AA50 Rules Errata

[Krieghund]

Per the FAQ, China is considered to be the original owner of Manchuria and Kiangsu.  This works in the same way that the USSR is considered to be the original owner of Belorussia in the '42 scenario, even though Germany starts the game in control of the territory.  As a result, control of Manchuria and Kiangsu works in exactly the same way as control of any "normal" Chinese territory.  Japan just happens to start out the game controlling them (as an enemy power).

[Funcioneta]

Hi, Krieg, we are in a bit confusing situation. Tim wants enter with his sub in a sz where I have sub, dd, tra but he wants do it in NCM phase, without attacking them. I think he must attack and kill the dd to enter the sz, but he thinks not. I'm not sure of this, just I'll link you to the game thread

There is a dd in z23, so you must attack it to enter that sz with the sub. You cannot enter there in NCMs unless you kill the dd first

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13098.285

Another thing, can the trannie transport troops if I must leave the sz in case of Tim has right? It must do it in combat phase or in NCM. Thanks

[ElCapitan]

Per the FAQ, China is considered to be the original owner of Manchuria and Kiangsu.  This works in the same way that the USSR is considered to be the original owner of Belorussia in the '42 scenario, even though Germany starts the game in control of the territory.  As a result, control of Manchuria and Kiangsu works in exactly the same way as control of any "normal" Chinese territory.  Japan just happens to start out the game controlling them (as an enemy power).

Thanks for the clarification.

[TimTheEnchanter]

Hi, Krieg, we are in a bit confusing situation. Tim wants enter with his sub in a sz where I have sub, dd, tra but he wants do it in NCM phase, without attacking them. I think he must attack and kill the dd to enter the sz, but he thinks not. I'm not sure of this, just I'll link you to the game thread

There is a dd in z23, so you must attack it to enter that sz with the sub. You cannot enter there in NCMs unless you kill the dd first

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13098.285

Another thing, can the trannie transport troops if I must leave the sz in case of Tim has right? It must do it in combat phase or in NCM. Thanks

I hadn't even thought of this until just now.  I know you don't have to move the TRN just because I am there.  A sub does not make the sea zone hostile for you.  You are free to ignore my sub there for as long as you would like. You should be able to move those boats in either combat or non-combat move as you wish.  However, my question would be:  IF the DD attacks my sub, does the TRN have to then move in combat move (thus not picking up units unless they unload in hostile territory) either out of the territory or as part of the attack on the sub, or can it do an NCM (moving units to a friendly territory) and the DD does its Attack?

(this all assumes my interpretation of the original question is correct and my sub can be there in the first place  )

[Krieghund]

Yes, you can move a sub into a hostile sea zone in noncombat movement, even if there's an enemy destroyer there.  The destroyer simply keeps the sub from moving on through the sea zone.

The presence of an enemy sub in your sea zone at the beginning of your turn doesn't necessarily have any effect on your units there, since the sub doesn't make the sea zone hostile.  It depends on how you treat the sub.  You can pretend that it isn't there if you wish, and it will have no effect.  However, if you decide to attack it, all of your units in the sea zone must either attack the sub or move away in combat movement.  They will not be eligible to move in noncombat movement either way, since they will have either moved in combat movement or participated in combat.  Any transports will be able to load units before combat moving, assuming they are participating in an immediate amphibious assault.

[RogertheShrubber]

In 1942 if you liberate any of the Indies, Borneo, solomons, etc, do their IPC value go to the US or does it revert back to UK?

[ElCapitan]

In 1942 if you liberate any of the Indies, Borneo, solomons, etc, do their IPC value go to the US or does it revert back to UK?

UK

[Funcioneta]

Yes, you can move a sub into a hostile sea zone in noncombat movement, even if there's an enemy destroyer there.  The destroyer simply keeps the sub from moving on through the sea zone.

The presence of an enemy sub in your sea zone at the beginning of your turn doesn't necessarily have any effect on your units there, since the sub doesn't make the sea zone hostile.  It depends on how you treat the sub.  You can pretend that it isn't there if you wish, and it will have no effect.  However, if you decide to attack it, all of your units in the sea zone must either attack the sub or move away in combat movement.  They will not be eligible to move in noncombat movement either way, since they will have either moved in combat movement or participated in combat.  Any transports will be able to load units before combat moving, assuming they are participating in an immediate amphibious assault.

OK, it's pretty clear. Thanks, Krieg  Also, has sense. The sub tries sneak but then the dd detects it when enter in the sz

[Stoney229]

Yes, you can move a sub into a hostile sea zone in noncombat movement, even if there's an enemy destroyer there.  The destroyer simply keeps the sub from moving on through the sea zone.

The presence of an enemy sub in your sea zone at the beginning of your turn doesn't necessarily have any effect on your units there, since the sub doesn't make the sea zone hostile.  It depends on how you treat the sub.  You can pretend that it isn't there if you wish, and it will have no effect.  However, if you decide to attack it, all of your units in the sea zone must either attack the sub or move away in combat movement.  They will not be eligible to move in noncombat movement either way, since they will have either moved in combat movement or participated in combat.  Any transports will be able to load units before combat moving, assuming they are participating in an immediate amphibious assault.

