AA50 Rules Errata

[axis_roll]

my assumption is that the ftr goes on the same nation as the carrier, unless specified.

Well of course!  That's not what I'm talking about at all!

It's your turn.  You have 2 fighters and 2 of your own carriers.  You need to specify which carriers the fighters are on.

Sounds like you're just another one of the culprits I'm talking about!   

Agree with SAS, when would it matter if the US 2 ftrs are split on two US carriers or both ftrs are on one carrier?

When defending, the ftrs are in the air.  When attacking, the ftrs are launched from the carrier... so what is the scenario(s) in which it is important to list that the ftrs are split / on one carrier? 

I guess only if another countries ftrs (more than 1 in my example) intend to land on the US carriers in my example.  Is there another scenario?

[Gamerman01]

Agree with SAS, when would it matter if the US 2 ftrs are split on two US carriers or both ftrs are on one carrier?

It matters as soon as an ally lands in the same sea zone.  You may not have anticipated this (the allied landing) when previously allocating the 2 fighters to 2 carriers.  That's why it should always be stated (or shown on the map by using a bordering area) how exactly the fighters have landed (on what carrier(s))

When defending, the ftrs are in the air.  When attacking, the ftrs are launched from the carrier... so what is the scenario(s) in which it is important to list that the ftrs are split / on one carrier?  

 Whenever another ally may possibly be landing on the same carrier group.

I guess only if another countries ftrs (more than 1 in my example) intend to land on the US carriers in my example.  Is there another scenario?

Right, you answered your own question.  No, the only scenario where it makes any difference is multi-national, because if they're all the same country, the fighters are flying (moving) at the same time as the carriers.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough.  Anytime there are multiple carriers and 2 or more open slots, the player should specify what carriers the fighters are on.  Then, whether anticipated or not, another ally flies a fighter to the carrier group, there is no doubt what carrier is available.  It matters, because if the carriers go separate ways and/or enters battle (on attack) what fighters are on what carriers becomes important.  It's not soon enough to declare this when the ally lands planes on the carriers, because then the owner of the fighters and carriers can effectively choose whichever situation is to his advantage.

Again, this is a distinction that is only an issue with online play, because FTF the planes are physically on the carriers!  See, when the ally lands planes on another power's carriers, the other power's fighters cannot move!  The owner of the carriers should not have the luxury of deciding the fighter situation on a later turn.

[Bardoly]

I agree with Gamerman, although I do know that many players don't think about this.

[Battling Maxo]

I agree with Gamerman, although I do know that many players don't think about this.

I'm surprised that this is an issue...it is somewhat obvious. Have to say that I haven't encountered it yet.

[a44bigdog]

I guess I have been fortunate enough to play with more experienced online opponents and under the conditions gamerman has outlined they have always specified which carriers the fighters were landing on.

[SAS]

The only case I can think of where it would make a difference in the case of a non-multinational defense force, is if you have something like 2 carriers and 2 fighters in a single sea zone and it gets attacked by a group of subs and sinks one of the carriers; however, since the defender gets to choose the casualty and defending planes on a destroyed AC get 1 movement point to land anywhere anyway, it wouldn't matter if the 2 fighters were on 1 of the ACs or split between the two: regardless the planes would have the option of at least landing on the other carrier if only one is destroyed.  Fighters also only use their own 4 movement points when attacking anyway, so where the AC goes during the turn is irrelevant as well.

So all that being said I suppose it only matters in the case of a fighter from country A landing on a carrier from country B (I suppose even more in P40 with ACs taking 2 hits and cargo gets stuck when the AC is damaged), which is the most obvious case, so just make sure to clarify in that case and keep the other power's fighters with the AC they landed on.

It could especially make a difference if both the US and UK have carriers and fighters in the same sea zone; it could actually be pretty advantageous to have the US fighters land on the UK AC and vice versa because if you move the carrier on the other country's turn you get some free extra movement for the fighters as they get carried with the AC.   Depends on the circumstances I suppose.

[Gamerman01]

So all that being said I suppose it only matters in the case of a fighter from country A landing on a carrier from country B (I suppose even more in P40 with ACs taking 2 hits and cargo gets stuck when the AC is damaged), which is the most obvious case, so just make sure to clarify in that case and keep the other power's fighters with the AC they landed on.

You're so close, but not quite all the way there, to understanding this completely.   

