AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

[TimTheEnchanter]

Based on the rules when mixed planes attack a territory with an AA gun, the shots against different aircraft (i.e., against figs and against bombers) are rolled as separate groups, then casualties are chosen from among those groups.

Here’s my question: If some, but not all, of the bombers are carrying paratroopers, do all bombers still roll as a single group and then casualties are chosen?  I can’t find any rule citation in the OOB book or the FAQ that would seem to clarify this.

[Krieghund]

The intent is that each air unit is fired upon individually.  However, the rules allow for all fighters to be rolled for together and all bombers to be rolled for together, rather than rolling for each unit separately.  This brings the precision to the level of unit types, if not individual units.  The only material difference between one fighter and another would be how far it has travelled to get to the battle, so that’s all that’s given up by rolling them all together.

However, if some bombers are carrying paratroopers and some are not, there is as significant a difference between them as there is between a fighter and a bomber.  They must be rolled for separately.

[jsp4563]

Here’s an interesting Rules question.  The US\UK have a combined fleet in SZ13, the US CV has 2 UK fighters on board.  It’s Germany’s turn, they have an IC in France and place a DD in SZ13.  On UK’s turn can the UK fighters stay put or do they have to be involved in Combat or leave the seazone if UK does not attack?

[Battlingmaxo]

My interpretation is that the fight or clear rule applies to warships only so the fighters would have the option to do either as they can be considered cargo. Lets consider the case of 2 brit infantry on a us transport……they can do neither as they cannot move on their own or offload as the seazone is hostile.

[jsp4563]

It is a grey area, but the UK inf would be allowed to conduct an assault on any of the land terrritories bordering sz13 since that is a legal combat move.  But they have no way of leaving the seazone or particpating in a sea battle, so they really don’t have an option.  The fighters are more tricky, they are only considered “cargo” when the carrier is attacked.  My guess is that the fighters will have to battle or leave, but I can’t point to any specific rule to support that, only an extrapolation of existing rules and precedents, this is definitely one for the AA Supreme Court to decide.  :-D

[Krieghund]

@Battlingmaxo:

My interpretation is that the fight or clear rule applies to warships only so the fighters would have the option to do either as they can be considered cargo.

Correct.  The fighters could stay put and do nothing (remaining cargo), stay put and attack, or leave and attack somewhere else.  They could even return to the carrier after attacking somewhere else, as the noncombat move rules for fighters only require that the carrier be friendly, not the sea zone.

@Battlingmaxo:

Lets consider the case of 2 brit infantry on a us transport……they can do neither as they cannot move on their own or offload as the seazone is hostile.

@Emperor:

It is a grey area, but the UK inf would be allowed to conduct an assault on any of the land terrritories bordering sz13 since that is a legal combat move.  But they have no way of leaving the seazone or particpating in a sea battle, so they really don’t have an option.

The UK infantry would indeed be stuck on the transport, as they may only conduct an amphibious assault if the sea zone is cleared of enemy surface warships.  The only way they could attack is if UK forces cleared the German destroyer.  If outside UK forces attacked, any US-carrier-based UK fighters in the sea zone would either have to attack in the sea zone or leave.

[Bardoly]

Another rules question.

Situation:  The UK and the US both have a fleet controlling sea zone 7.  On UK’s turn (let’s call it turn 5), they load troops onto a US transport with the intent of attacking either France or Northwest Europe. (The US Fleet and transport are not going anywhere.)  Now, I believe that it was earlier stated that those troops could not immediately attack.  They must wait until the following UK turn (turn 6) and then attack.

Here’s the question.  On the following turn (turn 6) on which they attack during UK’s combat phase, may the UK during its non-combat phase load the US transport with more troops or does it have to wait until the following turn (turn 7)?  The transport is still in sea zone 7 and has never left sea zone 7 for the purpose of this question.

[Krieghund]

It must wait until the following turn.  A transport can’t load again in the same turn after it unloads.

[gamerman01]

With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3.  So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).  I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says).  What do you think about my house rule?  (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)

[Krieghund]

@gamerman01:

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).

That’s one reason.  The other is that increasing an IC’s production capacity by 100 or 200 percent seemed a bit excessive.  Your house rule certainly solves the problem that you mentioned, though.

[Joe Cold]

Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

[Krieghund]

@Joe:

Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

Your guess is correct.  The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as the assaulting transport(s).

[TimTheEnchanter]

@Krieghund:

@Joe:

Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

Your guess is correct.  The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as the assaulting transport(s).

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as at least one assaulting transport(s)”

I don’t have the link but I recall this being discussed by you at length a while back.

[Krieghund]

Yes, that’s correct.  Any number of battleships and cruisers up to the total number of land units amphibiously assaulting may bombard from sea zones from which at least on land unit landed.  For example, if six infantry landed from sea zone A and one landed from sea zone B, up to seven ships could bombard from sea zones A and/or B, regardless of which sea zone they’re actually in.

[TimTheEnchanter]

Question about the half-priced repairs with improved factory tech:

If I want to repair  3 damage on one IC and 5 damage on another, do I have to pay 4 ipcs for 8 total repairs or do I pay 2 ipcs to repair the three on the first factory and 3 ipcs to repair the 5 on the other (total 2+3=5 ipcs)?  In other words, is rounding done on a per-IC basis or a per-turn basis?

The rules state “you can remove two damage markers at a time for the cost of 1 IPC (half price).”  and doesn’t state that they have to be removed from same factory, so my assumption is that rounding would be on a per-turn basis, but just thought I’d get clarification.

[Krieghund]

You can split the two damage marker repairs between two ICs.

[dabapic]

So you’re saying he would only have to pay the 4 I.P.C’s instead of 5, like his example is showing ?

[dabapic]

@Emperor:

@souL:

Do anti-aircraft guns count as a unit in terms of maximum production in a territory?  For example:  can I produce 2 inf and an aa gun in Karelia?  Thanks.

Yes, AA guns count against production capacity.  Karelia could build 1inf, 1AA, unless you have the Increased Factory Production Technology then you could build a total of 4 units (including AA).

But the rules state that only territories that are that have 3 or higher for maximum production can double their production capacity, so Karelia cannot produce more than 2 units.

[Krieghund]

@dabapic:

So you’re saying he would only have to pay the 4 I.P.C’s instead of 5, like his example is showing ?

Yes.

[dutchmand]

Kreighund,

AA guns
The rules say that an aa gun captured by the enemy that is later liberated by a nation friendly with the original owning country returns to the possession of the original country who owned it.  Is this always the case?

For example, the Japs cature the aa gun in India. Over the course of the next few turns they move it to Caucasus.  The Russians then liberate Caucasus. Is the AA gun now Russian or is it British?