Are you sure about this?  my understanding is that the since the sz is still not hostile, and since subs can be ignored (right?), the units are not forced to make a combat move, and thus can make a noncombat move.

[P@nther]

Are you sure about this?  my understanding is that the since the sz is still not hostile, and since subs can be ignored (right?), the units are not forced to make a combat move, and thus can make a noncombat move.

Reading the pararaph that is headlined with "Sea Units starting in hostile sea zones" on p14 of the rulebook I would tend to agree with you because submarines/transports are excluded. So I interpret this as follows:
As enemy submarines/transports can be ignored (as long as there is no other enemy surface warship) there is no need for a reaction/movement in the combat movement phase. There is no need for a combat, either. The seazone is not even considered as hostile. So there will be noncombat moves possible.

But I'm sure Krieghund will clarify this for us
Thank you in advance.

[Krieghund]

Sorry, after I re-read my response, it's not as clear as I originally thought.  When I said "they will not be eligible to move in noncombat movement either way", I meant whether they attack or move away (having decided not to ignore the sub), not whether they attack or ingore the sub.  Of course, if they ignore the sub they can do anything that they want.  I'll try again:


The presence of an enemy sub in your sea zone at the beginning of your turn doesn't necessarily have any effect on your units there, since the sub doesn't make the sea zone hostile.  It depends on how you treat the sub:

Case A - Ignore It: You can pretend that it isn't there if you wish, and it will have no effect.

Case B - Attack It: You can attack it, in which case all of your units in the sea zone must either attack the sub or move away in combat movement.  They will not be eligible to move in noncombat movement either way, since they will have either moved in combat movement or participated in combat.  Any transports will be able to load units before combat moving, assuming they are participating in an immediate amphibious assault.


I hope this clears things up.

[TimTheEnchanter]

I have a (hopefully) quick question about the defenseless transports rules.

If an attacker in a naval battle gets down to the point that he has units going against defenseless transports, is it required that the transports all be auto-sunk, or does the attacker have the option of rolling the battles, with the intent of retreating from the sea zone before the last trn goes down?

For example:  Say a battle is down to a damaged BB and DD against DD, 5 trns.   The attacker gets 2 hits and the defending DD gets one hit.  The hits would sink the two  DDs and 1 trn, leaving BB vs. 4 trns.  (1) Can the attacking BB retreat at this point, even though only defenseless trns are left in the zone?  (2) could the attacking battleship engage the trns for several more rounds against ONLY the defenseless transports and then retreat from the zone once they are down to a single trn?

[Krieghund]

I have a (hopefully) quick question about the defenseless transports rules.

If an attacker in a naval battle gets down to the point that he has units going against defenseless transports, is it required that the transports all be auto-sunk, or does the attacker have the option of rolling the battles, with the intent of retreating from the sea zone before the last trn goes down?

For example:  Say a battle is down to a damaged BB and DD against DD, 5 trns.   The attacker gets 2 hits and the defending DD gets one hit.  The hits would sink the two  DDs and 1 trn, leaving BB vs. 4 trns.  (1) Can the attacking BB retreat at this point, even though only defenseless trns are left in the zone?  (2) could the attacking battleship engage the trns for several more rounds against ONLY the defenseless transports and then retreat from the zone once they are down to a single trn?

Once at least one side is out of combat units, the battle is over, so retreat is no longer possible.  You can't retreat from transports only.  The only exception is when both sides have only transports remaining, in which case the attacker may either retreat or stay in the sea zone.

[TimTheEnchanter]

This seems a bit inconsistent.  If the combat is over when there are no combat units left, why can the attacker withdraw when he's down to just trns, but not when the defender is down to just trns?  It seems that if you are saying trns are not combat units, then the attacker should not be able to withdraw.  If the trns are combat units, then the attacker should have the option of whittling them away and then retreating from the fight while trns are left.

I'll accept the decision at its face - I'm just trying to understand the reasoning.  Thanks

[Krieghund]

You're right.  It's a bit more complicated than what I stated.  I should have said "once at least one side that can't retreat is out of combat units, the battle is over".

What clouds the issue is the possibility of a situation in which the attacker can't retreat for some reason.  That's why I said "at least one side", as the battle would be over if the attacker were out of combat units in such a situation (and the attacking transports would be lost if there were still defending combat units).  However, I should have qualified my answer as I did above to cover that situation properly without disallowing the possibility of the attacker's retreating only transports under normal circumstances.

The irony of the situation is that it's really a moot point for purposes of your question, since it obviously requires that the attacker be in a position where he/she can retreat.  Sometimes trying to give an answer that goes beyond the scope of the question gets me into trouble if I don't consider all of the angles.  On the other hand, other times people generalize what I say and apply it to situations beyond the specific question being asked.   

Good thing there are sharp players to keep me straight!