, it has no effect in the current turn and is not announced until the start of the winter turn in the following year. See 34.444B. [2006 May 19]


Q: May Japan build fortifications in 1939?
A: RPs may not be allocated to production in 1939 (42.16), which prevents any power other than Japan from building fortifications in 1939. However, Japanese fortifications do not require RPs and thus may be built in 1939. [2009 Sep 27]


Q: When does the Russian player designate a unit as a shock army?
A: Russia must designate a unit as a shock army during movement in order for it to overstack, or during combat in order for it to exceed the normal limit of two attacking units per hex. In the case of a bridgehead hex, overstacking may not be an issue, so Russia may not have to designate the shock army during movement; however it would have to designate units as shock armies at the moment of attack (SoP step 6.l.i, designate attacking and defending ground units) in order to exceed the normal limit of two attacking units per hex. [2005 May 16]

Q: May multiple units designated as shock armies overstack in or attack from the same hex, if the Russian player has multiple shock army results?
A: Yes. There is no limit on the number of shock armies overstacked in a hex, but only three can be used for any one attack. [2006 Nov 7]


Q: May RPs be placed in Uranium Plant (or Plutonium Reactor) production before an '8' or greater result is achieved for uranium separation (or plutonium production) research?
A: Yes, though the production RPs may not be triggered until the corresponding research result is achieved; see 41.32.


Q: May Free French infantry be produced in the same turn as a three-factor British infantry unit?
A: Yes; the Free French units become something like the Commonwealth units of India and Australia. [2006 Apr 19]

Q: May Indian units be produced prior to the outbreak of war and Spring 1942, if they are immediately converted to a Chindit (10.65A)?
A: No. The units converted to the Chindit must be "removed" from the British force pool, so must have been added to the force pool. And Indian units may not be added to the force pool until the conditions are met. [2015 Apr 30]


Q: May production from projects in which each result generates a "factor" of units (air transports, etc.) be deferred in the same manner as from projects in which each result generates "5 BRPs" of units? This could be used to "activate and reserve" production in the same way as is explicitly allowed for heavy armor.
A: No. [2005 Sep 11]


Q: Does an armor (or an AAF) generated by a combination of mobilization and production count as the one armor (or one AAF) that Russia must mobilize (36.32A, 36.32C)?.
A: Yes. Deferred production may be used in conjunction with mobilization to mobilize units; it is clear that a unit generated from a combination of production and mobilization BRPs is still being "mobilized". If one military production BRP and two air production BRPs are added to a 20-BRP Russian mobilization, it expands the mobilization to 23 BRPs. Of those 23 BRPs, at least one AAF and one armor must be mobilized (36.32); a 4o5 armor, 1 AAF, and four 3x3 infantry would be a legal mobilization, even though the only AAF is being mobilized in part by production BRPs. In 42.336B, "... to mobilize one additional air factor or ground unit ... " should be read as meaning "... to mobilize an air factor or ground unit in addition to the units that are produced ..."; it does not mean an air unit must be mobilized with 100% mobilization BRPs before an additional air unit may be mobilized using (some) production BRPs. [2015 Dec 10]

Q: When air or military production is added to a mobilization, can those production BRPs be used to mobilize any unit that it is legal to mobilize?
A: When production BRPs are added to a mobilization, they retain their "type". Military production BRPs can only be used to mobilize military units; air production BRPs can only be used to mobilize air units. If 2 BRPs of air production are added to a 20-BRP US mobilization, mobilizing a 5o6 armor and four 3x4 infantry is not legal, because the air production BRPs cannot be used to mobilize non-air units. [2015 Dec 9]


Q: When are deferred production BRPs considered to "produce": in the turn they are deferred or in the turn they are used?
A: The limit is on the triggering of the production RPs. Russia could, for example, trigger 5 BRPs in 1940 to produce one 3x3 and defer two BRPs, then trigger 5 BRPs in 1941 to produce two 3x3s and continue to defer one BRP. [2013 Jul 24]

Q: Which specific production projects are limited by this rule?
A: "Military production" in 42.337 is used in the same way as it is used in 42.16B, and means the specific "infantry, armor, flak" project (42.24A), not all of the production projects in the military category (42.24). Likewise, "air production" in 42.337 means the specific "air force pool increases" project (42.22A), not all of the air projects in 42.22. [2013 Sep 8]


Q: Does researching the Atomic Bomb project consume the material for the bomb?
A: No. Material for a bomb must be available before rolling for the Atomic Bomb, but the material is not consumed, regardless of the result of the research roll. [2007 Sep 6]


Q: If uranium or plutonium becomes available after a number of turns, when during the future turn does it become available?
A: At the start of the turn. So if a reactor is constructed in Summer 1944 (production RPs activated in the summer unit construction phase) and the research result says each plant produces enough material for a bomb after three turns, then fission begins in summer, continues in fall, and concludes in winter. The material is then available at the start of the spring game turn, and the Atomic Bomb project can be rolled for in Spring 1945.

Q: If a research result is obtained that lowers the number of turns required to obtain fissionable material after production has already begun, when is the material received?
A: The player has the option of keeping the "old" reactor (continuing to operate according to the previous result) or upgrading to a "new" reactor (starting over and operating according to the new result). Generally the new result is better, but suppose the previous result (obtained two turns ago) generated material after three turns, while the new result (obtained this turn) generates material after two turns; in that case it is faster to finish waiting three turns than it would be to start waiting two turns. It never makes sense to defer the upgrade, continuing to produce the current batch of material under the old result and then beginning to produce subsequent batches of material under the new result. Plutonium reactors produce additional material every two turns regardless of research result, so upgrading the reactors only gives a possible advantage in producing the first batch of material. Uranium plants produce additional material every four turns (except for results of 11 or 12+), so upgrading only speeds up subsequent batches of material if the new result is 11 or 12+ -- and in that case upgrading immediately (because those results produce the initial batch of material immediately) always makes sense. [2008 Dec 11]


Q: Does damage from a positive net SW combat modifier during strategic bombing allow a strategic atomic attack?
A: No; at least one strategic bomber factor must be unaffected by the air combat and SW defense rolls. Damage done by a positive net SW combat modifier (24.65A) is not sufficient to allow an atomic attack. [2011 Jan 4]


Q: May more than one plutonium bomb be dropped on the same hex, in the same turn, for strategic effect?
A: The rules limit each hex to one strategic atomic attack per game, but failed attacks don't count. If the first plutonium bomb fails, a second can be immediately used, and the modifier from the first failure will increase the likelihood that the second bomb detonates successfully. [2010 Mar 26]


Q: If the Western Allies and Germany suspend hostilities, may either side take unoccupied hexes from the other? Inflict partisan damage?
A: With the cessation of hostilities, hex control is fixed. Neither side can occupy hexes controlled by the other side. No offensive operations, strategic warfare, or attritions against the other side are allowed. Partisans deployed against the other side are removed and cannot be rebuilt until war is resumed. Western Allied BRPs cannot be sent to Russia (lest the Germans blow up Washington!). Isolated hexes do not evaporate (29.31) because these are no longer enemy hexes; they are neutral to each other. If Russia is at war with Germany, Russia remains an "Allied" power; 3.11 says Russia is not Allied "until", not "unless". [2014 Mar 12] [2014 Mar 15] [2014 Mar 19]


Q: May a tactical atomic attack be used in an attack at less than 1:1 odds if the result of the attack would improve the odds to 1:1?
A: No. A tactical atomic attack does not change the odds of the attack; it merely defines the result of the first round of the attack. To use a tactical atomic attack, the combat odds must already be 1:1 or greater; the result of that attack is automatically a 'd', which will improve the odds in the second round. [2017 May 8]


Q: When are Vlasov units constructed?
A: Vlasovs are constructed during the construction phase. The qualifier "at the start of the player turn" means that the Axis must have controlled the city at the start of the player turn, not that the construction happens at the start of the player turn (in any Axis-controlled city). [2017 Apr 14]


Q: May Germany produce Russian Occupation Policy results before going to war with Russia, perhaps allowing multiple results to be announced at one time after declaring war on Russia?
A: Yes. [2009 Jul 6]


Q: Must the information gained by a Russian spy ring be shared with the Western Allies, and vice versa?
A: No. The owner of the spy ring may choose to withhold information on DP allocations and code names from the other faction. [2006 Apr 2]


Q: Is hex control of a minor sufficient to eliminate an opposing spy ring, or is association or alliance required?
A: Hex control eliminates opposing spy rings in minor countries. [2005 Jul 22]


Q: Can a Covert Op be activated in for USAT in 1942?
A: Yes. Although DPs cannot be activated for USAT in 1942 or later (49.81B), there is no similar restrictions on Covert Ops. [2015 May 27]


Q: If two diplomatic rolls are simultaneous (suppose the Western Allies attack two Vichy colonies simultaneously), does a covert operation affect both rolls?
A: A covert operation always affects only a single diplomatic die roll. [2009 May 28]


Q: May a Russian covert operation be used "offensively" in a target called by the Western Allies, either alone or along with a Western Allied covert operation?
A: Yes, provided the Russo-Allied cooperation rules are not otherwise violated. [2005 Oct 15]


Q: If an opponent plays a strategic card to aid in interception and the player chooses not to immediate play a strategic card to negate the bonus, may the player choose to negate the bonus later in the turn (before a more meaningful interception attempt, perhaps)?
A: No. The opponent's bonus must be canceled immediately or not at all. Once the first interception roll is made, the bonus is in play and remains so for the resof the player turn; either you can read the opponent's codes or you can't -- the ability does not appear and disappear. See also 48.32C. [2018 Apr 12]


Q: May an ASW codebreaking card be played even if there are no ASW units in the affected SW box?
A: Yes. The ASW codebreaking card both adds to the friendly ASW roll and subtracts from the enemy submarine roll. With no ASW units in the SW box, no ASW roll is made, but the ASW codebreaking modifier will still reduce the enemy's submarine roll and limit the extra damage done by unaborted submarines and any net positive SW modifier. [2010 Nov 4]


Q: May strategic codebreaking cards be played immediately before the second raider engagement roll?
A: No; the second raider engagement roll uses exactly modifiers as the first raider engagement roll (21.538A), so a newly-played strategic codebreaking card would have no effect. Strategic codebreaking cards played to affect raider rolls must be played before the first engagement attempt. [2017 Jul 10]


Q: If multiple fleet combats occur in a single round of naval combat, does a tactical codebreaking card affect all of them?
A: A tactical card affects fleet combat between a single pair of opposing CGs. If there are multiple fleet combats in a single round (e.g., CG1 vs. CG1, CG2 vs. CG4), the player must specify which of the fleet combats the card will modify. [2011 Jan 11] [2011 Jan 20]


Q: Are MAGIC interceptions subject to the 20-hex maximum Pacific theater interception range (21.3611)?
A: No; so long as the other requirements are met, there is no range limitation for MAGIC interceptions. [2015 May 17]

Q: Can a slow TF conduct a MAGIC interception?
A: Yes; it will not be as useful in combat as a fast TF, but a slow TF can conduct a MAGIC interception. [2015 May 17]

Q: If some TFs intercept a Japanese mission normally while other TFs perform MAGIC interceptions, how are the two interceptions resolved?
A: MAGIC interception is "just" an automatic interception with an additional search benefit. If the normal interceptions are successful, a single naval battle is resolved. If the normal interceptions fail (such that those naval forces would join the naval combat sometime after the first round), then those late-arriving naval forces join the naval combat being fought as a result of the MAGIC interception (assuming it is still underway when they arrive). Also note that although MAGIC interceptions occur in step 6b of the Sequence of Play while normal interceptions occur in step 6e, the naval combat in either case is not resolved until step 6g. [2012 Jun 16]

Q: If some TFs intercept a Japanese mission normally while other TFs perform MAGIC interceptions, how is counter-interception resolved?
A: TFs performing MAGIC interceptions cannot be counter-intercepted. However, if the TFs intercepting normally are counter-intercepted in the interception hex, the resulting naval combat will include all the TFs present, including those that performed MAGIC interception. If the TFs intercepting normally are counter-intercepted in a hex other than the interception hex, the resulting naval combat does not involve any TFs performing MAGIC interceptions, even if those TFs could have traced a 10-hex path through the counter-interception hex, along the same route as the TFs intercepting normally. TFs performing MAGIC interceptions do not sail through the hexes along the 10-hex path from the operational port; they arrive by some route different than any other intercepting TF. [2010 Apr 1]

Q: Are there any range limits on the route by which the intercepting TF returns to base after a Magic interceptions?
A: After naval combat, the only requirement is that the American TF return to its original base. It may do so by whatever route of whatever length it wishes; it need not even remain on the Pacific front for its entire path. All intercepting naval units must return to the original base, whether or not they remain in the TF, are damaged, withdraw from naval combat, etc. [2007 Jul 4]

Q: May the U.S. perform a Magic interception of a Japanese raiding mission from Noumea?
A: No; the specific rules for opposing raiders must be followed. Also the interception hex must be within three hexes of the destination of the mission, which it is not (the Pacific SW box is 8 hexes off the south edge of the mapboard). [2008 Apr 12]

Q: Must the TF performing a Magic interception of a Japanese mission be based in the port from which it traces a path to the interception hex?
A: No. The TF must be on the Pacific front, and the operational port must be within ten hexes of the interception hex, but the TF need not be based in that operational port. The Magic interception models an intelligence failure; in the critical moment, the TF was not based where the Japanese thought! [2010 Nov 7]

Q: Is the "port of origin" to which the intercepting TF returns its original base or the port from which it traces the path to the interception hex?
A: The intercepting TF returns to its original port; the port ten hexes from the interception hex is just an intermediate port used to fulfill a range requirement. [2012 Aug 19]


Q: Is Axis exploitation movement "an Axis movement phase" such that loss of an undefended Russian objective or IC costs Russia a DP?
A: No; exploitation movement occurs during the combat phase. The wording is "an" rather than "the" because it could have occurred during any one of the four Axis player turns in the year. [2012 Apr 19]


