AA50 Rules Errata

[dondoolee]

Can paratroopers transport inf across sea?  In triplea they can not.

[axis_roll]

Can paratroopers transport inf across sea?  In triplea they can not.

Certainly, there is no sea zone restriction

[Gamerman01]

I have a question about retreating loaded transports.  If the naval battle goes sour before the landing of troops, the attacking fleet must retreat.  Sometimes this means loaded transports with little or no protection left.  The beaten attacker has no other choice but to retreat one space from whence he came, right?  And then the 3 or 4 transports (hypothetical) loaded with 3-4 tanks and 3-4 men all get killed by one submarine or fighter plane during the next round?  Am I interpreting the rules correctly?  Just the risk you take when attacking boats and landing all in one move? 

[Krieghund]

You're interpreting the rules correctly.

[Captain Crunch]

I too have a transport question.  Japan has been conquered ( don't ask, don't ask  ).  On the mainland adjacent to Japan is a Japanese tank.  Small US force in the SZ surrounding Japan.  I now need to come back with my Japanese fleet and retake Japan.  I want to bring a transport with one infantry to do an amphibious attack on Japan to try and liberate it.  Can my Japanse transport bridge the Japanese tank to Japan along with the one infantry it brought into the sea zone if the sea battle is won by Japan, as long as I declare that is my intent?  Or can the tank not bridge because the sz was hostile at the time the battle was declared?

Regards,
Captain Crunch

[Krieghund]

The tank can't be loaded, as the sea zone is hostile during the Combat Movement phase.

[Captain Crunch]

The tank can't be loaded, as the sea zone is hostile during the Combat Movement phase.

Damn, I concede! LOL

[DutchmanD]

I want to clarify a few China questions:

1. If China goes first and liberates a territory, the US cannot land aircraft there on its Noncombat movement. Larry's answer to Telamon's letter seemed to indicate that one of the China advantages is being able to go first with one or the other (China and US). I'm not sure why this would matter if there wasn't some advantage regarding aircraft landings (aside from the Chinese being able to place new units in territories liberated by the US).

2. Not being able to place Chinese in territories with three or more units. Is that Chinese units only or any Allied units. Example: 6 Soviet infantry in a territory at the end of a Chinese turn, eligible for Chinese mobilization or no?

[Gamerman01]

I can answer question #2.  You only count Chinese units, and this includes the Flying Tigers.  Does not include industrial complexes (built by an Axis power).  So you can place 4 Chinese in a territory with 6 Soviet infantry.

[Krieghund]

1. If China goes first and liberates a territory, the US cannot land aircraft there on its Noncombat movement. Larry's answer to Telamon's letter seemed to indicate that one of the China advantages is being able to go first with one or the other (China and US). I'm not sure why this would matter if there wasn't some advantage regarding aircraft landings (aside from the Chinese being able to place new units in territories liberated by the US).

Any number of situations could exist in which it was advantageous for one country or the other to go first.  The best example that I can think of is for one side to "soften up" an Axis-held territory so that the other could take it.  It would depend on the relative composition of the forces involved, as well as the overall circumstances, as to the optimal order of execution of the battles.

Thanks for getting question 2, Gamerman01!

[DutchmanD]

Thanks. I've got 20 Russian infantry, 3 Russian artillery, 6 Russian armor, 2 Russian aa guns, 1 US Bomber, and 2 UK armor in China right now (not to mention the Chinese inf) in the Spring '09 Tourny championship game... so all these China rules are suddenly very important.

 

[Col. Flagg]

I saw this in a forum game and was confused.

In round 1, Japan sent a fighter from Japan to the Hawaii sea zone, which is 4 moves, BUT he didn't move his carrier into the zone.  The reasoning was if the fighter died, then he could move the carrier elsewhere, but if it lived, then he had to move it in.  So, is this legal?  I thought you had to demonstrate the fighter has a place to land before you end the Combat/Noncombat movement phase.

[Battling Maxo]

I saw this in a forum game and was confused.

In round 1, Japan sent a fighter from Japan to the Hawaii sea zone, which is 4 moves, BUT he didn't move his carrier into the zone.  The reasoning was if the fighter died, then he could move the carrier elsewhere, but if it lived, then he had to move it in.  So, is this legal?  I thought you had to demonstrate the fighter has a place to land before you end the Combat/Noncombat movement phase.

Japan does not have  to commit the carrier on combat movement. If air units survived the battle then Japan would be required to move the carrier on non combat movement. Non combat movement occurs later in the turn sequence....all Japan is required to do is to show a potential landing space.

[Gamerman01]

Well said.  Was that me, Col. Flagg?  I just did that recently.

[Gamerman01]

And on that note, you must have a potential landing space for every fighter.  You may assume that all your units will hit and all enemy units will miss (straight from the rulebook).
However, a carrier can't pick up two fighters in two different places at once!  All fighters must be able to land if they survive, however improbable the odds.
As you can imagine, carriers give a tremendous boost in options for your airforce and makes your country much more dangerous.  Thank goodness they only cost 14 compared to 18 in classic!!  And with the right tech, a mere 11!