AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

[Krieghund]

Yes, that’s correct.

[Lucifer]

Got a question for you Krieghund, about transports. If an attacker attacks enemy units in a sz, which also contains enemy transports, can the attacker choose to roll for each of the attacking units against the transports so that if the attacker wants to kill only some of the enemy transports and then retreat, if for some reason the attacker should want to retreat from this battle? Or is this a special rule, meaning defenseless transports are always autokilled without any options?

You said in a previous post: “The concept behind the defenseless transports rule is that if the battle continued, the fighters would roll again and again without response from the transports until the transports were destroyed.  The rule just keeps you from having to roll all those dice.”

I interpret this as the attacker have a choice, say, if there are 5 defenseless transports left, the attacker can roll against the transports and kill .i.e 3 of 5 transports and then retreat…?

[Krieghund]

@Subotai:

You said in a previous post: “The concept behind the defenseless transports rule is that if the battle continued, the fighters would roll again and again without response from the transports until the transports were destroyed.  The rule just keeps you from having to roll all those dice.”

Yes, that’s the concept.  However, the rules also say that as soon as the defender (or the attacker, if he/she can’t retreat) runs out of combat units the battle is over.  If the battle is over, you can’t retreat, so all of the transports are automatically sunk.  You can’t retreat from defenseless transports, except in the case where all you have left is transports yourself.

[Funcioneta]

A question about paratroopers: Can enemy surface fleets stop paratroopers movement? I think it should be so, because sea zones with surface fleets are hostile, but paras description says “territories”, so I’m not totally sure

Thanks in advance

[TexCapPrezJimmy]

@Funcioneta:

A question about paratroopers: Can enemy surface fleets stop paratroopers movement? I think it should be so, because sea zones with surface fleets are hostile, but paras description says “territories”, so I’m not totally sure

Thanks in advance

I don’t think so, because nobody “owns” sea zones.

[Krieghund]

No, sea units have no effect on paratroopers.

[DarthMaximus]

Too lazy to look through the sub thread, but this came up in one of my games, it really didn’t matter b/c both sides scored tons of hits but what happens when:

Attacker attacks with 4 Subs + other units mainly air (but NO DDs)

and

Defender has 1 Sub + DD + other units.

Who fires first?

If defending Sub fires first and scores a hit, does the attacker roll for 3 subs only or all 4?

[Krieghund]

Since there is a defending DD, the attacking subs will not get Surprise Strike, so they will fire at the same time as all of the other attacking units.  Since there are no attacking DDs, the defending sub will get Surprise Strike and fire first.  As a result, all casualties of the defending sub’s Surprise Strike will be removed before they can fire, whether or not they are subs.

[DarthMaximus]

Thanks.

[Capt. Winters]

I have 7INF 1ART and 2ARM from Karelia with 3INF and 3ARM from Russia attacking Belorussia’s German tank column.  I want to strafe attack 1 round and retreat all surviving forces to Russia?

[Unknown Soldier]

@Capt.:

I have 7INF 1ART and 2ARM from Karelia with 3INF and 3ARM from Russia attacking Belorussia’s German tank column.  I want to strafe attack 1 round and retreat all surviving forces to Russia?

Perfectly legal AFAIK.

[Jennifer]

@Capt.:

I have 7INF 1ART and 2ARM from Karelia with 3INF and 3ARM from Russia attacking Belorussia’s German tank column.  I want to strafe attack 1 round and retreat all surviving forces to Russia?

Yes, it’s legal.  Since you have at least one ground unit attacking from Russia, Russia becomes a valid location to retreat too.  Since the rules state you must retreat all attacking forces to the same territory (except air power) then if you wanted to retreat one unit to Russia you would be forced to retreat them all to Russia.

It’s been a strategy players have used for a while to jump their forces across enemy lines.  For instance, if Russia has a large stack in Persia and a large stack in Russia, they can attack Caucasus and retreat all those Persian units with their Russian comrades back to Russia and thus, reunite their forces in one large stack.

[Stoney229]

Note that retreating (in this case or any) it is only legal if there are still defending units present at the end of a round of combat.  Given this, if you primary intention is to get your units from Karelia to Russia to defend Russia from attack from a territory other than Belorussia, you might consider limiting the number of units you bring from Russia (depending on how many German units are in Belorussia) so as not to risk killing them all in the first round of combat, which would force you to control Belorussia and leave all your attacking units there, leaving Russia vulnerable.
@Cmdr:

@Capt.:

I have 7INF 1ART and 2ARM from Karelia with 3INF and 3ARM from Russia attacking Belorussia’s German tank column.  I want to strafe attack 1 round and retreat all surviving forces to Russia?

