I will get this for you… send me an e-mail reminder.
Thanks
AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A
-
1. If China goes first and liberates a territory, the US cannot land aircraft there on its Noncombat movement. Larry’s answer to Telamon’s letter seemed to indicate that one of the China advantages is being able to go first with one or the other (China and US). I’m not sure why this would matter if there wasn’t some advantage regarding aircraft landings (aside from the Chinese being able to place new units in territories liberated by the US).
Any number of situations could exist in which it was advantageous for one country or the other to go first. The best example that I can think of is for one side to “soften up” an Axis-held territory so that the other could take it. It would depend on the relative composition of the forces involved, as well as the overall circumstances, as to the optimal order of execution of the battles.
Thanks for getting question 2, Gamerman01!
-
Thanks. I’ve got 20 Russian infantry, 3 Russian artillery, 6 Russian armor, 2 Russian aa guns, 1 US Bomber, and 2 UK armor in China right now (not to mention the Chinese inf) in the Spring '09 Tourny championship game… so all these China rules are suddenly very important.
:-P
-
I saw this in a forum game and was confused.
In round 1, Japan sent a fighter from Japan to the Hawaii sea zone, which is 4 moves, BUT he didn’t move his carrier into the zone. The reasoning was if the fighter died, then he could move the carrier elsewhere, but if it lived, then he had to move it in. So, is this legal? I thought you had to demonstrate the fighter has a place to land before you end the Combat/Noncombat movement phase.
-
@Col.:
I saw this in a forum game and was confused.
In round 1, Japan sent a fighter from Japan to the Hawaii sea zone, which is 4 moves, BUT he didn’t move his carrier into the zone. The reasoning was if the fighter died, then he could move the carrier elsewhere, but if it lived, then he had to move it in. So, is this legal? I thought you had to demonstrate the fighter has a place to land before you end the Combat/Noncombat movement phase.
Japan does not have to commit the carrier on combat movement. If air units survived the battle then Japan would be required to move the carrier on non combat movement. Non combat movement occurs later in the turn sequence….all Japan is required to do is to show a potential landing space.
-
Well said. Was that me, Col. Flagg? I just did that recently. ;)
-
And on that note, you must have a potential landing space for every fighter. You may assume that all your units will hit and all enemy units will miss (straight from the rulebook).
However, a carrier can’t pick up two fighters in two different places at once! All fighters must be able to land if they survive, however improbable the odds.
As you can imagine, carriers give a tremendous boost in options for your airforce and makes your country much more dangerous. Thank goodness they only cost 14 compared to 18 in classic!! And with the right tech, a mere 11! -
Yeah that was your game :-)
Unfortunately, a certain open source game shut down by a certain, idiotic company doesn’t allow that move, which reinforced my confusion.
-
This question is vital to my strategy :)
Say Russia is captured by Germany, Russia surrenders all its ipc to Germany
On Russia turn, he decides not take back capital. Does Russia still collect income as normally (except that he doesn’t get to use it until his capital is freed)?I’m asking this because it is very important
Robert
-
This question is vital to my strategy :)
Say Russia is captured by Germany, Russia surrenders all its ipc to Germany
On Russia turn, he decides not take back capital. Does Russia still collect income as normally (except that he doesn’t get to use it until his capital is freed)?I’m asking this because it is very important
Robert
No capital, no collecting your income.
So no Russian money for you!
-
My evil plans failed!
I was hoping to sack another capital and let my allies rescue me and use the combined pillage + income to produce an even bigger army!
-
Evil is right. And I happen to know you’re not talking about Russia 8-)
Axis_roll is correct - no capital, no collecting income.
However, I couldn’t remember for sure - when your capital is under enemy control, and you take over an enemy capital, you still raid their IPC’s, right? So if you get your capital back later, you have the extra IPC’s to spend? -
Evil is right. And I happen to know you’re not talking about Russia 8-)
Axis_roll is correct - no capital, no collecting income.
However, I couldn’t remember for sure - when your capital is under enemy control, and you take over an enemy capital, you still raid their IPC’s, right? So if you get your capital back later, you have the extra IPC’s to spend?Yup, if Russia falls to Japan, Japan collects the IPC’s that Russia had. If Germany falls to Russia, Russia collects the IPC’s that Germany had but Russia can’t spend it until it recovers it’s capital.
Krieghund covered this in a thread, here’s the link:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15095.msg474680#msg474680
-
Hi all,
Please help clarify the following scenario:
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
I’ve seen people do it! but it seems rater odd to me!
Thanx,
/GrafZeppelin
-
Follow-up question!
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
If my 3Inf in the scenario above are losing can they then retreat to Trans Jordan instead of Libya??
Your answers will be highly appreciated,
Thanx
/GrafZeppelin
-
Hi all,
Please help clarify the following scenario:
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
I’ve seen people do it! but it seems rater odd to me!
Thanx,
/GrafZeppelin
Yes, they may.
Follow-up question!
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
If my 3Inf in the scenario above are losing can they then retreat to Trans Jordan instead of Libya??
Your answers will be highly appreciated,
Thanx
/GrafZeppelin
Yes, they may.
-
Thanx Bardoly,
much appreciated :wink:
/GrafZeppelin
-
Follow-up question!
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
If my 3Inf in the scenario above are losing can they then retreat to Trans Jordan instead of Libya??
Your answers will be highly appreciated,
Thanx
/GrafZeppelin
Yes, they may.
No, they may not!!!
You can only retreat to a territory from which at least one ground unit came from. If the attackers only came from libya, they can only retreat to libya. However, if you had just one unit joining the attack from TRJ, then the whole force could retreat to TRJ if you wanted.
-
The second answer is not entirely correct. To be able to retreat to Trans-Jordan at least one of the units participating in the combat in Egypt would have had to have come from Trans-Jordan. If all the units came from Libya they can only retreat back to Libya.
-
Duly noted!
Thanx again :-D
/GrafZeppelin
-
Hi all,
Please help clarify the following scenario:
If I have 2 Armours and 3 Infantry in Libya and Trans-Jordan is also under my control, is it then possible for me to capture Egypt using the Inf on the combat round , and then move my Armours through Egypt to Trans-Jordan on the non-combat move??
I’ve seen people do it! but it seems rater odd to me!
Thanx,
/GrafZeppelin
Yes, they may.
Since when? I don’t have my rulebook with me right now, but since when can a unit move through an “embattled” territory during non-combat? You can’t destroy a boat and then move through the sea zone in non-combat with other boats. I don’t think land combat is any different. If I’m wrong, I know you will correct me and show me the rule.
Thanks.
Suggested Topics