Q: If multiple targets are selected, does the order in which the rolls are made matter for whether the +2 modifier for Russian subversion applies to each target?
A: The +2 modifier for Russian subversion applies to each target (other than the one subverted) called; the order of rolling makes no difference. See 49.634A, which specifies this in the case of reaction rolls. [2010 Jan 21]


Q: Do unbuilt neutral Vichy air/armor units modify a diplomatic roll for Vichy, even though those units cannot legally be rebuilt?
A: Yes. This situation can occur if neutral Vichy air/armor units are eliminated, if associated air/armor units are eliminated (84.47C), etc. There are no exceptions for unbuilt units, other than those permanently eliminated because the minor switched sides. [2010 Nov 4]

Q: Do minor country units that have never been placed on the map count as "unbuilt"?
A: No. Such units are built, just not yet deployed (82.51) on the map. Minor country units could not be immediately deployed if they were actually unbuilt, because of the limits on building minor country units (82.83C, 84.47). [2013 Apr 2] [2014 Oct 5]


Q: If a one-time minor ally or associated minor country is conquered, does it still provide a modifier to other diplomatic die rolls? For example, suppose Greece was associated with the Allies, but was conquered; if the Allies now call Turkey, is there a -2 modifier for Greece having associated with the Allies?
A: No, based on the wording of the -3 modifier (Greece "is" a minor ally). Once Greece is conquered, it is no longer a minor ally, and the modifier does not apply. By extension, the modifier for association would also not apply. [2006 Jan 22]


Q: What does it mean to "economically penetrate" a minor country?
A: When a major power gains BRPs from a minor country via a diplomatic result of '7' (for the Axis) or '0' (for the Allies), the major power has economically penetrated, or gained an economic interest in, the minor country. [Post #112696 -- 2008 Jul 30]


Q: May Russia name Greece for a diplomatic roll while Greece is independently at war with a neutral Italy?
A: If a neutral Italy declares war on Greece, Greece becomes a minor country independently at war. Russia may name Greece for a diplomatic control, but may accept a '-3' (alliance), '-2' (association), or '-1' (hex control) result only if it goes to war with Italy. Since Russia may not declare war on Italy without also declaring war on Germany (50.32F), Russia will most likely be forced to accept a lesser diplomatic result, perhaps a '0' (economic penetration). Since neither Italy nor Greece is friendly to or an enemy of Russia, there will be no modifiers for friendly/enemy units. Any unbuilt Greek units will adversely modify the Russian diplomatic roll. [2011 Jul 22]

Q: What happens if Germany obtains a (new) economic interest in a country with which Russia is already at war? This can happen if Russia attacks a neutral Rumania but does not immediately conquer it, and then Germany rolls for Rumania and obtains an economic interest before the Russo-Rumanian war ends?
A: Germany must either declare war on Russia during the player turn, or choose to take a lesser result. Just as Germany must declare war on Russia or lose an existing economic interest, it may not accept a new economic interest without going to war with Russia. See 69.22. [2017 Jul 6]


Q: What is the timing for the application of the status modifiers for mobilizations, if the power mobilizes during the turn?
A: Status modifiers (other than the modifiers for powers at war) apply if the situation exists at the start of the game turn or arises during the game turn. This does not mean that if a situation arises (or will arise) during a game turn, that the status modifer is retroactively increased as of the start of the game turn! Instead, the status modifier is applied at the beginning of the game turn for the situation that exists at that point; if the situation changes during the game turn, the status modifier may be increased later in the turn as well.
For example, if Russia has mobilized twice, a +2 status modifier will be applied at the beginning of the game turn for the two ICs already on the board at that point. If Russia mobilizes a third time during the turn, and places its third IC on the board (during the unit construction phase), there will be an additional +1 status modifier applied during the unit construction phase. This later +1 tick has no effect on things that happen earlier in the game turn, such as suprise determination for an Axis declaration of war. [2017 May 5]


Q: When USJT reach 37, may the U.S. immediately deploy three factors of infantry, or must it wait for a legitimate time in the turn sequence to do so?
A: The tension increase allows certain actions, but they still must be performed legally. The U.S. would have to sea transport, invade, or sea escort the units, at an appropriate point in their turn sequence. The tension increase does not allow the U.S. to perform otherwise forbidden actions during the Japanese player turn, or even out of the normal sequence during its own turn. [2005 Jul 13]


Q: Does the final effective USJT roll affect whether Japan achieves surprise (51.71) when attacking the U.S.?
A: Yes. The effective tension roll that occurs immediately upon Japan's declaration of war affects the tensions at the moment Japan declares war (the roll affects when the U.S. goes on alert: 49.852D). Thus, if USJT are 38 or 39, there is a chance that the final USJT roll will cost Japan the advantage of surprise. The effective USJT determined by the roll made during the Allied player turn only lasts until the end of the Allied player turn (49.852C). Normally only the actual USJT is used during the Axis player turn, so the references to "effective USJT" in 51.71 must refer to the result of the roll made immediately after the Japanese declaration of war. [2008 Jan 4]


Q: When does the +3 modifier for Britain "in a state of surrender" apply?
A: Britain must have offered a surrender, Germany must have accepted the offer, and the British resistance level calculated at the end of the previous turn must have been zero or lower. [2010 Nov 16]


Q: Who pays for offensive operations for Ukrainian units provided by a result of '5' or more (but less than association or full alliance)?
A: The Ukrainian units are added to the German force pool; Germany pays for their offensive options, even though they are not yet associated or allied. The difference between a '9' (associated) and '10' (allied) result is the modifier for future rolls, the adjustment to the cost of Russian Occupation Policies, and that allied Ukrainians (but not associated Ukrainians) could be redeployed. [2005 Apr 20]


Q: If Turkey is allied with Britain and there is a British ground unit in Istanbul, does the modifier for "U.S./British armor or infantry forces are in a bridgehead or port on the European continent outside of France" apply?
A: Yes. Istanbul is a port on the European continent. [2015 May 1]


Q: Is a declaration of war against the controlling major power sufficient to allow a country to enter or attack into a controlled minor country?
A: No. True, you must declare war on the major power in order to enter or attack a minor country controlled by the major power (50.23). But declaring war on the major power does not put you at war with the controlled minor: you end up at war with the major power and its allies, associated minors, and colonies (50.521) ... but not its controlled minor countries. In order to attack the minor country (or enemy units in the minor country), one must *also* declare war on the minor country (82.41); the exceptions when a DoW is not needed (82.42) do not include minor countries controlled by a major power. 50.23 would perhaps be clearer if it distinguished between minor countries that are allied, associated, or conquered -- where a DoW against the major power is all that is needed; and neutral minor countries whose hexes are controlled by a major power. 82.41 covers that latter case -- you still need to DoW the minor country as well. [2014 Dec 14]


Q: If Japan reduces the Manchurian garrison below 30 BRPs and then brings the garrison back up to 30 BRPs several turns later, may Russia still declare war?
A: No. The value of the garrison is checked each turn; what was (or was not) allowed on a prior turn is irrelevant. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: Are naval units that are part of an invasion force sufficient to meet the requirements of a declaration of war, even if all of the invading ground units belong to an alliance partner?
A: Yes. German destroyers carrying invading Italian (only) ground units still meet the requirement of a German declaration of war. The requirement is met even if the invasion is intercepted and turned back before ever reaching the minor country. [2011 Jun 4]


Q: Does a Japanese declaration of war against the U.S. place the U.S. at war with Germany?
A: Although Japan and Germany are both opposed to the Western Allies, they are in different factions and are not allies of each other. The progress towards U.S. involvement in each theater is tracked separately, via USAT and USJT (though there are modifiers on each tension track for the status of or events in the other theater). The U.S. may be at war with Japan but not Germany, at war with Germany but not Japan, or may be attacked or go to war in both theaters in the same player turn. [2010 Jun 21]


Q: What is the status of Australia after a Japanese declaration of war on Britain (only)?
A: The declaration of war places Japan at war with Australia, but at the start of the following Allied player turn Australia comes under U.S. protection and may not be attacked. (Note that Australia is too far from any Japanese ports to be attacked on the turn Japan declares war.) Australian units are under no restrictions, and may attack Japanese units at will. They must follow the usual rules for oil consumption, etc. Japan may continue to attack Australian units, but only those Australians in areas not under U.S. protection. If Japan does not like the restrictions under which it must operate against the Australians, they are free to declare war on the U.S. to end the restrictions. [2005 Aug 26-28, 2008 Jan 28]


Q: May the Japanese strike force sent to Pearl Harbor be based anywhere other than Japan?
A: Yes. The rules state that the strike force must return to Japan (51.52), but there is no requirement that it come from Japan. [2007 Jul 7]


Q: If Japan declares war on the U.S. but does not attack Pearl Harbor, how is the location of the Pacific Fleet determined?
A: If Pearl Harbor is not attacked, the entire Pacific Fleet is based in Pearl Harbor. [2006 Mar 9]

Q: The Pearl Harbor Surprise Table says that the American air defense level is reduced by one and Japanese attack rolls against naval units and surprised air units are increased by one. Is this in addition to effects of the surprise roll?
A: No; the Pearl Harbor Surprise Table is simply restating the effects of surprise levels 2 and 3. Surprise level 1 does not apply (there is no CAP), and surprise levels 4 and above are reproduced on the Pearl Harbor Surprise Table. [Post #121344 -- 2010 Feb 6]


Q: When computing the Pearl Harbor surprise level, are tensions increased by +4 for the declaration of war against Britain, or by +2 for two offensives?
A: No. The Britain and the U.S. are attacked simultaneously, so there are no tension effects from one declaration when determining the effects of the other (50.12); thus the +4 USJT for the Japanese declaration of war against Britain does not apply. The offensives come after the declarations of war, and are also too late to affect the surprise level at Pearl Harbor. [2005 Apr 11-12] [2010 May 7]


Q: Do Magic cards played at Pearl Harbor affect the surprise roll?
A: Magic cards played at Pearl Harbor affect the effective USJT, which determines which column of the Pearl Harbor table to use when resolving the attack. The surprise modifier in that column will be used to modify Japan's surprise roll. In most cases this will be +6. In some cases Japan will be able to deduce that Allied Magic cards were [secretly] played to adjust the column, because the surprise modifier will be different than what would be expected simply from the actual USJT, the effective USJT die roll, and any Japanese Magic cards played. [2009 Jun 29]


Q: If only the oil counters in Pearl Harbor are targeted in a second air strike, is there still an Air Defense roll?
A: Yes. Note that the Air Defense roll occurs before the attacker has even announced the targets of the attack. [2006 Mar 5]


Q: Does the Japanese force also deploy into separate combat groups?
A: No; the Japanese force forms a single combat group. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: If a Japanese unit invades an undefended clear-terrain beach, does it pay a movement point to debark?
A: Yes. The unit pays the "normal" movement cost (with a cross-reference to 21.437A), not the special surprise-reduced cost to transport described in 31.72D. [2012 Jun 17]


Q: During the surprise turn, may the American player use a wild Magic card as a strategic card for purposes other than modifying the Pearl Harbor attack?
A: A wild Magic card played as a strategic card is subject to the same limitations as playing a "real" strategic card. Using a wild Magic card to improve interception chances (or to conduct Magic interceptions) is not allowed during the surprise Japanese player turn. [2009 Apr 22]

Q: May the Western Allies begin the game by setting up units in jungle/mountain hexes that do not contain a city?
A: No; the scenario deployment restrictions prohibit British, Indian, and Australian units from ending a turn in jungle/mountain hexes without cities. [2009 Sep 30]

Q: May the Australian AAF stage into Port Moresby on the first Allied turn following the initial Japanese attack?
A: No. Flying into a hex is entering it by air, not "by sea". The AAF could potentially be sea escorted into Port Moresby during redeployment, but then the Japanese have an opportunity to contest the "reinforcement" of the jungle/mountain hex. [2015 Jun 21]

Q: May DDs that cannot be used for sea escort following a Pearl Harbor attack be used to accompany sea escort, allowing them to absorb losses and prevent the elimination of ground/air units?
A: The additional DDs may perform any activity so long as they do not sea escort (carry) units on the mapboard. Protecting a naval mission, including sea escort, is permitted. [2010 Jun 24] [2012 Nov 27]

Q: Is the total number or halved number of Pacific transports used to determine the number of oil counters that can be sea escorted?
A: The half of the transports that cannot be used are still there, undamaged; they just cannot be used. If there are ten transports, then four oil counters can be shipped. Only five transports may be used, so if four oil are shipped only one transport would be left to sea escort units. [2011 Mar 11]

Q: May Dutch air units stage or Dutch naval units change base while limited by 51.73A?
A: No. Staging or changing base is how air and naval units move during the movement phase. [2010 Feb 10]

Q: May the Western Allies attack a patrolling submarine during their first turn after a surprise attack?
A: No; attacking a patrolling submarine is an offensive action (9.21B) and is prohibited even though no BRPs are spent for such an attack. [2012 Nov 19]


Q: What are the limitations on Chinese units if the Western Allies are not surprised?
A: The same limitations on Chinese units apply whether the Western Allies are surprised by the Japanese attack or not. Those limitations are laid out in 52.6. 51.74 should be removed from the section on Allied unpreparedness. [2010 Dec 10]


Q: Must the allowable Spanish or Vichy volunteers be sent to the eastern front immediately?
A: The diplomatic result allows a number of units to be sent as volunteers, but they need not be sent immediately. As long as all the allowed volunteers have not yet been sent, and the diplomatic result has not been reversed, volunteers may be sent. For example, if two volunteers are allowed, one volunteer may be sent; if the unit is lost in Russia, it may be rebuilt and sent again as the second volunteer. [2010 Nov 14]


Q: Since the effect of a diplomatic result includes the effects of lesser diplomatic results, can't Spanish or Vichy units be lent for use on the eastern front after a "10" diplomatic result?
A: If Spain or Vichy France allies with the Axis, they are free to send units to the eastern front without limitation. The geographical restrictions for Spain (85.46E) and Vichy France (85.46H) both include the eastern front; there is no need to lend volunteers. Pragmatically, it would be hard to keep track of which units on the eastern front were volunteers if there were a mix of volunteer and allied units, so after a "10" result there are no longer any volunteers. Allied units sent to the eastern from are not immune from the -1 DM for defending outside their home country in the same way as volunteers (15.33B, 52.52).


