As big dog suggests in the referenced Thread by Krieghund, we will just ignore this errata change.
It serves no purpose in game play, except to limit the use of the tech. And as Tim the Enchanter said in that same thread…. IFP is nerfed, but HBs are not?
If you ignore that errata change then why not ignore any official rule in the game, because it is an official rule, made by Larry Harris, I mean after all you are much more qualified to decide what’s a better way to play the game he invented, right?
It’s called a house rule.
I know it’s called a house rule , that’s what I’m saying , keep it in your house not mine. You go ahead and play how you want to play , but don’t try to force your idea on how to change the game into the rule book, because if we did that then it’s your game not Larry’s and I for one want to play his game not yours. I understand perfectly the reasoning behind this errata change and it makes more sense than your opinions do.
And that’s your opinion Dabapic, as Telamon pointed out that’s how the system works. Your 2 cents will go into the pot as well. Larry seeks input from his inner circle and from leaders in this forum and other places. As the grunts we get a voice. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but he thrives on our passion for AA. House rules can be fun at times, but I like to play AA OOB/FAQ too. Most times it will resolve arguments etc. Remember AA50 has only been out for under a year. We barely know the game, and Larry is most likely going to make some tweaks. At some point he may put out an official tournament rules guide, but first he will want to see how things play out.
maybe this was discussed already somewhere - i just ask:
In AA revised rulebook page 22 it’s clearly mentioned a newly build carrier may pick up fighters that ended their non-combat movement or have already been in the country with the IC that build the new AC. This means you could use your fighters in combat phase fly 2 spaces away, return on NC phase and the new AC picks them up.
In AA50 rule book i can’t find this rule - has it been removed, and if - why ?
Existing fighters may not be moved onto a new carrier from the territory containing the IC from which the carrier was mobilized. Instead, they must end their movement in the sea zone in which the carrier will be mobilized. This is explained on page 21. New fighters can be placed directly onto new or existing carriers (page 22).
Zee plane ! Zee plane !
Smiles everyone…smiles :)
IL, you may want to change the link to the Harris site at the top of this tread as it no longer goes there. Krieg posted a new link earlier in this tread, looks like the site had an update haven’t checked it out yet.
Question about Panama… the territory.
Does Panama really touch E US? That seems silly. Panama (or even the Central American countries it represents) are thousands of miles from the US border, through Mexico. To get to the Panama, you should have to go through CUS, Mexico and then to Panama. Or at least through Mexico.
Is it really just 1 move from Washington DC to Panama… over land?
Yes, Panama is adjacent to Eastern US. The territories on the map don’t correspond exactly to actual countries (obviously). The territory called “Panama” includes most of Central America, including eastern Mexico.
Anyone can quickly reply to me if Surface ships (Cruiser, DD, CV and BB) are blocked by Submarine?
I mean, I know transport can go through SZ where they are SS, but can warships do so too?
Robert
Anyone can quickly reply to me if Surface ships (Cruiser, DD, CV and BB) are blocked by Submarine?
I mean, I know transport can go through SZ where they are SS, but can warships do so too?
Robert
No they are not….I believe the converse is also true unless there is a defending dd in the sz
Yes, your examples are correct.
Any time a territory changes hands, whether captured or liberated, any AA guns in that territory change ownership to the new owner of the territory.
There is only one exception. The situation involves when your capital is held by the enemy and because of this and your ally captures one of your former territories from the enemy rather than liberating it. When your capital is liberated, you get that territory back from your ally, but he/she gets to keep any AA guns in it.
Along a similar line…what happens with an IC territory liberated by an ally when the capital is held by the enemy? If the UK liberates karelia while germany holds russia can the UK mobilize units in karelia?
Along a similar line…what happens with an IC territory liberated by an ally when the capital is held by the enemy? If the UK liberates karelia while germany holds russia can the UK mobilize units in karelia?
See page 20 of the rulebook:
If the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory,
you capture the territory, collect income from the newly captured territory, and use any industrial complex there.
Note that you cannot use industrial complexes that you captured this turn (p.22).
In other words: Yes UK can mobilize units in Karelia - not in the same turn it was captured - but in UK’s next turn.
HTH :-)
couldnt remember and didnt have the rules nearby….thanks
@P@nther:
Along a similar line…what happens with an IC territory liberated by an ally when the capital is held by the enemy? If the UK liberates karelia while germany holds russia can the UK mobilize units in karelia?
See page 20 of the rulebook:
If the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory,
you capture the territory, collect income from the newly captured territory, and use any industrial complex there.Note that you cannot use industrial complexes that you captured this turn (p.22).
In other words: Yes UK can mobilize units in Karelia - not in the same turn it was captured - but in UK’s next turn.
HTH :-)
Along a similar line… does the liberating player get the ipc value of the territory(ies) as well
Yes. The liberating power controls the territory for all purposes until the original controller’s capital is liberated.
What happens if the territory in question has never been captured by the enemy, is empty and is then “occupied” by friendly units? My thinking is the territory has to be captured then liberated by a friendly for it to be useful (assuming capital is in enemy hands)
Your thinking is correct. The territory would remain under the control of its original owner under those circumstances. You can’t take territory directly away from your ally under any circumstances.
Can paratroopers transport inf across sea? In triplea they can not.
Can paratroopers transport inf across sea? In triplea they can not.
Certainly, there is no sea zone restriction
I have a question about retreating loaded transports. If the naval battle goes sour before the landing of troops, the attacking fleet must retreat. Sometimes this means loaded transports with little or no protection left. The beaten attacker has no other choice but to retreat one space from whence he came, right? And then the 3 or 4 transports (hypothetical) loaded with 3-4 tanks and 3-4 men all get killed by one submarine or fighter plane during the next round? Am I interpreting the rules correctly? Just the risk you take when attacking boats and landing all in one move?
You’re interpreting the rules correctly.
I too have a transport question. Japan has been conquered ( don’t ask, don’t ask :-( ). On the mainland adjacent to Japan is a Japanese tank. Small US force in the SZ surrounding Japan. I now need to come back with my Japanese fleet and retake Japan. I want to bring a transport with one infantry to do an amphibious attack on Japan to try and liberate it. Can my Japanse transport bridge the Japanese tank to Japan along with the one infantry it brought into the sea zone if the sea battle is won by Japan, as long as I declare that is my intent? Or can the tank not bridge because the sz was hostile at the time the battle was declared?
Regards,
Captain Crunch