Yes, it’s legal.  Since you have at least one ground unit attacking from Russia, Russia becomes a valid location to retreat too.  Since the rules state you must retreat all attacking forces to the same territory (except air power) then if you wanted to retreat one unit to Russia you would be forced to retreat them all to Russia.

It’s been a strategy players have used for a while to jump their forces across enemy lines.  For instance, if Russia has a large stack in Persia and a large stack in Russia, they can attack Caucasus and retreat all those Persian units with their Russian comrades back to Russia and thus, reunite their forces in one large stack.

[anchovy]

Does anyone know if Mechanized Infantry works in non-com movement too?  Or is it just in combat?  As stated in the rulebook, it seems to be that it would work in both.  But I want to be certain, of course. I couldn’t seem to find any reference to it in the FAQ.  Thanks.

[Krieghund]

It works in both.

[souL]

First, let me get 100% verification.  In the 1942 setup, any territory under Japanese control at the start of the game aside from Kiangsu and Manchuria are considered valid for the purposes of collecting the UK national objective “control any territory originally under Japanese control.” right?

Well, at the start of either game kia and man are both Japanese controlled, though they’re considered chinese if they fall into allied hands.  kwa, bur, sum, sol, brn, phi, ngu, wak, and mid are all clearly controlled by allied powers in the same fashion that kia and man are in 1942 are in every conceivable way yet they’re treated differently for the purposes of this NO.  I guess I just want to know why.

[Panther]

@souL:

First, let me get 100% verification.  In the 1942 setup, any territory under Japanese control at the start of the game aside from Kiangsu and Manchuria are considered valid for the purposes of collecting the UK national objective “control any territory originally under Japanese control.” right?

Well, at the start of either game kia and man are both Japanese controlled, though they’re considered chinese if they fall into allied hands.  kwa, bur, sum, sol, brn, phi, ngu, wak, and mid are all clearly controlled by allied powers in the same fashion that kia and man are in 1942 are in every conceivable way yet they’re treated differently for the purposes of this NO.  I guess I just want to know why.

The FAQ states on page 5:
“Q: When the rules refer to the original controller of a territory, do they mean the controller at the start of the scenario or the controller printed on the map?
A: The controller printed on the map. The original controller of a territory is the same whether you’re playing the 1941 or 1942 scenario. China is considered to be the original controller of Manchuria and Kiangsu, and Japan controls these territories as an enemy power at the beginning of both scenarios.”

So the GB NO does only refer to Jap, FIC, Car, Oki, For and Iwo.

[Krieghund]

@souL:

First, let me get 100% verification.  In the 1942 setup, any territory under Japanese control at the start of the game aside from Kiangsu and Manchuria are considered valid for the purposes of collecting the UK national objective “control any territory originally under Japanese control.” right?

No.  Only territories with a Japanese control marker printed on the board (excluding Manchuria and Kiangsu) apply to the NO.  Per the FAQ, when the rules refer to the “original controller” of a territory, it means the controller printed on the map, not the controller at the start of the game (as P@nther pointed out).

@souL:

Well, at the start of either game kia and man are both Japanese controlled, though they’re considered chinese if they fall into allied hands.  kwa, bur, sum, sol, brn, phi, ngu, wak, and mid are all clearly controlled by allied powers in the same fashion that kia and man are in 1942 are in every conceivable way yet they’re treated differently for the purposes of this NO.  I guess I just want to know why.

They aren’t treated differently, as I noted above.  If they were treated differently, both this NO and income derived from captured  “original” territories would play differently in the two scenarios.  For example, if the UK took the Philippines from Japan, they would be claimed by the UK in the '42 scenario and liberated to the US in the '41 scenario.  However, since the original controller is the one printed on the map, the Philippines are liberated to the US in both scenarios.

[souL]

Well, that’s what I wanted to make sure of originally, thanks.  For some odd reason I thought I’d read somewhere else in the FAQ that those territories were originally under JP control and subject to that in '42.  Thanks for clarification.

[Pvt.Patterson]

I have just captured Karlil and i was wondering if you can Noncom the AA gun out in the turn captured.
thanks