Q: May British air units withdraw from counterair combat to a French colony?
A: Not while Anglo-French cooperation restrictions are in effect. The cooperation restrictions are reciprocal (53.27), so apply equally to France and Britain. There is an exception for displaced naval units (53.243), but no exception for displaced air units or (as is the case with this question) air units that voluntarily withdraw from air combat. [2007 Mar 14]


Q: May British air units provide air cover for a British supply line in the destination port, if that port contains French ground units?
A: Yes, the air units are considered to be operating in the water portion of the hex, while the ground units are considered to be operating in the land portion of the hex. The British and French units are therefore not "in contact". [2007 Oct 29] [2011 Jul 23]

Q: May French naval units protect a supply line to British units in British-controlled Malta?
A: Yes. French naval units may not base in a British colony or possession, but only enter the water portion of destination hex while protecting supply. The French naval units could enter the water portion of the hex even if Malta were Axis-controlled; Anglo-French cooperation restrictions are not more onerous than Franco-German cooperation restrictions! If the supply line does not use a transport, the French naval force would have to include a French destroyer. [2008 Sep 14-16]

Q: May British and French units combine to engage raiders?
A: No. Analogous to the 53.251H ("British and French naval units may not attempt to intercept the same enemy naval activity"), British and French naval units may not attempt to intercept the same raider group. For the first engagement, either nation may attempt to engage, but the decision must be made before rolling the die for the first engagement roll. The same is true for the second engagement, except that if one nation has surviving undamaged ships from the first engagement, the other nation cannot attempt to engage (as that would combine naval units from both nations into one naval battle). [2012 Jul 23]


Q: May British and French air units stack together during redeployment?
A: Yes. Just as 53.231 allows British and air units to enter prohibited hexes mid-redeployment, a British air unit may use an air base containing French air units as part of a chain of bases. [2012 Oct 6]


Q: May a Russian ground unit use an Allied railhead to SR?
A: No. Although this cooperation rule bars "Russian air and naval units" from using Western Allied railheads, the normal redeployment rules require that the objection (and a railhead turns an ordinary city into an objective for SR purposes - 28.655A) be controlled by the redeploying alliance faction. Since Russia and the Western Allies are in different factions (3.11), the normal SR rules already prohibit Russian ground units from using Western Allied railheads. [2015 May 31]


Q: May Western Allied units enter a minor country allied or associated with Russia?
A: Yes; the only restriction is on entering Russia itself. Note that Russian controlled ports may not be used by any Western Allied naval missions (other than BRP/oil grants to Russia), however (53.46). [2008 Sep 28] [2011 Feb 8]

Q: Does the ZoC of a Western Allied armor unit extend into Russia?
A: Although the Western Allied armor unit cannot enter Russia, the ZoC of an armor unit adjacent to Russia does extend into Russia and affects Axis movement, supply, etc. [2009 Mar 28]


Q: May Western Allied units enter hexes controlled by Communist China, or stack with Communist Chinese units?
A: No. Western Allied and Communist Chinese units may never enter each other's hexes or stack together, regardless of whether Communist China is independent or allied with Russia, and regardless of the Chinese resistance level. [Post #112320 -- 2008 Jun 4]


Q: When, specifically, is a British surrender resolved?
A: Major power surrenders are resolved near the end of the Allied player turn: step 14 in the sequence of play. If a British surrender allows the oil embargo to be declared, the Allies may do so (33.45211); if a British surrender triggers a Japanese mobilization, Japan is considered to have mobilized in the previous Japanese player turn (36.11C). [2009 Jul 24]


Q: Does a carried-forward deficit have any effect on the BRP total used for DP calculations in a surrender calculation?
A: No. The current BRP level has no effect on the calculation. A deficit is incorporated into the current BRP level during the YSS, and never again comes into play independently. [2011 Mar 6]


Q: Are there any geographical restrictions on the Italian units gained by the U.S. or Germany after an Italian surrender?
A: No, other than that they are limited to the European theater. Only British (including Commonwealth), Russian, and American ground units may operate in both theaters, and have dual movement factors printed on the counters (6.11). No Italian units of any type controlled by either faction may operate in the Pacific theater (27.51). [Post #111880 -- 2008 May 19-21] [2012 Mar 25]


Q: If Italy surrenders while the U.S. is still neutral, what happens to the Allied post-surrender Italian units?
A: They units are added to the neutral U.S. force pool. However, they must be built by the U.S. in an American-controlled hex in Italy (56.33), and there will be none until the U.S. and Germany are at war. [2007 Feb 16-17] [2007 Jun 4]


Q: When does Germany receive the BRPs for Italian KEAs that pass to German control when Italy surrenders?
A: Germany receives the BRPs at the end of the diplomatic phase in the next Axis player turn, as though the KEAs had been conquered from the Allies in the previous Axis player turn and had not been recaptured in the Allied player turn. If Italy surrenders in a winter turn, Germany receives the BRPs for the Italian KEAs in the subsequent YSS. [2005 Jun 12]


Q: Is a non-operational Italian air unit in Tangier (the Axis have a diplomatic result of '8' in Spain) sufficient to avoid the penalties for loss of Italian resolve?
A: Yes. The unit is Axis, and is in Africa, so it is sufficient. If the Allies want to break the Italian resolve, they have options including declaring war on Spain or reversing the Axis diplomatic result. Having Spain in the Axis camp would toughen Italian resolve, regardless of the game mechanic used show it. [2018 Jan 4]


Q: How do cumulative modifiers "cumulate"?
A: The modifiers accumulate, but they do not otherwise increase in value from turn to turn. For example, if Japan eliminates 25 BRPs of Allied units in a turn, it gains [only] a single permanent +1 modifier to its resistance level. To gain an additional modifier in the following turn, it must again eliminate another 25 BRPs of Allied units. [2015 Jul 7]


Q: Do ships sunk and air units destroyed in the Indian Ocean by Japanese raiders from Singapore help modify the Japanese resistance level (by counting towards the modifier for "+1 for every 25 BRPs" of units eliminated)?
A: Yes; the Japanese eliminated the units and the Japanese can't operate outside the Pacific theater. Although the Indian Ocean is shown on the map as being in the European theater, the Indian Ocean is in both theaters, depending on the context. [2012 Dec 11]

Q: Do Allied units eliminated by isolation or by the surrender of the Philippines or DEI count towards the modifier for "+1 for every 25 BRPs" of units eliminated?
A: Yes. Eliminated is eliminated, by whatever proximate cause. If you take them off the map, they count. Even units eliminated by the Allies via voluntary elimination count. [2014 May 20]

Q: Do units eliminated in the first two turns after Japan declares war count towards the cumulative Japanese resistance modifier?
A: Yes. The cumulative resistance modifiers for objectives and island groups only begins to accumulate at the end of the second game turn of war (so the Allies don't generate negative resistance points by holding 9 1/2 island groups before war breaks out!), but the modifier for units destroyed takes effect immediately. The Pearl Harbor attack is usually good for several resistance points all by itself. [2013 Apr 13]


Q: Does Japan gain resistance points for control of Russian objects before it is at war with the US?
A: No; resistance modifiers for control of objectives and island groups can be gained only starting at the end of the second turn following the outbreak of war between Japan and the US. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: How is the modifier for island groups controlled by Japan at its maximum expansion determined?
A: It is simply the maximum number of island groups simultaneously controlled at the end of any one game turn; it is not a cumulative +1 for any island group ever controlled. If Japan controls eight groups, then loses two of them but gains one that was not included in the eight, the modifier for eight groups (not nine) applies. Note that it is also not a true high water mark, as it is measured only after the Allied player turn; if Japan expands to 10 groups on its player turn and loses half a group on the Allied player turn, the modifier will only be +9. [2013 Jan 18] [[off-list]]

[organization] The modifier for Japanese island groups is listed as a situation modifier in the table, but the rules are under the cumulative modifier rules. It is really a bit different than either (it has nothing to do with the current situation, and it never "cumulates").


Q: What happens to ships in the Launch row (DDs, repaired ships) for the current season when Paris falls?
A: France may do no voluntarily construction once Paris is lost, but the "construction" on a ship in the launch row was initiated on a prior turn, and will continue to completion at no cost and without any act of will or explicit action on the part of France. The ships in the Launch row are launched automatically, even if Paris has fallen. [2009 Feb 6]


Q: How is the 42-factor value calculated for the French fleet?
A: 42 factors value is the normal "surrender" value for the fleet in Summer 1940. There are 34 at start factors (34), both under-construction CA2s will have launched (4), and both under-construction BB4s will have advanced to the '2' row and be counted at half value (4). [2015 Mar 28]


Rule Update [Clarification - Bruce Harper; 2018 Jun 13]
E. TURN OF SURRENDER: The French surrender level is modified based on how long it takes the Axis to conquer France:


Q: Are the hexes gained by the Axis as a result of a French surrender considered to be supplied (so that the Axis may place air bases in them at the start of the following turn)?
A: No. When hexes are considered to have been supplied, the rules explicitly say so (for example, 86.122). The Axis will be able to supply the hexes gained no earlier than initial supply determination of the following Axis player turn, and will not be able to place airbases in those hexes during the movement phase of that player turn. [2011 Mar 5]

Q: Is being removed from a hex inside Vichy France and placed on a breakthrough hex outside Vichy France considered conducting an offensive operation from within Vichy France (and is therefore disallowed)?
A: Yes. Placement on a breakthrough hex is defined as an offensive ground operation in 9.42B. [2005 Apr 25]

Q: What happens to a railhead in Vichy territory when France surrenders and Vichy is established?
A: It remains in play for use by whomever controls it. [2006 Apr 16]


Q: When France surrenders the French control a minor country they have conquered and a group of hexes in a minor country that France invaded but did not conquer. Neither may trace a land supply line to a Free French colony. Is the presence of a single British ground unit in the French conquest or in the group of hexes in the unconquered minor country sufficient to cause the hexes to pass to British control?
A: Yes. [official Q&A]


Q: What happens to French units in Axis-controlled former French colonies when France surrenders?
A: This situation may arise (for example) if there are French units in Oran conducting a fighting retreat towards Morocco, while the Axis have captured Algiers. In this case Algeria is an Axis-controlled colony, and the French units are removed from the board before establishing the Vichy and Free French forces (58.61). [2010 Apr 24]


Q: What happens if damaged or unfinished (on the '2' or 'Launch' row of the shipyard chart) French naval units are selected for either the Vichy or Free French fleets?
A: Such ships must still be repaired or finished. The ships remain in the port or shipyard they are in, unless control of the port changes to the other side. In that case, the ships move unimpeded to a friendly port within range (58.641); ships on the '2' or 'Launch' row of the shipbuilding chart are launched damaged before moving them. Damaged ships, whether already damaged or damaged as a result of being launched damaged when forced to move, must be repaired normally once they reach a friendly shipyard. [2006 Oct 12, 2010 Oct 17]

Q: May Free French units base in the South Africa box? Transfer to the Indian Ocean SW box? Oppose Axis or Japanese raiders in the Indian Ocean?
A: Yes to all. The South Africa box and Indian Ocean SW box are both on the European mapboard, and thus not part of the Pacific theater (3.11). Raider combat is fought in the SW box, so Indian Ocean raiders are actually engaged in the European theater. [2012 Jun 12]


Q: How long does it take to complete or repair neutral Vichy ships in Marseilles?
A: Although there is no BRP cost to a neutral Vichy for using shipbuilding points, continuing construction of a ship or repairing a ship in Marseilles still requires an available shipbuilding point and takes the usual number of turns. [Post #112024 -- 2008 May 27]


Q: If Vichy is established, how many BRPs is France worth to Germany as a conquest?
A: Germany would receive the 20 BRPs from the Paris KEA plus the 20 "general" BRPs for France, for a total of 40 (prorated). Germany would receive no BRPs for the Vichy-controlled KEAs of Marseille and Lyon.


