(Rule 28A) Is a naval unit considered moving any time it expends movement points, or only when it enters a new hex? If only the latter, this means that LVTs and LCs in the process of disembarking at a beach hex could not be intercepted (ie., do not trigger reaction) once they reach the beach.

For the purposes of reaction, a naval group is considered moving if it is spending MPs (for any purpose).

(Rule 31) If an NT unit is bombed and hit while embarking ground units, does anything happen to the units (ie., are they considered cargo or not)?

Nothing happens to such ground units. They are not embarked until the naval unit has spent all necessary MPs to embark them. Once embarked, they're cargo and are affected by what happens to the naval unit. (Similarly, a unit is considered cargo if it is embarked on a naval unit which is spending MPs to disembark it and is subject to adverse effects on the naval unit until the naval unit has spent all necessary MPs to disembark it.)

(Rule 31A) Can a naval unit expend naval MPs for embarkation in an empty beach hex, in anticipation offriendly ground units entering the hex and embarking during the upcoming ground movement sub-phase?

No. The prospective cargo must be present for the naval unit to spend MPs to embark it. You can't embark something thats not there yet!

(Rule 40A1) In the definition of "Convert" this rule states: "If it is not possible to convert the unit on the turn specified, it must be converted in the first friendly initial phase in which it can be converted. " Does this mean the first turn the converting unit happens to be in a supplied, non- isolated city hex, not in a ZOC, etc., or is the converting player obligated to withdraw the unit from the line and move it as quickly as possible to such a hex?

The former: the first turn the converting unit happens to be in a supplied, non-isolated city hex, not in a ZOC, etc. This method is guaranteed to work for all game purposes. Yes, this can get a bit silly-you can avoid a particular conversion by trying to ensure the unit never ends up in a city. If you'd like to know how the rule would work in an ideal world, read on.

If you and your opponent are reasonable players, then the conversion is mandatory. (The intention of Rule 40A1 is that reorganizations are voluntary and conversions are mandatory if possible. Conversions are mandatory because not every conversion "makes sense" in the confines of the game: sometimes you incur a net loss of strength or a net loss of special abilities such as AEC/ATEC. These rare "net loss" conversions are usually due to factors outside the scope of the particular game, such as a unit hiving off a cadre of veterans to form a new unit in a theater not in play.)

Once a conversion is specified in the OB, you are required to make a reasonable effort to fulfill it as soon as possible. (This does not require you to replace the unit if it happens to be eliminated. If it is eliminated and you do replace it, however, then you must also convert it ASAP.) If you and your opponent are reasonable, go ahead and use this interpretation of the rule.

Mandatory conversions, however, fall prey to gamesmanship if any of the players in the game are unreasonable. For example, suppose your only unit that can be converted is in an isolated pocket. An unreasonable opponent would argue that you must now move your forces and conduct attacks so as to give every possible chance (regardless of all other consequences) for the isolated unit to get back into a situation in which it can be converted as soon as possible. So, if your opponent is unreasonable, don't use this interpretation of the rule--better still, find a more reasonable opponent!

Reader's Soapbox
by Walter Hard

Recently an SE rules question arose concerning whether a river flotilla could make an amphibious landing in an enemy-occupied hex. I looked at the rule and realized the answer was obvious--clearly, riverboats can't enter enemy-occupied hexes and that's that. What followed was thought-provoking, however. I happened to be playing the "rules lawyer" par excellence of our local Europa group and this fellow was put out because be had to use his valuable Black Sea Fleet instead of river flotillas. He commented to me, "Didn't the Soviets historically use flotilla craft for most of their landings?"

I agreed that this was historically the case, and he argued from historical precedent that the rule must therefore be misunderstood, or wrong. Where I made my mistake in acquiescing to this was in accepting his "argument from the historical case" (is there a neat Latin phrase for that?). Europa is a game system based on history and suffused with historical factoids, but it is a GAME system and even unlimited rules tinkering will not allow Europa to approach that almost infinitely complex process called World War II. If I can come up with a concise viewpoint on the dichotomy between the historical and game aspects of Europa, I'll send it in at a future date.