|
Gamerman01
|
 |
« Reply #585 on: November 11, 2009, 07:33:25 pm » |
0
|
Yes, sure. They're two different actions. One sub ignores sea zone entirely (no DD there), other engages transport. Nothing says you can't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
plumsmugler
|
|
« Reply #586 on: November 12, 2009, 08:52:29 am » |
0
|
So the initial link to the rules and errata seems to have gone bad and I don't feel like sifting through all 40 pages of this thread to find the fixed one. Is there a way to edit the original post so it's a good link again?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Krieghund
|
|
« Reply #587 on: November 12, 2009, 09:05:17 am » |
0
|
Yes, sure. They're two different actions. One sub ignores sea zone entirely (no DD there), other engages transport. Nothing says you can't do that.
Correct. Technically, the sea zone containing the transport is not hostile until combat actually begins, so other units can still move through it even though you're attacking it. Of course, even if the ship in sea zone 51 were a warship (other than a destroyer), the sub could still move through, as subs have that ability. So the initial link to the rules and errata seems to have gone bad and I don't feel like sifting through all 40 pages of this thread to find the fixed one. Is there a way to edit the original post so it's a good link again?
I can't change the original post, but here's the corrected link: AA50 FAQ |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 09:08:40 am by Krieghund »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
souL
|
|
« Reply #588 on: November 12, 2009, 03:54:59 pm » |
0
|
Do you have to retreat land units to a territory you attacked from?
Ex:
2 inf trj -> egy. retreat to Sud.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Krieghund
|
|
« Reply #589 on: November 12, 2009, 04:28:31 pm » |
0
|
They may only retreat to a territory from which one land unit came.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
souL
|
|
« Reply #590 on: November 12, 2009, 05:24:54 pm » |
0
|
You're a big part of the reason I patron this game! Love the quick and sensible rulings.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
axis_roll
|
|
« Reply #591 on: November 12, 2009, 07:37:57 pm » |
0
|
You're a big part of the reason I patron this game! Love the quick and sensible rulings.
Rulings? He's quoting the rules... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Cold
|
|
« Reply #592 on: November 14, 2009, 07:37:12 pm » |
0
|
Question.
Germany captures Egypt. UK takes it back. Italy recaptures it. Is it Germany's or Italy's?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zhukov44
|
|
« Reply #593 on: November 14, 2009, 07:53:09 pm » |
0
|
Question.
Germany captures Egypt. UK takes it back. Italy recaptures it. Is it Germany's or Italy's?
Thanks.
Italy's. Egypt can be captured by either Axis, and since Italy takes it, they get it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Krieghund
|
|
« Reply #594 on: November 14, 2009, 07:54:37 pm » |
0
|
Italy's. Capturing a territory doesn't give you a future claim on it after you lose it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Cold
|
|
« Reply #595 on: November 15, 2009, 09:19:53 am » |
0
|
Thanks Gents.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zhukov44
|
|
« Reply #596 on: November 15, 2009, 10:50:34 am » |
0
|
Tech question...
If a power has mechanized infantry... is it possible to land infantry, and then move them along with the tanks already on the territory they are landing?
This is what happened to me on TripleA. Japan landed 2 infantry on Manchuria, then moved these infantry to Stanovoj along with the tanks already on Manchuria.
Is this is legal move or a software bug?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Battling Maxo
|
|
« Reply #597 on: November 15, 2009, 11:43:57 am » |
0
|
Tech question...
If a power has mechanized infantry... is it possible to land infantry, and then move them along with the tanks already on the territory they are landing?
This is what happened to me on TripleA. Japan landed 2 infantry on Manchuria, then moved these infantry to Stanovoj along with the tanks already on Manchuria.
Is this is legal move or a software bug?
No on two counts...the transporting counts as the move and the units have to start their turn in the same territory as the tanks |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Cold
|
|
« Reply #598 on: November 21, 2009, 05:48:43 pm » |
0
|
Question. A British CV moves to attack with 2 US fighters on it. The CV gets destroyed. Can the fighters land:
*On an adjacent spot before the CV moves?
*On an adjacent spot after the CV is destroyed?
*Do they sink with the ship?
My guess would be the 2nd option. Just like a sub attack on a CV, the fighters get one free space for safe landing. I must admit my opinion is biased.
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gamerman01
|
|
« Reply #599 on: November 21, 2009, 07:25:52 pm » |
0
|
Question. A British CV moves to attack with 2 US fighters on it. The CV gets destroyed. Can the fighters land:
*On an adjacent spot before the CV moves?
*On an adjacent spot after the CV is destroyed?
*Do they sink with the ship?
My guess would be the 2nd option. Just like a sub attack on a CV, the fighters get one free space for safe landing. I must admit my opinion is biased.
The answer is on page 15, under "Special Combat Movement". Under "Aircraft Carriers" - 2nd paragraph - "Guest fighters belonging to a friendly power on board another power's carrier must remain on board as cargo if the carrier moves in combat. They cannot take part in combat and are destroyed if the carrier is destroyed. Sorry. Dem's da rules. (Bold emphasis added) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
[Amazon]
[Amazon]
[Amazon]
[Amazon]