Q: When, specifically, is a British surrender resolved?
A: Major power surrenders are resolved near the end of the Allied player turn: step 14 in the sequence of play. If a British surrender allows the oil embargo to be declared, the Allies may do so (33.45211); if a British surrender triggers a Japanese mobilization, Japan is considered to have mobilized in the previous Japanese player turn (36.11C). [2009 Jul 24]


Q: It seems that as the USAT level rises from <30 to 30-39 to 40+, the British Surrender Level modifier rises from 0 to +1 and +2, but then drops back to +1 (for another major power at war with Germany) once the U.S. joins the war. Can this be correct?
A: Yes, because once the U.S. is in the war, American naval units and ground/air units in England will generate positive modifiers that more than compensate for the decrease from the USAT modifiers. U.S. BRP grants to Britain and transport building by the U.S. will also tend to decrease the applicable negative modifiers. [2005 Jun 17]


Q: How does Britain offset oil effects if there is no Allied European oil reserve?
A: The Allies can ship oil to a controlled port in Britain (excluding Ulster) and consume those oil counters to offset oil effects. Note that even if the construction oil effect has no effect on Britain because all hexes are isolated or lost (33.65), it will still generate a -1 resistance modifier. [2006 Oct 20]


Q: Do unbuilt flak factors affect the British resistance level?
A: Yes; flak are ground factors. The flak rules (10.9) are part of the rule section on ground units and they are produced via military production, even though they have no ground combat factor and do not participate in attrition. Likewise flak factors on the western front affect the British resistance. [2011 Mar 18]


Q: Must the concessions within a category be taken in order?
A: No. All concessions of one category must be taken before any concession from the next category, but within a category they may be taken in any order desired. [2006 Nov 13]

Q: How are BRPs handled for territory that changes hands during the resolution of a British surrender?
A: They are treated as conquests. The Axis will gain the prorated BRP value in their next turn. The timing is a little off for the Allies, but it seems best to say the Allies lose the prorated BRP value immediately (as opposed to at the end of the combat phase for normal conquests). If the surrender occurs in winter, the Allies will not have the territories during the YSS. There is no rule allowing the Allies to hold to the territories until the spring turn, as there is for winter Allied conquests of Axis territories (35.64). [2006 Nov 13]


Q: When a British associated/allied minor returns to its original status, what exactly does that entail?
A: The minor reverts to being a minor neutral. However, the minor country's units remain on the mapboard (82.51) and will not have a chance to re-deploy if the minor is immediately attacked again (82.52), and any other side effects of its pro-Allied status remain. For example, if Germany declared war on Spain and caused it to associate with Britain, demanding Spanish neutrality as a concession does not cancel the effects of the German declaration of war; Germany may never again call Spain as a diplomatic target (49.435), Spain will never associate or ally with Germany (82.351), the -2 Balkan diplomatic modifier remains in force, Italy continues to receive one less DP each year, etc. Germany could declare war on Spain again, paying the BRP and USAT costs again as well. [2009 Oct 5]


Q: What happens to Axis partisans other than Wafdists, or to Wafdists if Britain surrenders after the U.S. has entered the war?
A: If Axis partisans remain in a territory controlled by Britain but the Axis are at peace with Britain following the U.S. election (59.92), the existing Axis partisans cannot move or attack (11.41) and cause no economic damage (11.71). The existing partisans are not withdrawn (59.522), but no additional partisans can be built in the territory (11.353B). Both Britain and the U.S. will be subject to U.S. election result "-3" (no offensive operations) for some time (62.44, U.S. Election Table), so will not be able to attack the partisans. Essentially the partisans abide by the truce between the Axis and Britain. There may be a window of turns where the Axis and Britain are at war (because the "-7" U.S. election result has been voided by increasing USAT) and therefore the partisans can move, attack, and do economic damage, but Britain cannot attack the partisans (because the "-3" U.S. election result prohibiting offensive activity is still in effect). [2010 Nov 5]


Q: If the Axis do not use all the concession points to which they are entitled, do the unused points modify the British resistance level?
A: Only concession points that the Axis voluntarily forbear from using modify the British resistance level. Any resistance points that could not be used because there were not enough eligible concessions are simply lost, and do not modify the resistance level. [2010 Jan 18]


Q: If Britain has surrendered with a -10 surrender level, and the British resistance level drops below -10, what happens?
A: Britain will surrender again (if allowed), because the resistance level has dropped below the former surrender level (59.861A); since the resistance level is below -10, Germany must accept the surrender. However, the new surrender level can be at worst -10 (59.41). Therefore there is no difference between the old surrender level and the new surrender level, and Germany is not entitled to extract any further concessions or force reductions (59.863). [2007 Jul 9] [2008 Jan 23]


Q: Do Indian units removed from the British force pool as a result of a British surrender count as unbuilt when determining British resistance?
A: Yes. 59.22E considers Commonwealth units to be British units for the purposes of the unbuilt units modifer to the British resistance level, and British units removed from the force pool as a result of a British surrender do count as unbuilt. [2015 Apr 10]


Q: After Britain has surrendered, may the U.S. ship oil via South Africa to India?
A: Yes, if there are transports in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Germany may declare war on the U.S. to allow Axis raiding and German submarine warfare in the Atlantic or Indian Oceans. Japan may also use submarines or raiders in the Indian Ocean. [2006 Apr 26]


Q: Is China considered to be a "Western Allied major power at war with Germany" for Russian resistance purposes if Japan is at war with the Western Allies?
A: No. [official Q&A]


Q: If the Chinese resistance level is -4 or less, may Nationalist Chinese partisans still be built?
A: No Nationalist units, including partisans, may be built if the Chinese resistance level is -4 or less. [2006 Jun 8]

Q: Do Russian units in Manchuria modify Chinese resistance even if Russia has surrendered and is at peace with both Germany and Japan?
A: Yes -- the Chinese are encouraged by any non-Japanese presence in China/Manchuria. [2007 Sep 12]

Q: May Japan redeploy adjacent to Nationalist Chinese units suffering from a -5 Chinese Resistance Level?
A: The Chinese Resistance level is a temporary restriction on entering adjacent hexes, similar to being isolated. Such units still block redeployment through adjacent hexes. Likewise, once Chinese units are allowed into Southeast Asia after war breaks out between Japan and the US, Chinese units in China suffering from a -1 Chinese Resistance Level still block redeployments through Hanoi/Haiphong. However, the ban on Chinese units entering Southeast Asia before war breaks out between the US and Japan is a *political* ban; Japanese redeployment through Hanoi/Haiphong is allowed even though such Chinese units are adjacent. [2014 Jun 4]


Q: If Japan has already surrendered when a U.S. election is triggered, is a PTO U.S. election result calculated?
A: No, there is only an ETO U.S. election result, calculated with a +10 modifier for Japan having surrendered. [2006 Jan 20]

Q: Is it really true that the higher the Japanese resistance level the more likely the U.S. is to keep fighting, while the lower the Japanese resistance level the more likely the U.S. is to re-evaluate its participation?
A: No. The positive/negative signs reverse between the Japanese Resistance Table and the U.S. Election Table. Negative Japanese resistance contributes a positive (pro-Allied) modifier to a U.S. election, while a positive Japanese resistance contributes a negative (anti-Allied) modifier to a U.S. election. [2007 Mar 29]

Q: The U.S. election result table has a modifier based on the British surrender level (-5 to +5) and a +5 modifier if Britain is not in a state of surrender. If Britain has not surrendered, is the modifier +5 or +10?
A: The modifier is +5. The British surrender level modifier is used only if Britain is in a state of surrender; if Britain is not in a state of surrender, there is no British surrender level (only a resistance level). There is a +5 modifier to the U.S. election whether Britain has not surrendered or has surrendered with a surrender level of 0. [2006 Jul 8] [2015 Jul 19]


Q: If there are multiple US elections (perhaps one triggered by an atomic attack and one in the 1945 YSS), which one takes precedence?
A: The later election would override that of an earlier election if it was worse for the Allies ("U.S. policy shifts in favor of disengagement"). US policy can't shift in favor of "engagement" by increasing tensions faster than they would otherwise increase. [2011 Jan 19]


Q: May the Allies select a more pro-Axis U.S. Election result?
A: No. Germany and Japan may select a more pro-Allied result, but the reverse is not allowed. [2012 Nov 27]


Q: If the U.S. election result is in the range (0, -6), what is the tension level used to begin again tracking tensions?
A: You again record tensions, and every four levels of tension increase offsets one election result level. Unless tensions are reduced below 50 (U.S. election result -7 or worse), the absolute tension level doesn't matter. The U.S. remains at war (tensions of 50), but under the restrictions in the U.S. election table. For example, after a -1 election result, tensions would need to increase by 4 to offset the -1 result and by a total of 8 to offset both the -1 and 0 results. Likewise, if the U.S. signs a separate peace and tensions are set to a number below 50, once the tensions again reach 50, the U.S. can go to war, but with the restrictions of any remaining (not yet offset) U.S. election results. The U.S. election levels must still be offset with an additional 4 tensions levels per U.S. election result. Once tensions reach 50 (offsetting the -7 election result), tensions would have to increase an additional 28 points before the level 0 election result would be offset, allowing full participation by the U.S. [2007 Mar 7]

Q: Does the U.S. make random effective tension rolls while tracking tensions after an adverse election result?
A: No, the U.S. makes random effective tension rolls only while neutral; 49.852A specifies that the final roll is made "immediately" when Japan declares war. Nothing in 49.851D specifies that the effective tension level has any effects on the U.S. election restrictions that result from a partial disengagement, while the U.S. remains at war. Tension rolls might be made (no real consensus was reached on the Yahoo group) if the U.S. signs a separate peace and becomes neutral again. [2013 Feb 28] [2013 Mar 14]


Q: At what point(s) during the turn may the restrictions imposed by the U.S. Election Table change to allow additional activities?
A: Whenever the tension level increases (due to automatic modifiers, status modifiers, event modifiers, etc.), the election result may change. Although U.S. elections are carried out at the end of turn (step 15), the timing of tension increases after an election is no different than the timing of tension increases before an election: status/automatic modifiers occur at the start of a turn, event modifiers occur the instant they happen, etc. Restrictions imposed as the result of a U.S. election could be removed as a result of any of these tension increases, and could therefore be removed at many different points during the turn. The election result level at the specific time an action would be carried out governs whether that action is allowed. For example, if a U.S. election at the end of a game turn results in level 0 restrictions (no offensive economic warfare allowed), those restrictions will expire as soon as the tensions increase by 4 points. It is very likely that tensions will increase by 4 before the next Allied turn, and that therefore the level 0 restrictions will be removed before they have any effect. There is no general rule prohibiting a U.S. declaration of war immediately after a U.S. election, though the U.S. is barred from declaring war on Germany the turn after an adverse result in an election triggered by a British surrender (59.95). [2007 May 29] [2009 Jan 28]


Q: After a U.S. Election result that favors Japan, the oil embargo is "considered" to be lifted. May Japan again receive oil from the international market?
A: Yes, but in practice this is likely never to be the case. Only if the U.S. signs a separate peace, and only if tensions remain below 20 during initial supply determination in the following Axis player turn, will Japan actually be able to receive any international oil. The U.S. Election result is calculated at the end of a game turn. If the U.S. does not sign a separate peace, it can re-impose the oil embargo at the start of the following turn, before Japan has a chance to ship any oil. And even if the U.S. does sign a separate peace, if status modifiers (game turn, mobilizations, Indochina, powers at war) raise the tensions to 20, the U.S. can re-impose the embargo before Japan has a chance to ship any oil. Even though an oil embargo doesn't immediate cut off the flow of oil to Japan (that doesn't happen until the third turn after the embargo), those rules (33.4521) apply only if "the U.S. has not imposed an oil embargo on Japan in a previous game turn". In this scenario, the U.S. would have imposed an embargo in a (much) earlier game turn. If the oil embargo is re-imposed before Japan has any chance to receive international oil, there is no gradual reduction in the amount of oil Japan can receive -- it had been zero while at war, and it remains zero unless there is a turn where Japan has an opportunity to ship oil while not under an embargo. [2006 Mar 26-27]


Q: Do units returning to the US or South Africa boxes need destroyers or transports to carry them?
A: No; they are simply placed in the mapboard box. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: What happens to Russian units that are in Western Allied territory if all Western Allies in the theater are neutral?
A: They are treated in a way similar to what happens when a diplomatic result is reversed and minor country suddenly becomes neutral (82.33): they are considered to be in at least partial supply, but may not attack and are eliminated if they fail to leave by the end of their next turn. [2012 Jul 8]


Q: How is US-controlled territory handled in the Pacific?
A: Once the US is at war in the Pacific, all hexes controlled by the US or by Britain are jointly controlled by both. The US defeat does not change that. Japan may not attack neutral American hexes, even if the hex is simultaneously controlled by hostile Britain. Any hexes captured by Britain after the US surrender would be owned solely by Britain, and could be attacked by Japan. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: Under what circumstances is Britain considered to be "in a state of surrender" for purposes of 62.91?
A: Britain is in a state of surrender if its resistance level is zero or less. The analogous rule for Russia is 60.12, though there is no similarly explicitly stated rule for Britain. [2018 Apr 13]


Q: After RGT reaches 20, Russia must have certain ground units in hexes "within four hexes" of certain Axis-controlled hexes. Are these four hexes by land, or as the crow flies?
A: As the crow flies. Thus Sevastopol or Saare might be valid placement hexes for the Russian garrison. [2005 Jul 27-28]

Q: What happens if Russia is unable to deploy some required garrison units into position when the RGT hits 20?
A: The Russians forfeit the game. If Russia does something that risks being unable to comply with the rules (such as using garrison units for a 2:1 attack to conquer Rumania, hoping to be able to redeploy the units back into garrison position), they risk the game. In practice the players are likely to negotiate some settlement and continue the game, such as eliminating the units and forcing them to be rebuilt at double cost. The Russian player must follow the garrison rule, the same as any other rule. [2005 Aug 13] [2007 Jul 12] [2010 Feb 15]

Q: If Russia attacks Rumania before being at war with Germany, may it set up its border garrison within four hexes of a Rumanian- or Russian-controlled hex in Rumania?
A: No. Once at war, Rumania is no longer neutral (82.11A) but independent (82.11B). Independent Rumanian hexes do not meet the criteria for the garrison; neither do Russian-controlled hexes in Rumania, either before or after Rumania is conquered. Russia must continue to guard against an attack by Germany, just as if it attacks Turkey before being at war with Germany. Russia must wait until RGT reach 50 or attack with only "surplus" units (or, more precisely, only those units that can get back into garrison position before the end of the turn). Northern Rumania is within four hexes of Poland and may qualify for the garrison; Russia may also use those units without deployment limitations to defend Rumania from attacks via Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, etc.; Russian units may be able to SR out of Rumania via Ploesti; etc. [2006 Oct 6] [2007 Jul 11] [2016 Jun 25]


Q: Does the -1 DM during Germany's initial attack apply to Russian infantry units in the Ukraine?
A: Yes; the modifier applies. [2007 Sep 8]

Q: Do the reduced movement points of Russian units also apply during the TR segment of redeployment?
A: Yes. [2010 Apr 13] [2017 Jul 19]


Q: If Rumania concedes Bessarabia, does Russia immediately gain control of the hexes or must it actually enter the hexes to take control?
A: Russia immediately gains control of the hexes. Russia always claimed control, with the removal of the Rumanian counter-claim, Russia has actual control. Also, there is no provision in the game for an independent or un-owned Bessarabia. [2006 Mar 16]


Q: May Rumania concede Bessarabia at the start of its turn, and then move any surviving Rumanian units out of Bessarabia during its movement phase?
A: Rumania may concede Bessarabia at the start of the Axis player turn, then move any surviving units out of Bessarabia. [2011 Nov 16]


Q: What is the appropriate RGT level allowing Russia to attack a non-aligned Rumania?
A: RGT 25 allows Russia to declare war on any bordering minor country other than those under Axis control or in which Germany has an economic interest. [2007 Mar 7]


