The Convoy rule in Axis & Allies 1940 (Europe, Pacific, Global) isn’t the most easily written rule in the rule book. Below is a summarized version.
If an enemy warship is in an opponents’ sea zone with a ‘convoy’ marker, the IPCs collected at the end of a turn can be reduced based on convoy damage inflicted, per below.
How many dice do I roll?
- for each battleship, cruiser, destroyer: roll 1 dice
- for each submarine or air unit (air unit on a carrier): roll 2 dice
How do I calculate IPC damage?
- Ignore rolls of 4 or higher
- Add up the values of the remaining dice (i.e. rolls of 3 or less) to determine the total IPC damage*
* the total damage value cannot exceed the IPC value shown on the board for the adjacent defending territory/territories — even if it’s on the receiving end of multiple convoy disruptions.
An example of convoy damage calculation, as swiped from the rule book:
I don’t get it. If we ignore rolls of 4 or less, I only count 6 How do they do 8?
Ignore rolls of 4 or HIGHER.
Can you chose to not do convoy disruption? For example Germany is about to take London on the next turn. Why deplete London’s cash if you are about to take it?
My understanding is that it’s optional — You can choose not to. Half the time we forget to?! Heh. Thanks for the comment.
April 2, 2024. Axis and Allies Global, 1940.
Does a country need to be at war to have a convoy attack on it? For example if UK Pacific is not at war, can Japanese units conduct a convoy attack on Borneo (4 ipcs) in sea zone 43?
I’m assuming since convoys are done at the collect income phase, no war needs to be in effect, just like merchant ships from countries not at war, were attacked in WW2, especially by German submarines. Thank you.
“Also, no single territory can lose more IPCs than its own IPC value from multiple disrupted adjacent convoys (for example, Japan cannot lose more than 8 IPCs from disrupted convoys in sea zones 6 and 19).” (A&A Pacific, 2ed., 23)
This literally makes no sense. Why is the rulebook discussing sea zone 19 in reference to the territory of Japan? It’s already demonstrated in the example that Japan (the power), can lose up to 11 IPCs in sea zone 6, then it appears to be introducing a limit *below 11* for multiple disrupted adjacent convoys.
So, on the one hand, the limit for sea zone 6 is 11 IPCs. On the other hand, the limit on raiding sea zones 6 and 19 together is, inexplicably, 8 IPCs.
The rule is self-contradictory and needs an edit.