AA50 Rules Errata

[Butcher]

I just have a quick AA gun question:

If Russia attacks a German territory with only ground units, and that territory has an AA gun, can Russia move the AA gun in there NCM that turn since it didn't fire?

Thanks

[Gamerman01]

No.  Just captured AA guns cannot be moved no matter what.

[pitheist314]

No.  Just captured AA guns cannot be moved no matter what.

That would be a logical assumption, but do you have any source to back up your statement?

[Gamerman01]

No.  Just captured AA guns cannot be moved no matter what.

That would be a logical assumption, but do you have any source to back up your statement?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.  Check page 20 of the manual you apparently don't have.
Under step 6, conclude combat:
"If you capture an antiaircraft gun, you cannot move it in the Noncombat Move phase of the same turn."  Satisfied?
Am I the only one reads the rulebook?  You know, besides Krieghund.

[Yoshi]

Question about paratroopers :

The FAQ says

Q. Bombers carrying Paratroopers must stop moving in the first hostile territory they enter. If a tank is blitzing through an unoccupied hostile territory, does a bomber entering that territory during the same Combat Movement phase have to stop there, or can it keep moving?
A. Since the territory is captured as soon as the blitzing tank enters it, the territory is considered friendly at that point, and the bomber may continue its movement.

Does this rule works only with tanks ?

Or if an infantry takes the empty territory, can the paratrooper continue its movement ?

More tricky : can a first paratrooper take the empty territory, and a second one continue farther away ?

[TimTheEnchanter]

Question about paratroopers :

The FAQ says

Q. Bombers carrying Paratroopers must stop moving in the first hostile territory they enter. If a tank is blitzing through an unoccupied hostile territory, does a bomber entering that territory during the same Combat Movement phase have to stop there, or can it keep moving?
A. Since the territory is captured as soon as the blitzing tank enters it, the territory is considered friendly at that point, and the bomber may continue its movement.

Does this rule works only with tanks ?

Yes

Or if an infantry takes the empty territory, can the paratrooper continue its movement ?

Nope.  The way kreig explained it when it was asked before is that only a blitzing tank immediately makes a territory friendly.  Other units are not fast enough to immediately control the territory.

More tricky : can a first paratrooper take the empty territory, and a second one continue farther away ?

Nope.  (See above)

[Yoshi]

ok, thanks !

[Krieghund]

To further clarify this issue, not just any tank movement will clear the way for a paratrooper-carrying bomber.  Only a blitz movement will.  A blitz movement occurs only when a tank moves through an unoccupied hostile territory and then into another territory.  Only the first territory is considered to be "blitzed", and its ownship changes immediately during combat movement.  The territory in which the tank ends its movement is not considered to be blitzed, whether it's occupied or not.  That territory's ownership doesn't change until the combat phase.

As an example, lets' say a tank starts in Territory A and blitzes through unoccupied enemy Territory B, then moves into unoccupied enemy Territory C.  Only Territory B is blitzed and changes hands immediately.  A paratrooper-carrying bomber could move through Territory B, as it is now friendly due to the blitz.  However, it would have to stop in Territory C, as this is still enemy-held territory.

[Bardoly]

Probably a pretty easy question.

Situation:

The US controls the Caroline Islands and has 1 transport and 2 subs in sz51.  Japan has NO destroyers on the board, but has other naval vessels (including subs) and air units in range.  Japan wants to both clear the seazone of my transport AND retake the Carolines.

Question 1:

Can Japan clear the sea zone with a fighter, and then send in a loaded transport to retake the Caroline Islands?  This means that the transport would ignore the subs in the sea zone.  It seems to me that the naval battle (including the subs would have to be fought before the amphibious assault can happen.  Am I right?

Question 2:

If Japan sends in a sub (or any naval ships) to clear my transport, then of course my subs have the option to stay on the surface and fight a naval battle before the transport is cleared.  Right?

[Krieghund]

Can Japan clear the sea zone with a fighter, and then send in a loaded transport to retake the Caroline Islands?  This means that the transport would ignore the subs in the sea zone.  It seems to me that the naval battle (including the subs would have to be fought before the amphibious assault can happen.  Am I right?

If you attack the transport, you also attack the subs.  While Japan's fighter is killing the US transport, the US subs will be killing Japan's transport.  The only way for the Japanese to do an amphibious assault on the Carolines is to either bring something to the battle that can hit the subs, or just ignore the US transport and subs completely and land the troops without a sea battle.

If Japan sends in a sub (or any naval ships) to clear my transport, then of course my subs have the option to stay on the surface and fight a naval battle before the transport is cleared.  Right?

Yes.

[Yoshi]

Can Japan clear the sea zone with a fighter, and then send in a loaded transport to retake the Caroline Islands?  This means that the transport would ignore the subs in the sea zone.  It seems to me that the naval battle (including the subs would have to be fought before the amphibious assault can happen.  Am I right?

If you attack the transport, you also attack the subs.  While Japan's fighter is killing the US transport, the US subs will be killing Japan's transport.  The only way for the Japanese to do an amphibious assault on the Carolines is to either bring something to the battle that can hit the subs, or just ignore the US transport and subs completely and land the troops without a sea battle.

But when the subs kill the Japan tranny, the Japan fighter can shoot against the subs, can't they ?

This would mean that the subs first kill the japan tranny, then take the fire of the Japan aircraft, and submere at the beginning of the next round, when the US tranny is killed as now alone.

Am I right ?

[axis_roll]

Can Japan clear the sea zone with a fighter, and then send in a loaded transport to retake the Caroline Islands?  This means that the transport would ignore the subs in the sea zone.  It seems to me that the naval battle (including the subs would have to be fought before the amphibious assault can happen.  Am I right?

If you attack the transport, you also attack the subs.  While Japan's fighter is killing the US transport, the US subs will be killing Japan's transport.  The only way for the Japanese to do an amphibious assault on the Carolines is to either bring something to the battle that can hit the subs, or just ignore the US transport and subs completely and land the troops without a sea battle.

But when the subs kill the Japan tranny, the Japan fighter can shoot against the subs, can't they ?

This would mean that the subs first kill the japan tranny, then take the fire of the Japan aircraft, and submere at the beginning of the next round, when the US tranny is killed as now alone.

Am I right ?

Don't confuse the rule of what unit can hit what unit with the ability and timing of a sub to dive (submerge)

The rule is that a plane can not hit a sub unless a DD is present.  Has nothing to do with a sub defending or not.

[Krieghund]

Don't confuse the rule of what unit can hit what unit with the ability and timing of a sub to dive (submerge)

The rule is that a plane can not hit a sub unless a DD is present.  Has nothing to do with a sub defending or not.

Right.  The fighter and subs can't hit each other, so the only valid targets for both sides are transports.  The US transport would be eliminated immediately, as it's defenseless.  The Japanese transport would last until it either retreated or was hit by a sub.  As it can't possibly land its troops, there's no point in bringing it along for the attack.

[Yoshi]

yeah, for sure... forgot that.

I don't know what I was thinking when I posted...

Thanks for the answers anyway

[Bardoly]

Yes, thanks for the answers.