Q: What is the status of Finland after it renounces its claim on the border hexes?
A: Finland begins the game neutral. When Russian demands the Finnish border hexes, a Russo-Finnish border war begins and Finland becomes an independent minor. If the Russo-Finnish border war ends when Germany is not at war with Russia, Finland again becomes a neutral minor country. [2012 Dec 24]


Q: What is the appropriate RGT level allowing Russia to attack a non-aligned Finland?
A: RGT 25 allows Russia to declare war on any bordering minor country other than those under Axis control or in which Germany has an economic interest. [2007 Mar 7]


Q: What happens if Germany obtains a (new) economic interest in a country with which Russia is already at war? This can happen if Russia attacks a neutral Rumania but does not immediately conquer it, and then Germany rolls for Rumania and obtains an economic interest before the Russo-Rumanian war ends?
A: Germany must either declare war on Russia during the player turn, or choose to take a lesser result. Just as Germany must declare war on Russia or lose an existing economic interest, it may not accept a new economic interest without going to war with Russia. See 49.58. [2017 Jul 6]


Q: Once Britain and Japan are at war, may Australian units deploy to locations in the Pacific theater that are not even mentioned in the deployment limit chart (such as India, American possessions in the Pacific, etc.)?
A: Yes. [2011 Apr 9]


Q: Is the Australian construction limit still three factors of infantry, even if some of them are being built at double cost?
A: Yes. In Australia's case, it is a manpower shortage and the limit is on factors rather than BRPs. Contrast this with India's case, where it is an economic constraint, and the limit is three BRPs of infantry (72.162). [2011 Jun 8 [off-list]]


Q: Once Britain and Japan are at war, may Indian units deploy to locations in the Pacific theater that are not even mentioned in the deployment limit chart (such as Australia, American possessions in the Pacific, etc.)?
A: Yes. [2011 Apr 9]


Q: May a French airbase counter be placed in Britain?
A: A French airbase is not a unit, and may be placed in Britain. This is probably only useful after Anglo-French cooperation restrictions have expired; otherwise British units may not stack with the French airbase. [2007 Jul 2]


Q: The Axis conduct a sea transport mission in the Mediterranean during the same movement phase as they occupy an undefended Paris; may the French navy intercept?
A: Sea transport comes before ground movement in the sequence of play (though ground units that are being sea transported can move beforehand). Unless undefended Paris was taken by units that are being sea transported, at the time of the sea transport Paris is still under French control and the French navy may intercept. [2007 Jan 9]


Q: Do the restrictions on French actions while Paris is controlled by the Axis apply during the remainder of the Axis turn in which Paris is first occupied?
A: Yes. A mission already underway (such as French DAS of a non-Paris hex in the combat phase in which Paris is taken) proceeds to its normal conclusion (even if the attack on Paris is resolved first). However, later operations (such as DAS during exploitation if Paris was occupied during normal combat) must abide by the restrictions. [2006 Nov 29]


Q: If French Indochina is an independent minor country (suppose Japan declares war on Britain [earlier] in the same turn that France surrenders), how does Japan take control of the hexes?
A: Hex control is determined "normally" (76.21). 76.21 says that if Japan declares war on Britain before France surrenders, French Indochina is treated like any other Pacific colony (i.e., Burma or Malaya) and has to be taken hex by hex (29.53, 83.23), although hexes that are isolated gradually become Japanese without the need to move through them. The European model of taking a minor capital and gaining control of all the hexes (an initial conquest) doesn't apply (29.51 applies only in Europe). [2016 July 11]


Q: May Japan occupy French Indochina by seaborne invasion in order to place a bridgehead there?
A: No. A Japanese seaborne invasion of French Indochina is not permitted because it is pointless. [official Q&A]


Q: May Japan send air units to Saigon in the turn it initially occupies the city?
A: Rule 76.43A is comprehensive; Japan may occupy French Indochina only exactly as described. In the initial turn of occupation, only one ground unit (no more than one, and no air or naval units) may enter Saigon. [2009 Dec 31]


Q: If a Vichy infantry garrisoning a colonial capital is sent to Russia as an anti-Communist volunteer, must the unit be returned to the colonial capital if it is eliminated?
A: No. If the volunteer unit is eliminated, it is returned to the Vichy force pool, and may be rebuilt in Vichy France proper. It may (but need not) be sent to the colonies as any other reinforcement (if allowed by the current diplomatic result), and no longer has any special association with any colonial capital. [2011 Feb 5] [2015 Jun 17]


Q: If a diplomatic result allows a neutral Vichy France to reinforce its colonies and redeploy within and between colonies, may the 2x3 units garrisoning the colonial capitals be redeployed?
A: Any additional units sent to reinforce the Vichy colonies may be redeployed, but 77.42 does not lift the restriction on garrisoning the capital (77.41). The capital must be garrisoned until Vichy France associates or allies, or the capital garrison volunteers for duty on the eastern front. An Allied attack on the Vichy colony does not free the garrison. [2007 Jan 21-22] [2015 Jun 17]

Q: May neutral Vichy units that redeploy to a colony be later redeployed to a new location?
A: Any Vichy French forces that aren't tied down to Vichy, a colonial capital, or lent and on the eastern front, may redeploy to a colony, continue to redeploy within that colony, and may later redeploy to a different location within the same or a different colony. Note that those forces can never go back to France, because that isn't a valid option, unless it is later redeployed to the eastern front as a volunteer and then returns from there while a different unit is in the colonial capital. (If the colonial capital is vacant, the returning volunteer would have to return to the colonial capital, not to France.) [2010 Feb 9-10]

Q: May a neutral Vichy France use any method (such as sea transport) other than redeployment to reinforce a colony?
A: No. Neutral minor countries do not normally sea transport, invade, or redeploy. There is a special allowance for neutral Vichy France to redeploy in order to protect its colonies, but no allowance for other missions. [2007 Jun 4]


Q: Can Vichy air units in a Vichy colony attack an Axis sea transport in the turn the Axis declare war on Vichy France?
A: Vichy units do nothing against the Axis in the turn the Axis declare war on Vichy France. [2008 Mar 16]


Q: May units in a Vichy colony that resists trace supply from a Vichy colony that has not been attacked?
A: Vichy French units may trace supply from any Vichy French supply source, whether resisting or not. If a neutral Vichy France traces sea supply, the Allies may not interdict the supply line. [2008 Apr 9]

Q: The Western Allies attack a Vichy colony where a diplomatic result of '8' (Axis hex control) is in force; if the colony resists, may Vichy France reinforce the colony?
A: Yes; although the colony does not associate with the Axis as a result of the attack, neutral Vichy France is still able to reinforce the colony under the provision of 77.42. Vichy units in an adjacent colony that were free to move could reinforce the colony by land, or Vichy France could reinforce the colony by sea. Since the only allowable way for a neutral Vichy to reinforce its colonies by sea is via redeployment, reinforcement by sea would not be possible into or through a port adjacent to a Western Allied unit; once the Vichy unit disembarks in the colony it is at war with the Allies). If the Western Allies want to intercept or attack Vichy NRs, they would have to declare war on Vichy itself. [2011 Feb 5]


Q: Does the boxed comment following 77.61 apply only to 77.61?
A: The commend applies to all of 77.6 -- if Vichy France has associated or allied with the Axis, then attacking any part of Vichy France (colony or mainland) is no different than attacking any other minor country associated or allied with the Axis. [2015 Jul 13]


Q: If multiple Vichy colonies are attacked during the same turn, do the results of one resistance roll modify a later resistance roll?
A: The resistance rolls are made serially, at the moments the attacks occur. Thus the result of the first resistance roll (for example, capitulation grants control of the colony to the Allies) would modify the second resistance roll, and so on. [2008 Aug 21]

Q: If a covert operation is used in Vichy France when multiple colonies are attacked by the Western Allies, does it affect the rolls for each colony?
A: A covert operation always affects only a single specific die roll. If multiple colonies are attacked, the covert operation is used in Vichy France to affect the die roll for one of the colonies. [2009 May 28]


Q: Do Vichy colonies that resist have a separate force pool?
A: Vichy France and any Vichy colonies that are resisting Allied attack share a common force pool. Units lost in the colony can be rebuilt in Vichy France and are treated as any other Vichy unit. [2010 Nov 14]

Q: May the Axis choose a "lesser result" for a colonial resistance roll?
A: No. The result rolled must be accepted. [2008 Nov 18]


Q: What happens to Axis units in Vichy colonies that become "controlled by no one"?
A: Axis ground units in Vichy colonies retain control of the hexes in which they are located. Ground units in the colonial capitals retain control of the capitals, and will be able to draw supply from (or perhaps through) those hexes. There are no special provisions for supplying Axis units outside the capitals; such a ground unit will control the hex in which it is located, but may not be able to trace supply. [2012 Feb 11]


Q: Is there a difference between Free French units and Vichy units that have activated as a British minor ally or associated with Britain?
A: Free French units are separate and distinct from pro-Allied Vichy units. For example, they may have different geographical restrictions, and are rebuilt in different locations if eliminated. Unlike pro-Allied Vichy units, Free French units are not eliminated if Vichy France is conquered (77.91). [2017 Jan 20]


Q: Doesn't China have some special spending limit rule?
A: Nationalist China does have an overall per-turn spending limit, unlike any other major power. It's stated in 39.11 (they may spend only half their year-start BRPs each turn), but it should be repeated in 78.4 (Nationalist Chinese Economy).


Q: May the Flying Tigers defend Western Allied hexes against the second turn of the Japanese attack?
A: Although China does not join the Western Allies until after the second turn of the Japanese attack (78.51), the Flying Tigers may defend immediately, on both the first and second turn of the Japanese attack. [2015 Jan 12]


Q: If the Chinese resistance level drops to -1, what happens to Chinese units outside China?
A: Chinese units may neither move into nor attack into hexes outside China. Units outside China but adjacent to China may be able to move into or attack into a hex inside China, but may not move into or attack into other hexes outside China. Units outside China are not eliminated, are not required to return to China, and may not move into hexes outside China even if such movement is "towards" China. [Post #114541 -- 2008 Dec 18]


Q: If Russia is allowed to reduced the Siberian garrison because of war with Germany or because of the oil embargo against Japan, are there any limits on what types of units Russia may withdraw?
A: The only restriction is the general rule that requires at least 30 BRPs of units to remain in Siberia, including one three-factor armor unit (81.43). There are no "matching type" restriction, as there is if Russia may reduce its garrison in response to a Japanese reduction of the Manchurian garrison. The "matching type" restriction applies only if Japan reduces the Manchurian garrison before Germany and Russia are at war or the oil embargo is imposed. [2017 Jul 4]


Q: May Japan replace units in the Manchurian garrison with different strength units without triggering a Russian reaction?
A: So long as Japan does not reduce the number of factors of any of the three types of units (infantry, armor, uninverted army air factors), the exact strength of the units of those types does not matter, and Russia may not reduce its garrison. [2007 Sep 23]


Q: Do land-based NAS count towards the 30 BRP Manchurian garrison required to prevent a Russian declaration of war?
A: Yes; all ground or air units except inverted or carrier-based air units count towards the 30 BRPs. Some of these units (specialized units, NAS) don't fit into any of the three categories (armor, infantry, AAF) described in 81.42C; if Japan uses these units for its Manchurian garrison, Russia may be allowed to reduce its Siberian garrison, but of itself the use of these units will not allow Russian to declare war. [2016 Apr 29]


Q: Is a country that has diplomatically granted BRPs (82.11C) or hex control (82.11D) to a major power no longer neutral (82.11A)?
A: A minor country that has not relinquished control of its foreign policy by associating or allying with a major power and has not been stripped of a foreign policy by conquest is either neutral or independently at war. Note that it will be rare for a minor country to be independently at war, but have granted BRPs or hex control to a major power. Such a status may temporarily occur after a '-1', '0', '7', or '8' diplomatic result followed by a declaration of war by an opposing alliance faction. If the minor is not garrisoned, it will be independently at war (and still have granted BRPs or hex control) until it associates at the beginning of the following player turn. [2009 Oct 31, 2009 Nov 2]


Q: What is the status of a minor country that is conquered but later "liberated" (e.g., Belgium conquered by Germany and liberated by the Allies in 1944)?
A: Once a minor country is conquered, it remains conquered throughout the game. In the example, although the Belgians might have viewed the Americans very differently than they viewed the Germans, for game purposes Belgium remains a conquered minor country, albeit with a new owner receiving the BRPs. [2013 Jan 4]


Q: What does it mean to "economically penetrate" a minor country?
A: When a major power gains BRPs from a minor country via a diplomatic result of '7' (for the Axis) or '0' (for the Allies), the major power has economically penetrated, or gained an economic interest in, the minor country. [Post #112696 -- 2008 Jul 30]


Q: If a faction has hex control of Turkey, does supply through the Turkish straits count against the ten-factor limit on supply?
A: No; only land supply through a controlled minor country is limited. Sea supply is unlimited, if it is not blocked by an uncontrolled strait. [2016 Nov 2]


Q: What happens to units that can only trace supply through a minor country where a diplomatic result reverses hex control?
A: There is no exception allowing such units to assume supply, as there is for units actually in the minor country where the diplomatic result was reversed, so they will become isolated during supply determination. However, an attack on the minor (perhaps aided by units in the minor which can move due to their assumed supply) might capture enough hexes in the minor to open a post-combat supply route. Of course, an attack would generally cause the minor to associate with the opposing camp. [2008 Mar 29]

Q: May ground units in neutral country ports where the owning major power loses hex control still participate in seaborne invasions?
A: No; embarking on a seaborne invasion mission is an "attack", and attacking out of such a minor country is forbidden. [2007 Aug 22]

Q: What is the supply status of hexes garrisoned by the major power?
A: They retain their supply status from the prior turn until initial supply determination, at which point supply is determined normally. [2013 Mar 24]

Q: What is the ownership and supply status of a hex to which an attacking unit was displaced from the capital?
A: The attacking major power retains ownership, and the hex retains its supply status from the prior turn until initial supply determination, at which point supply is determined normally. [2013 Mar 24]