It matters BEFORE country A lands on country B's carrier.  The specification should be made when country B had fighters on carriers and had open spots.  Because when country A comes along and decides to land on country B carrier(s), country B's fighters are on certain carrier(s) and cannot move at this time.  Therefore the decision about what carriers the fighters are on should be made on country B's (the country that had homogeneous fighters and carriers, but open slots) turn.  If it's not, it is potentially unfairly benefitting the player with the multi-national fighter/carrier group.

[a44bigdog]

Let me see if I can illustrate this and help gamerman out.

The UK has 1 destroyer, 2 carriers, and 2 fighters in seazone 8. There are 2 German subs in seazone 7. On the US turn 2 US fighters join the UK fleet in seazone 7. On the UK's turn the destroyer two carriers and two fighters attack seazone 7 (yeah I know why bring the CVs but bear with me).  Both German subs hit on defense. At this point it is necessary to know where both US fighters are. If they are on a single carrier the other can be taken as a casualty and the UK fighters can land in England. However, if the fighters are split on the carriers 1 US and 1 UK, 1 of the US fighters will be cargo and will go down with the carrier.

This is point that gamerman is trying to make when a country has open carriers and their is an opportunity (I like to do it anyway) for friendly fighters to land on those carriers they need to declare exactly where the fighters are landing, is it on 1 carrier or split with 1 fighter on each carrier. To not do so at this point allows the player with multinational forces to "move" units when they are not actually moving.

[a44bigdog]

The problem mostly arises online when using ABattlemap. This has "snap to" feature that "stacks" units of the same class within a territory or seazone. The solution as has been stated is to put the carriers and fighters in question on the boundary line of the seazone and this will counteract the "snap to" feature. All that said it should be stated where the fighters are landing in the typed outline of the move, just as it should be stated when they are physically placed when using the actual board and pieces in face to face play.

Hopefully that clears everything up for newer players here as far as the reasons for stating where the fighters are to land and the solution when using one of the available online tools.

Although I have started using Abattlemap for face to face play as well, it makes it so much harder for the cat to reek havoc. There is just something about wargames that cats can not resist!

[Gamerman01]

Thanks, guys, well said.  I keep my cat outside.  

One more thing, though.  It not only matters for when carrier(s) enters into an attack and has cargo, it also matters if the carriers split up into different sea zones.

[SAS]

So all that being said I suppose it only matters in the case of a fighter from country A landing on a carrier from country B (I suppose even more in P40 with ACs taking 2 hits and cargo gets stuck when the AC is damaged), which is the most obvious case, so just make sure to clarify in that case and keep the other power's fighters with the AC they landed on.

You're so close, but not quite all the way there, to understanding this completely.   

It matters BEFORE country A lands on country B's carrier.  The specification should be made when country B had fighters on carriers and had open spots.  Because when country A comes along and decides to land on country B carrier(s), country B's fighters are on certain carrier(s) and cannot move at this time.  Therefore the decision about what carriers the fighters are on should be made on country B's (the country that had homogeneous fighters and carriers, but open slots) turn.  If it's not, it is potentially unfairly benefitting the player with the multi-national fighter/carrier group.

I see your point now, you need to know where the planes are originally to know where the foreign planes can land... Got it.  Thank you for pointing out this important point.

[mcshoo]

Sorry if this question is redundant, but my search function isn't working and for some reason I can't pull up the FAQ.  I read through the first dozen or so pages.

If you capture a territory with an AA gun, it becomes yours.  Can you then move it during non-combat?

This came up when Germany was attacking Karillia and got it, and wanted to weaken it's defenses for when it may need to take it again.

Thanks

[SAS]

Sorry if this question is redundant, but my search function isn't working and for some reason I can't pull up the FAQ.  I read through the first dozen or so pages.

If you capture a territory with an AA gun, it becomes yours.  Can you then move it during non-combat?

This came up when Germany was attacking Karillia and got it, and wanted to weaken it's defenses for when it may need to take it again.

Thanks

No, captured AA guns cannot be moved until the next turn, assuming the player doesn't lose control of it and the territory and has to recapture it again.

[Zhukov44]

If Germany recaptures Manchuria, Kiangsu, or Frindo after these territories were taken by the Allies, who gets ownership?  Germany or Japan?

[Yoshi]

Mandchuria and Kiangsu belongs to China, so that will be for Germany.

FIC belongs to Japan, so except if Tokyo fell of course, this comes back to Japan.