Q: Does an enemy airbase prevent deployment of a minor country unit in a hex?
A: Only an enemy "unit" prevents deployment of a minor country unit; an airbase counter is a "counter" but is not a "unit" (3.11). [2009 Feb 6]


Q: What is the supply status of hexes occupied by the major power?
A: They retain their supply status from the prior turn until initial supply determination, at which point supply is determined normally. [2013 Mar 24]


Q: In the turn in which it is attacked, may a minor country air unit spot to aid the interception attempt of a major power already at war with the attacker?
A: No. The logic seems to be that spotting is allowed to aid interception by naval units in the same faction (British and French), but not otherwise friendly units not in the same faction (Western Allied and Russian) - 22.231A. In the turn of attack, the minor power is still independent, and not in the same faction as any other nation. [Post #121284 -- 2010 Jan 31]

Q: May a minor country naval unit intercept an enemy major power patrol on the turn the minor is attacked?
A: The minor country may only respond to direct attacks, so may not intercept the patrol until after it has made an attack (such as counterair) on the minor country. Once the patrol has attacked, the minor country is free to intercept the patrol during the remainder of its mission (even just to chase down the offenders). If it does intercept, the minor country and any other enemy of the attacker may intercept in the same hex and fight together, even combining into mixed combat groups, similar to the official Q&A question of Italian and neutral Vichy units intercepting together (82.72). [However, that Q&A ruling is based on an earlier version of the rules, and should probably be removed; doing so would cause this tidbit of group wisdom to be adjusted as well.] [2006 Jan 1] [Post #121284 -- 2010 Jan 31]


Q: May the attacked minor and a major power already at war with the aggressor both intercept an enemy naval activity in the same hex?
A: Yes. Italian naval units and Vichy French naval units in a Vichy colony may jointly intercept a Western Allied naval force invading the Vichy colony. The discussion resulting in the ruling (March 2004) clarifies that the two naval forces would fight together as allies. [This Q&A ruling is based on an earlier version of the rules, and should probably be removed.] [2007 Jul 29] [2008 Sep 26] [official Q&A]


Q: If a minor country (such as Persia) is attacked by the Axis but cannot associate with Britain, may Russia assist the minor in any way?
A: While Britain is neutral after a British surrender, the minor cannot associate with Britain. Likewise, if Britain refuses the minor's offer of association, the minor cannot associate with Britain. In either case, the minor will not associate with Russia, and remains an independent neutral; as such Russian units may not enter the minor. Russia may not declare war on the same minor (to gain entrance in that manner) because joint wars by potential enemies are prohibited (50.31B); joint wars by actual enemies are also prohibited. In the case where association is prohibited by a British surrender, the rules prohibiting wars between potential allies (50.31A) also block association with Russia; once Britain reenters the war, the minor would associate with Britain, putting Britain and Russia at war. [2006 Aug 9] [2011 May 11]

Q: If a minor country diplomatically controlled by Russia is attacked by the Axis, does it still associate with Britain (rather than Russia)?
A: The key question is whether Russia has units in the attacked minor country. If so, then 82.81A and 82.34 apply, and the minor country immediately associates with Russia. If Russia has no units in the attacked minor country, then (assuming none of the other exceptions listed in 82.81 apply) the minor country will associate with Britain, even if Russia has hex control of the minor. The only way a minor country will associate with Russia after an Axis attack is if Russia already has units garrisoning the minor country. [2011 May 11]


Q: If a neutral major power is fighting an ongoing war with an independent minor country, and the neutral major power goes to war with an enemy major power, when does the minor country associate with the enemy major power?
A: If neutral Italy is fighting Greece when Italy declares war on the Western Allies, Greece will associate with Britain during the diplomacy phase of the next Western Allied player turn. This is the same timing as if Greece had just survived the first turn of an attack by Italy. If association was meant to happen immediately (during the Axis player turn), this rule would specifically say so. The timing of association can matter for, among other things, the disposition of hexes that remain under the minor's control if the minor country is conquered in the player turn that the neutral major power goes to war. If neutral Italy is fighting Greece when the Western Allies declare war on Italy, Greece immediately associates. The Western Allies cannot declare war on Greece while it is at war with a neutral Italy (50.31B); the only way in which it can become involved in the Greek war is to declare war on Italy. It seems Greece must immediately associate with Britain in that case, so that Allied units could enter Greek territory; otherwise there is no way to do so, either as a friendly or a hostile power. [2009 Sep 19 [off-list]]


Q: May the Japanese player move the Thai units once they are deployed, but before they are associated?
A: Yes.


Q: How is hex control in Persia determined if an Axis unit enters Tehran after the Western Allies open the Persian BRP route to Russia?
A: Persia once the BRP route is opened falls into the "other minor countries" category described in 83.23: normal hex control rules (29.2) apply. In other words, Axis capture of Tehran does not count as an initial conquest (83.22), even if Tehran is captured in the turn the Axis first enter Persia, and does not give the Axis control of any other Persian hexes. Axis control of Tehran does block BRP grants through Persia (40.53). [2010 Nov 3]


Q: If a minor country is attacked by a neutral major power and is not conquered in the turn of the attack and does not associate with any major power, what happens to the hexes not yet controlled by the attacker when the minor is finally conquered?
A: The status of the minor country at the beginning of the turn following the attack is no longer "neutral"; it is "independent" -- the minor is independently at war. Normally, but not always, the minor will then associate with a major power that is also at war with the attacker (and thus become aligned rather than independent). In cases where the minor does not associate (perhaps a neutral Russia attacking Persia, or a neutral Italy attacking Greece) but survives the first turn of the attack, any hexes still controlled by the minor when it is conquered pass to the control of the conqueror at the end of the turn (29.51). [2015 Jan 10]


Q: What is the definition of a "key city"?
A: The control of minor countries without capitals is determined by control of key cities or hexes. These key locations are listed in 83.12. [2014 Dec 23]

Q: If a major power conquers a minor country, and the opponent does not immediately retake the minor in the following enemy player turn, but instead builds a partisan to deny complete control to the conquering major power, does this deny the BRPs to the conqueror in the next player turn?
A: No. If a major power gains complete control (the capital, or all cities in areas such as eastern Poland) of a minor, and the opponent does not regain control (of the capital, or at least one city) in the following player turn, the conqueror will get the BRPs (see 83.33B, which addresses colonies, which are simply pre-conquered minor countries). The old owner loses the BRPs after his combat phase; the new owner gains the BRPs at the beginning of his following turn. The partisan makes no difference, though it will cost the new owner a BRP (or more, if in the capital) if not immediately eliminated. [2006 Jun 14]


Q: A British unit moves into an undefended Axis-controlled Athens to reconquer Greece, while American units attack Bulgarian units in Salonika. Who gets the Greek BRPs?
A: Britain gets the BRPs. Attrition against the minor country's forces counts as "participating", whether or not it was to conquer the territory. (In fact, only in territories with no capital such as the Baltic States could attrition possibly come soon enough to help conquer the territory.) Conducting offensive operations only counts as "participating" only if those operation are "to conquer the territory in question" (implying that other offensive operation do not count). In the situation posed, clearly the American operations were not "to conquer" Greece, so do not give the Americans any claim to the Greek BRPs. (In other situations, the decision whether the offensive operations were "to conquer" the territory may be less clear, but those situations are not being addressed at this time.) [2018 Feb 3]


Q: If a minor country associates with a major power as a result of an enemy attack (84.11A ,84.11B), is the result the same as if the minor country associated as a result of diplomacy (84.11C)?
A: In almost all cases, the result is the same; the minor is associated with the major. However, certain diplomatic tables refer to association after a diplomatic result of '-2' or '9'. If the minor associated simply as a result of an attack, this condition is not met. Therefore, if the Allies attack Spain or Vichy France, the minor country units will stay home and fight, and cannot be sent as volunteers to the eastern front. Likewise, an attack on either Greece or Turkey (causing association with the enemy) does not trigger the favorable modifier for the other. [2007 Dec 18] [2018 Apr 26]


Q: What are the geographical restrictions for an associated Vichy France?
A: According to 77.21, Vichy France includes its unconquered colonies. If Vichy France is an associated minor country, the geographical restriction on association limits its forces to somewhere in mainland Vichy France or in any Vichy colony.


Q: What happens to opposing air units in a minor country capital when it activates?
A: They are displaced normally (to a nearby air base). The minor must set up at least one ground unit in its capital, and therefore the opposing air unit must leave. Air units are not mentioned in 85.45 simply because they are displaced normally; ground units are mentioned because there are no "normal" rules for displacing ground units. [2015 January 4]


Q: If a neutral Vichy activates as an Allied associated or allied minor power, what happens to the Vichy units already on the map?
A: They remain where they are, and become the pro-Allied Vichy army (77.96). If and when they are eliminated, they are added to the British force pool. [2005 May 11]


Q: May more than one minor ally infantry unit be built per turn if the major power pays the normal unit construction cost?
A: No. Only the one "free" infantry may be built in each turn.


Q: If a minor country is associated with or allied to a major power, can a lower diplomatic roll (say, a '7' for an Axis minor ally) make it neutral again?
A: No. The minor country could surrender or switch sides if the conditions in 85.51 are met, but cannot return to neutrality. Any result less than the current result but short of surrender is treated as a "3-4" result, maintaining the current status of the minor country. [official Q&A]


Q: Are units not actually in a surrendered minor, but with no possible way to be supplied other than through the minor, considered to be in at least partial supply?
A: No; the supply benefit only extends to units within the minor's territory. Units outside (perhaps along the southern French Atlantic coast when Vichy surrenders) are isolated if they have no "normal" way to trace supply. [2012 Jul 9]


Q: When a minor country switches sides, is the new controlling major power deemed to have controlled its hexes from the start of the turn?
A: The rules for switching sides (85.53) completely replace the rules for association (84.4) or activation (85.4). Unlike when a minor ally activates (85.44), there is no rule deeming hexes controlled since the start of the turn. Given the chaos involved in switching sides, this seems reasonable. One consequence is that during the turn of a switch, fortifications and railheads may not be built in hexes gained by the change in control. The minor country can rebuild its own units in hexes that were affected by the switching of sides because the minor country itself controlled the hex from the start of the turn, although the alliance faction did not gain control of the hex until the diplomatic phase. [2010 Jan 21-22]


Q: Does British control of Bergen block iron ore shipments to Germany if Britain is in a state of surrender?
A: Yes; any Allied control of Bergen will block the ore shipments, even if Britain is "neutral". [2008 Jan 23]


Q: May the Finnish air unit based in Finland fly a mission three hexes inside Russia?
A: Yes. The minor country geographical restrictions for air/naval units limit basing, but not operations (85.461). [2012 Jan 9]


Q: If the Axis have a "7" diplomatic result for Ireland, the Allies conquer Ireland, and then the Axis reconquer Ireland, is the submarine warfare modifier reinstated?
A: No; any conquest of Ireland (by any faction) eliminates the submarine warfare modifier for the remainder of the game. [2009 Jul 22]

Q: What are the implications of Spain having two capitals?
A: As long as one capital remains unconquered, (1) the Spanish Army doesn't go away, (2) the Spanish Army keeps reappearing when killed, (3) the Spanish hexes still in Allied hands can receive supply from Britain. (4) Madrid is the sole unlimited supply source for independent Spanish units (30.24); Tangier provides only limited supply by virtue of being a colonial capital (30.265). [2015 Feb 23]


Q: Can replacements be used to conquer Ethiopia?
A: Yes. Replacement factors are ground factors, and are counted, both for conquering and defending Ethiopia. [2006 Jul 4]


Q: How does opening the Persian BRP route affect fortifications and railheads that Russia may have constructed in Persia, if Russia attacked and occupied Persia (after being at war with Germany, but before the BRP route was opened)?
A: Russian hexes with fortifications and railheads pass to Western Allied control, after which the railhead may be used only by the Western Allies. The fortification is eliminated. [2008 Jan 21] [2015 Jan 13]

Q: How is hex control of Persia determined after the Allies open the BRP route?
A: Normally; the last power to walk through the hex controls it. Opening the BRP route is not a hex control ("-1") or association ("-2") diplomatic result, though. [2005 Dec 19]


Q: Is Tehran an Axis (or Russian) limited supply source if under Axis (or Russian) control?
A: Rule 88.643 is part of the rules for opening the Persian BRP route (which only the Allies can do), and is redundant. Rule 30.264 provides that minor country capitals provide limited supply to any side that controls it. [2009 Apr 21]


Q: What happens to Allied air units in the Philippines upon initial Japanese conquest?
A: Air units are displaced, or eliminated if there is no base with capacity in range. [2013 Aug 6]


Q: If France is not conquered, how can Japan obtain the association of Thailand?
A: Although the special rules for gaining control of French Indochina do not apply (76.41) if France has not been conquered, Japan can declare war on Britain and attack French Indochina normally (76.21). Once Japan gains control of every hex in French Indochina, Thailand will associate the following turn. Japan must gain control of the French Indochinese hexes using the normal rules for hex control (occupation or isolation); taking Saigon will not automatically result in control of any other hexes in French Indochina (29.53). [2007 May 18] [2009 Jan 10]


Q: May Thai units attack Nationalist Chinese units in Indochina?
A: Nationalist Chinese units are not allowed outside of China until after Japan and Britain are at war (80.31A), by which time China will have joined the Western Allies (78.11). (78.11 should probably say "Japan and Britain", not "Japan and the U.S.", to account for a Japanese declaration of war against Britain only.) Communist Chinese units cannot leave China (80.32). The only units that Thai units could attack are Russian units, presuming Russian units somehow got near enough to Thailand to allow it. [2011 May 28]

Q: May Thai units attrition Western Allied units?
A: The Thais are not prohibit from carrying out offensive options vs. the Western Allies; they are prohibited from "attacking" the Western Allies. Rule 14 consistently uses the word "attacker" for the attritioning player (14.11A, 14.11C, 14.11E, etc.). Attrition is a form of attack, and thus the Thais may not attrition Western Allied units. [2012 Jun 14] [2013 Feb 16]

Research Results: Harbor Attack

Q: If a submarine executes a multiple-target harbor attack, are the attacks resolved serially or are all targeting rolls made before any attacks are resolved?
A: Use the procedure described in 22.93D for multiple attacking submarines: fully resolve the first attack before beginning the second attack (with the targeting procedure). Note that the same ship (or group of light ships) can still be targeted a second (or third) time, but only if it survives the first attack (or first and second attacks) without being sunk. [2005 Dec 6-7] [2007 Jul 2]

Q: In a submarine harbor attack, are "sunk-in-port" ships considered in the targeting algorithm?
A: No. The submarine commander is looking for ships on the surface, not on the bottom. [2005 Dec 6]

Q: In the case of a Japanese carrier, is the ADRM for the NAS or elite NAS assumed?
A: If Japan uses a carrier with elite NAS aboard, they would get the +1 benefit. All the air on the carrier must be eNAS to get the +1 benefit. British harbor attacks are likewise penalized for the poor British NAS ADRM. [2005 Oct 11]

Q: In a carrier-delivered harbor attack, is there a +1 modifier to the target's air defense if there are BB5s present?
A: No; naval units are not counted in computing the air defense level; neither do any bonuses attributed to naval units apply. [2010 May 7]

Q: May a submarine or carrier carry out a harbor attack if it is within the indicated range of the target, even if a prohibited strait intervenes that would prohibit it from getting within range?
A: No; the naval unit must be able to reach the target via legal naval movement. [2007 Jan 9]

Q: Do carrier-based NAS hidden by a TF marker in the target hex modify a harbor attack by carrier?
A: Yes, if the carrier on which the NAS are based is uninverted, the air units will count as both uninverted and in the target hex, and will modify the attack. [2007 Jul 21]

Q: If the Germans and Japanese each carry out a harbor attack in the same turn, how is the -1 modifier for a previous harbor attack applied?
A: The Axis player determines the order of the attacks, and thus to which one of the two attacks the -1 modifier will apply. [2007 Jul 21]

Q: May a harbor attack in the Pacific be done at a range of more than ten hexes if it is carried out by a Japanese naval unit based in Japan or an American unit based in Pearl Harbor (assuming Midway, Johnston Island, and perhaps Wake are controlled)?
A: A harbor attack is not a "naval activity", costs no BRPs for an offensive naval activity, and is not governed by the range rules in 21.361. The range for a harbor attack is always 20/10 hexes, as stated in the Harbor Attack research table, which is what enables the harbor attack to be carried out. [2009 Apr 3]

Q: May light ships be targeted multiple times in a Harbor Attack by carrier?
A: Yes. Named ships may be targeted only once, but un-named light ships may be targeted multiple times. [2010 Feb 17]

Q: If a carrier is eliminated after a modified Harbor Attack roll of '2', are the NAS eliminated as well?
A: Yes. [2010 Feb 19]

Q: May the German harbor attack allowed at the beginning of the game be used if another harbor attack was made in a prior turn?
A: No. Any prior harbor attack in any turn prohibits the "free" German harbor attack. [2013 Aug 6]

Research Results: Anglo-French Cooperation

Q: When does Anglo-French cooperation gained by research take effect?
A: The research result is both announced and takes effect at the beginning of the next Allied player turn, which is later in the same game turn that the research result was rolled. [Post #112412 -- 2008 Jun 18]

Diplomatic Tables: Introduction

Q: Are Axis units in a minor considered "enemy units" with respect to a diplomatic roll or subversion attempt by a neutral Russia?
A: Regardless of Russia's status, the Axis is an opposing faction to Russia. The modifier applies. [2006 Feb 16]

Q: Are Vichy units in continental Vichy France considered "friendly" units for the purpose of modifying an Axis reaction roll after the Allied invasion of a neutral Vichy colony?
A: Neutral Vichy units are not part of either the Western Allied or Axis faction. Vichy units are only "friendly" or "enemy" if Vichy France is allied or associated to one side or the other. [2007 May 9]

Q: Is the modifier for friendly or enemy ground/air factors a favorable or unfavorable modifier?
A: Friendly units provide a favorable modifier (+ for the Axis, - for the Allies); enemy units provide an adverse modifier (- for the Axis, + for the Allies). [2011 Jul 21] [2011 Oct 2]

Diplomatic Tables: Balkans

Q: What happens on a reaction roll of 7+ when Russia has demanded Bessarabia?
A: On a '7', a border war breaks out, though Germany acquires an economic interest in Rumania proper. If Germany wishes to avoid a border war, it must forego the economic interest by choosing a lesser result. On a roll of 8+, Germany acquires hex control of (or association or alliance with) all of Rumania (including Bessarabia), and Russia must abandon its demands. See 66.12D. [2006 Sep 4]

Q: What happens on a result of -3, -2, -1 when Russia demands Bessarabia?
A: The result applies to the entire country, not just the border area. [2009 Feb 6]

Diplomatic Tables: Belgium/Luxembourg

Q: If Belgium allies or associates with the Allies or Axis, what is the status of Luxembourg?
A: Belgium and Luxembourg are considered one country for diplomatic purposes (49.36A), so Luxembourg also associates or allies. Since Luxembourg has no troops, the effect of Belgium's alliance/association on Luxembourg is the same as the lesser result of hex control. [2009 Jul 3]

Diplomatic Tables: Greece

Q: Does the modifier for Turkey having associated as a result of a diplomatic roll of -2 or 9 apply if Turkey associated for some other reason (as a result of an attack, for example)?
A: No. Normally association has identical effects no matter how it came about, but in the case of the Turkish and Greek diplomatic modifers, it applies only if association was achieived through the diplomatic roll. [2018 Apr 26]

Diplomatic Tables: Spain

Q: Does the modifier on the Spanish diplomatic table for "if Vichy France has activated as a German minor ally" apply if Vichy France activated but has since ceased to be an active minor ally?
A: Yes; otherwise the modifier would say, "if Vichy is an active German minor ally". [2007 Jan 5]

Q: How many Spanish units may volunteer for the eastern front after a "10+" diplomatic result?
A: After Spain allies with the Axis, there are no "volunteers". However, Spanish minor ally units (including armor and air) are allowed on the eastern front (85.46E) under the same rules as for any other minor allied units outside their home country. [2008 Mar 22]

Diplomatic Tables: Sweden

Q: If Sweden defers its association/alliance because Finland was not previously associated/allied, when do the Axis receive the Swedish BRPs?
A: The Axis receive 10 BRPs (prorated) on the turn when Swedish hex control is gained, and the remaining 5 BRPs (prorated) when Sweden eventually associates or allies. [2008 Mar 11]

Q: Does the modifier for having "fought" over the Finnish border hexes apply if the border was is still ongoing or only after the border war is over?
A: It applies in both cases; Russia and Finland have "fought" even if they have not yet finished fighting. [2013 Oct 3]

Diplomatic Tables: Turkey

Q: Does the modifier for Greece having associated as a result of a diplomatic roll of -2 or 9 apply if Greece associated for some other reason (as a result of an attack, for example)?
A: No. Normally association has identical effects no matter how it came about, but in the case of the Turkish and Greek diplomatic modifers, it applies only if association was achieived through the diplomatic roll. [2018 Apr 26]

Diplomatic Tables: Ukraine

Q: How the modifiers for Axis control of Kiev apply to a Russian diplomatic roll for Ukraine?
A: The +2 modifier applies in the Allied player turn immediately after the Axis take Kiev or to the ensuing Axis player turn. The +1 modifier applies to the Allied and Axis player turns that follow. The "turn" referred to in the modifiers mean full game turns beginning with the phase in which Kiev was captured (so probably runs from one Axis combat phase to the next Axis combat phase). [2011 Mar 19]

Diplomatic Tables: Vichy France

Q: Do the diplomatic results for Vichy France include the colonies?
A: Yes, "Vichy France" includes any Vichy colonies (77.21). So, for example, an "8" result gives the Axis hex control of any Vichy colonies, and a "9" or "10" result gives the Axis the BRPs for (and control of) any Vichy colonies. An "8" result gives only 20 BRPs, not because the colonies are excluded, but because economic penentration results ("8") limit the number of BRPs received to less than the total. [2017 Aug 3]

Q: How many Vichy units may volunteer for the eastern front after a "10+" diplomatic result?
A: After Vichy France allies with the Axis, there are no "volunteers". However, Vichy French minor ally units (including armor and air) are allowed on the eastern front (85.46H) under the same rules as for any other minor allied units outside their home country. [2008 Mar 22]

Q: What does it mean for a colony to be "attacked" by the Allies in the previous turn?
A: The modifier applies if the previous turn was the first turn in which the Allies attacked the colony. Even if the colony survives several turns and the Allies continue to fight in the colony, the modifier applies only in the turn following the initial attack. [2009 Feb 11]

Q: How can a Vichy colonial capital be controlled by the Allies? A Vichy colony ceases to be part of Vichy France if it is conquered by the Allies.
A: The modifier applies if the colonial capital was a part of Vichy France, but is now controlled by the Allies. [2015 Dec 31]

Q: Does a U.S./British armor or infantry in a bridgehead or port in Sweden trigger the -1 diplomatic modifier?
A: Yes. Unlike an Allied foothold in Norway, an Allied presence in Sweden is a much bigger threat to Germany. Bombing Germany is more effective, and an attack on Germany through Denmark is threatened. [2010 Dec 31]

Q: Do Axis units in Ethiopia void the "-1 for no Axis units in Africa" modifier?
A: Yes; see 88.46C. [2013 Apr 12]

Tension Tables: RGT Table

Q: Do the modifiers for "Russia gains control of one or more hexes in any territory west of the Nazi-Soviet Pact Line" apply multiple times if Russia gains such hexes in multiple turns?
A: No, the modifier only applies once per country. Gaining control of additional hexes in the same country, even in a later turn, has no further effect on the tension due to this modifier. [2006 Dec 8]

Q: Does the modifier for Axis control of one or more hexes in Turkey apply, even if the Axis moved into Turkey only after Turkey associated with Britain?
A: Yes. [2015 Apr 29]

Q: Is Greece considered to be "west of the Nazi-Soviet Pact line? (Russia can gain hex control of Greece diplomatically, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Pact.)
A: Yes. If Russia gains hex control of Greece, RGT is reduced by 4. [2018 Jun 2]

Q: When is the tension increased for a Russian IC added by mobilization?
A: The modifier is a status modifier and is applied at the beginning of the turn. The modifier could read, "+1 For each Russian mobilization that has already occurred or begins in the current Russian player turn." [2007 Feb 19]

Tension Tables: USAT Table

Q: Does the USAT status modifier for "Axis control of ... Lebanon-Syria ..." apply if Lebanon-Syria is controlled by a neutral Vichy France?
A: No, unless the Axis have achieved diplomatic hex control of Vichy France (via an '8' diplomatic result). After a '9' or '10' diplomatic result, Vichy would no longer be neutral, and the modifier would apply then as well. [2006 May 31]

Q: If the Axis gain control of Lebanon-Syria as a result of an Allied attack, and then subsequently send units to Lebanon-Syria, does the +1 USAT modifier apply?
A: The entry of other Axis into Lebanon-Syria triggers the modifier. [2008 Nov 20]

Q: Does the +1 USAT modifier for Axis units in Britain apply if the Axis control British hexes but have no Axis units in Britain?
A: The +1 USAT modifier only applies if there is an Axis unit in Britain. The situation posed can arise in a number of ways: (1) If Germany and Britain are not at war after a British surrender and adverse U.S. election result, the Axis could have control of Britain yet withdraw all Axis units; (2) If Germany airdrops into Britain and the Allies eliminate the airborne but refrain from retaking the hex, the Axis could control a hex in Britain yet have no units in Britain. In these cases there is no longer a +1 USAT tick once there are no Axis units in Britain. In the British surrender case, the +2 USAT modifier for a British resistance level below "0" may apply. [2010 Nov 5-6]

Q: What does the "Far East" mean in the context of the USAT event modifiers?
A: Although 89.1-89.5 list the components of the Far East as Communist China, the Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, the Philippines, and Thailand, in the context of the USAT, the "Far East" refers to the entire Pacific Theatre. Rule 89 is not intended to define "Far East." [2005 Jun 9]

Q: Do British naval factors in the Indian Ocean SW box count towards the "more than 10 British naval factors in India or the Far East" (or "Asia", as the scenario description says)?
A: No. 51.73A prohibits the naval units in the Indian Ocean SW box from doing anyting on the Pacific mapboard. The SW box itself is on the European mapboard; together with 51.73A, naval units in the Indian Ocean SW box have no more effect on the Pacific theatre than naval units in the South Africa box or Suez/Basra/Abadan.

Q: Do NAS sent to the Far East before Britain and Japan are at war increase USAT?
A: One, two, or three land-based NAS count as an air factor sent to the Far East. Carrier-based NAS have no additional effect beyond that of their carrier. [2008 Jun 13]

Q: When the USAT reaches 35 and the U.S. is allowed to construct American CVEs, may those CVEs be immediately deployed to the Atlantic SW box?
A: No. The CVEs may be built, but may not be used until the U.S. is at war. [2006 Mar 18]

Tension Tables: USJT Table

Q: Does the +1 event modifier for Japan increasing its shipbuilding rate apply to both production and mobilization increases?
A: Yes. The event applies no matter how the shipbuilding rate is increased. [2014 Nov 8]

Q: How does the Japanese mobilization status modifier work?
A: The turn in which Japan takes its first (USJT 10) mobilization, the modifier is +1. Thereafter it is +1 every turn, until the turn in which Japan takes its second (USJT 20) mobilization. In that turn the modifier is +2, and thereafter it is +2 every turn until Japan takes its third (USJT 30) mobilization. In that turn and all following turns it is +3. The modifier never decreases, though if Japan goes to war before completing all its mobilizations it may never reach +3. [2014 Nov 8]

Q: How does the event modifier for Japanese bombing apply if Japan bombs multiple targets on multiple turns?
A: The modifier applies once every turn in which Japan bombs, regardless of the number of different countries it bombs. [2014 Nov 10]

Q: Which are the two northern hexes of French Indochina?
A: The two hexes along the Chinese border (t16, u16); 76.42 describes the progressive occupation of French Indochina. [2014 Nov 17]

Q: If Japan mobilizes the turn it declares war on the U.S., will the mobilization increase USJT for determining surprise and the Pearl Harbor attack? Will adding a shipbuilding point via mobilization? Will adding a shipbuilding point via production?
A: In the turn Japan declares war on the U.S., any remaining mobilizations will be triggered, either by the usual USJT status modifiers or because USJT is set to 50 by the declaration of war (36.11G). If status modifiers force a Japanese mobilization, that mobilization takes place immediately (before the declaration of war) and the status modifier for the turn will include the +1 for that Japanese mobilization (36.11C); in this case the mobilization increases the USJT used to determine surprise and to resolve the Pearl Harbor attack. However, if status modifiers do not force a Japanese mobilization, Japan need not mobilize before the declaration of war; in this case the status modifier for the turn will not include the +1 for that mobilization when the USJT is used to determine surprise and to resolve the Pearl Harbor attack. In the latter case, Japan will mobilize after the declaration of war, and such a post-DoW mobilization is explicitly excluded from the status modifier.

The USJT modifier for adding a shipbuilding point is an event modifier, and takes effect at the point at which it occurs (49.842). Mobilizing a shipbuilding point before Japan declares war on the U.S. (such as would occur if a Japanese mobilization is triggered by USJT status modifiers in the turn Japan declares war) triggers a USJT event modifier that affects surprise and the Pearl Harbor attack (36.11C). Mobilizing a shipbuilding point after Japan declares war on the U.S. does not trigger the USJT event modifier until after the USJT has already been used to determine surprise and the effects at Pearl Harbor. Adding a Japanese shipbuilding point via production during unit construction (well after the declaration of war) would have no effect on surprise or the Pearl Harbor attack. [2009 Sep 23 [off-list]]

Q: When can the U.S. deploy troops to defend Wake, Midway, or Johnston Island?
A: USJT governs American troop deployment in the Pacific theater. These islands cannot be reinforced until USJT reaches 37, which will generally not happen before Japan declares war. Wake will generally fall to Japan in the first turn of war, before it can be defended. Midway and Johnston Island cannot be attacked by Japan in the turn it goes to war, so troops can be deployed to defend them in the Allied player turn following Japan's declareation of war. . REF Spencer Miller; 2017 Mar 28

Scenario Introduction

Q: What does the abbreviation "Tr" mean?
A: It's an abbreviation for "Transports". [2013 Oct 7]

Campaign Scenarios: Rules

Q: What are the "light" and "heavy" shipbuilding points referenced in the single-theater box in the U.S. section of the scenario rules?
A: Light shipbuilding points are those shipbuilding points (half, rounded up) in each shipyard that can be used to construct any legal naval units (one-factor naval units or cruisers or named ships); heavy shipbuilding points are the remaining shipbuilding points that can be used to construct only cruisers or named ships, but not one-factor naval units (27.7221). Note the distinction between light shipbuilding points (those that can be used to build one-factor ships) and light ships (cruisers, destroyers, CVEs - 20.12A). Cruisers (a light ship) may be built with heavy shipbuilding points. [2014 Oct 30]

Q: In a Europe-only game, what are the consequences of Allied loss of the entire Middle East?
A: The Western Allies can no longer use the oil in the Middle East, or ship aid to Russia via Persia. The Italians could raid in the Indian Ocean, and German submarines could be used in the Indian SW box. There is no requirement to send oil to India; three transports are inverted to reflect the shipment of oil or units to India. If no oil is available, it is assumed the transports are shipping units instead. Nothing requires the use of Atlantic transports to send anything to India in an ETO-only game. [2005 Jun 22-23]

Q: If a scenario requires the withdrawal of naval units, is sending the required naval units off the mapboard sufficient to satisfy this requirement?
A: Yes, if these naval units are eliminated while trying to leave the mapboard, the player need not send more in order to comply with the scenario requirement. Presumably these lost units must then be replaced during the next player turn (as if they had been lost to raiders). [official Q&A]

Q: Do units in the Australia box count towards the deployment limits for "Australia"?
A: The Australia box is part of Australia (5.51). Units that are built or deploy to the Australia mapboard box count towards the deployment limit for "Australia". [Post #114478 -- 2008 Dec 16]

Barbarossa Scenario: Rules

Q: What can the Axis and Russian DDs listed in the Naval Capabilities table do in the Barbarossa scenario?
A: The destroyer factors are used for sea transport, seaborne invasions, and sea escort (NR of ground/air units). The number of destroyer factors limit the number of ground (or air) units that can be carried each turn. Sea supply does not require destroyers, and can be traced in any sea where a country has a naval capability. Enemy naval activities (including sea supply) can be opposed and protected by air units, but not by naval units. The opposing destroyer factors never interact with each other or with air units; they are present in the Barbarossa scenario only to quantify the sealift capability of sea transport, seaborne invasions, and sea escort.

Q: What is the Axis winter preparation level in a Barabarossa scenario?
A: The Axis begin with a winter preparation level of 0 (34.41A); the assumption is that no winter preparation production was done. After the first winter of war, the Axis will receive automatic increases according to 34.442A. [2016 May 12]

Q: How are the Barbarossa victory conditions figured?
A: There are twelve objectives in play: 14 total eastern front objectives, minus Stockholm (neutral) and Krakow (on the western mapboard). At start, Russia controls 11 of the objectives (9 in Russia, plus Riga and Lvov); Germany controls 1 (Warsaw). The assumption is that Germany takes or isolates Riga, Lvov, Kiev, Smolensk, Kharkov, Leningrad, Sevastopol in 1941, giving it 8. Leningrad is relieved but Maikop falls in 1942, leaving Germany still with 8. In 1943 Russia begins to recover its territory. At the end of each year from 1941 through 1943, count the number of objectives controlled by each side and award points. The side with most points after 1943 wins, so a strong start can be offset by a weak finish, and vice versa. [2015 May 21]

North Africa Scenario: Rules

Q: Can the Axis rebuild more than two ground units in a turn?
A: Axis units in the North Africa scenario are rebuilt at no cost in Messina. Stacking limits do not apply to this abstract placement in Messina, so the Axis are not limited to building only two ground units. (In a full scenario, these builds would be placed in several hexes across Italy and Germany.) [2017 Nov 29]

Q: How do air/naval units get uninverted in this scenario (which does not use the oil rules)?
A: Assume that any unit in full supply may be uninverted. [2015 Jul 27]

Q: Are replacements used in the North Africa scenario? 10.25 says all replacements begin in play, on the map.
A: There are no replacements used in the North Africa scenario. (In a campaign game, most players consider them too slow to be used in Africa.) [2016 Jun 20]

Tables: Air Range Effects Table

Q: Does the number of air range results for the raiding player affect raider interception die rolls?
A: No. Only the number of air range results for the defending player matters (21.5342). The modifier for SW may be either positive or negative (25.623), but the modifier for raiders is always positive (in favor of the defender sending additional ships). The table lists the modifier with the +/- simply because the same column is used for strategic warfare as for raiders. [2006 Sep 21]

Tables: Naval Activities Table

Q: What is the difference between "accompanying" mission and "protecting" a mission?
A: In effect, there is no difference. The terms are interchangeable. [2013 Jan 10]

Sequence of Play

Q: What land-based air missions are announced in step 6a?
A: Of the air missions flown during the combat phase (18.512) some are explicitly announced at other times, such as airdrops in step 6k. Others make no sense to announce in step 6a, such as interception of defensive air support or counter-interception of defending air that intercepts air transports. In step 6a, counterair, attacks by land-based air on naval bases, ground support for regular attacks (excluding exploitation attacks, but including ground support for airdrops that will be made during regular combat in step 6k), and strategic bombing. [2010 Apr 18]

Q: What counterair missions are resolved in step 6c?
A: Counterair missions by land-based air units are announced in step 6a and resolved in step 6c. All combat-phase counterair missions by carrier-based air units (egardless of the mission being conducted: patrol, fast carrier mission, etc.) are announced and resolved in step 6h. [2015 Jan 18]

Q: Can the defender allocate DAS in response to the attacker's announcement of carrier-based ground support?
A: No. All DAS (except that in response to low-odds attacks) is announced in step 6.e, before carrier-based air missions are announced in step 6.h. [2013 Oct 8] [2013 Nov 5]

Q: Can the attacker wait to see what NAS his carriers (whether on patrol, a fast carrier mission, or another offensive mission) have available after naval combat before making a final decision on his land-based air ground support?
A: No. All ground support from land-based air must be allocated in step 6.a, while naval combat is resolved in step 6.g and ground support from carrier-based air is allocated in step 6.h. If a player is concerned that not enough carrier-based NAS will be available for ground support, the remedy is to allocate "extra" (in that it may turn out not to be needed) land-based ground support in step 6.a, before knowing for sure. [2013 Nov 5]

Q: Can carrier-based air be used to intercept DAS? When is that interception resolved?
A: Carrier-based air can intercept DAS (18.562, 21.556B). If DAS is flown (step 6.3), and land-based air is allocated to intercept (step 6.f). The interception could then be resolved in step 6.g, if the attacker will not also allocate carrier-based air to intercept. Carrier-based air is allocated to intercept DAS in step 6.h. If the DAS interception involves carrier-based air, it is involved in step 6.h. [2013 Oct 8]

Q: When is deferred DAS for low-odds attacks announced?
A: Deferred DAS is announced immediately after the attacking and defending ground units are designated, between step 6.l.i and 6.l.ii. [2007 Oct 29]

Player Aids: RS05-GWScenCards

Q: May France start with units in Libya? No. France must start with two 1x3 infantry units in French North Africa and one 1x3 infantry in Lebanon-Syria. What is labeled as "deployment limits" is a combination of starting deployment restrictions and ongoing restrictions on French units (75.51, 75.61). [2014 Sep 23]

Q: May Russia place additional naval units beyond the required CA6 + DD3 in the Pacific during setup?
A: No. As is clear from the European scenario card, the remaining 3 BB2, CA6, DD6 are European forces, and they must be set up in either the Baltic or Black Sea. The game allows no mechanism to transfer Russian naval forces between the Pacific theater and European theater. The only way to move naval units between theaters is through Western Allied mapboard boxes, but Russian units are barred from entering any Western Allied mapboard box (53.46). Russian ground and air units may move between theaters via the Urals box, but naval units may not enter the Urals box (5.77, 5.78). [2014 Jun 10] [2014 Jul 1]

Player Aids: RS07-EuroScenCards

Q: May France start with units in Libya? No. France must start with two 1x3 infantry units in French North Africa and one 1x3 infantry in Lebanon-Syria. What is labeled as "deployment limits" is a combination of starting deployment restrictions and ongoing restrictions on French units (75.61). [2014 Sep 23]

Q: Why are the Indiana, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wasp (present in the global war US Atlantic shipyard) not present in the European scenario US Atlantic shipyard?
A: Those four ships are presumed to transfer to the Pacific Fleet when launched. [2014 Oct 30]

Player Aids: RS08-EuroForces

Q: Why is the Australian shipyard present on the European force pool chart?
A: Western Allied naval units may be repaired in the Australian shipyard (27.7264). But note that the campaign scenario rules bar British ships from Australia before war breaks out with Japan in Wi'41.

Player Aids: RS09-PacScenCards

[consistency edit] The beginning Russian starting Pacific naval forces (CA6, DD3) are missing from the Pacific scenario card.


Q: Are L23 and Harwich adjacent by land?
A: No. [2013 Feb 14]

Q: Are Basra and Abadan adjacent by land?
A: Yes, the hexes are adjacent by land; the Euphrates River runs along the hex border between them. [2010 Jun 9]

Q: Is E44 (the hex southeast of Leningrad) a forest hex?
A: No. All three of the Russian hexes adjacent to Leningrad are clear hexes. [2005 Sep 16] [official Q&A]

Q: Is naval movement from CC11 to CC12 (outside Algiers) possible?
A: Yes. It's impossible to tell on either the Warplanner or printed AWAW maps, but on the A3R map it is clear. Assuming it wasn't intentionally changed, naval movement is possible. [2006 Mar 8 [off-list]]

Q: Is naval movement from DD16 to DD17 to EE17 (or DD18) (around Tunis) possible?
A: Yes. The CC17-DD17-EE17 path is one of the specific examples in 4.52. [official Q&A] [2007 Apr 17] [2013 Jan 3]

Q: Is naval movement from DD26 to EE26 (off the Greek coast) possible?
A: Yes. [4.52, official Q&A] [2007 Apr 17]

Q: Is naval movement from EE27 to EE26 to EE25 (southern tip of the Peloponnese) possible?
A: Yes; it is not necessary to move through FF26 (in air range of Libya). [2011 Nov 2]

Q: Is Hong Kong a beach?
A: Yes; both Canton (S20) and Hong Kong (T20) are beaches. See the European and Pacific conference maps linked to from, and look for both the sandy hex color and the white border between the shoreline and the water.

Q: Is AA21 (Davao) a jungle/mountain hex?
A: Davao is a jungle hex with a beach, but not a jungle/mountain hex. [2008 Mar 16]

Q: Is naval movement permitted between Manila and Lingayen?
A: Yes. [2005 Aug 9]

Q: Is naval movement from Port Said (on the southwest side of the peninsula) directly northeast to KK32 permitted?
A: Yes. [2013 Jan 3]

Q: Is naval movement from the ports of Hamburg/Kiel directly to I30 permitted?
A: Yes. [2013 Jan 3]

Q: Is naval movement from the port of Salonika directly to AA30 permitted?
A: No; the peninsulas in AA29 (Salonika) extend into BB29, so naval movement must be Salonika-BB29-AA29. This is more clear on the A3R map. [2013 Jan 3]

Q: Is naval movement permitted between C27 and C28?
A: Yes; this is one of the specific examples in 4.52. [2013 Jan 3]

Q: Is naval movement permitted between K27 and K28?
A: Yes. [2013 Jan 3]