Thank you.
AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A
-
yeah, for sure… forgot that.
I don’t know what I was thinking when I posted…
Thanks for the answers anyway :)
-
Yes, thanks for the answers.
-
Suppose a German sub is in SZ2, and UK either doesn’t attack it or fails to attack it. UK places a destroyer in SZ2. Can American aircraft hit the German sub with the UK destroyer there?
-
Suppose a German sub is in SZ2, and UK either doesn’t attack it or fails to attack it. UK places a destroyer in SZ2. Can American aircraft hit the German sub with the UK destroyer there?
No. Units of a different countries only work together on Defense. A country can never use another countries units on offense.
-
Question on the rules for fighters and ACs.
Two scenarios.
1. A fighter is on an AC and flies three spaces to a hostile sea zone to participate in combat. During Non-combat the AC will move two spaces so that the ftr can come back and land. Can the AC choose to stay where it is and let the ftr die? My guess is yes but not sure.
2. Same scenario as above - ftr on an AC flies three spaces to participate in combat. This time however there is an enemy fleet in the path that the AC needs to travel to pick up the ftr. Different vessels participate in combat designed to destroy the enemy fleet so that the AC (which didnt participate in the combat) can move to pick up the ftr. Is this a valid move? Would this be a valid move if there was no combat in the enemy sea zone in the way so that there is no chance that the AC can pick up the ftr?
For the second scenario assuming that it is a valid move as long as there is combat in the enemy sea zone so that the AC can move in NCM what if …
1. the enemy fleet consists of an AC with two ftrs and the attacking fleet is a sub hoping to sink the AC and force the ftrs to move one space to land or drown (when would they move/drown before or after NCM).2. the enemy fleet consists of 100 battleships and the attacker is a lone sub which certainly has an infestimally small chance of succeeding but there is a chance so would it be a legal move?
-
Question on the rules for fighters and ACs.
Two scenarios.
1. A fighter is on an AC and flies three spaces to a hostile sea zone to participate in combat. During Non-combat the AC will move two spaces so that the ftr can come back and land. Can the AC choose to stay where it is and let the ftr die? My guess is yes but not sure.
If the ftr survives the combat, you MUST move the a/c for the ftr to land. You could choose the ftr as a casualty in the battle to avoid having to moving the A/C
2. Same scenario as above - ftr on an AC flies three spaces to participate in combat. This time however there is an enemy fleet in the path that the AC needs to travel to pick up the ftr. Different vessels participate in combat designed to destroy the enemy fleet so that the AC (which didnt participate in the combat) can move to pick up the ftr. Is this a valid move? Would this be a valid move if there was no combat in the enemy sea zone in the way so that there is no chance that the AC can pick up the ftr?
There must a possible way for the A/C to make it to a rendevous point for the ftr to land. It doesn’t matter how silly the battle odds are. For example, if there were 4 battleships in the way, and a lone sub attacked to ‘clear’ a path for the A/C, then the ftr can go.
For the second scenario assuming that it is a valid move as long as there is combat in the enemy sea zone so that the AC can move in NCM what if …
1. the enemy fleet consists of an AC with two ftrs and the attacking fleet is a sub hoping to sink the AC and force the ftrs to move one space to land or drown (when would they move/drown before or after NCM).this scenario has no effect on the ftr’s ability to go into combat 3 spaces away.
2. the enemy fleet consists of 100 battleships and the attacker is a lone sub which certainly has an infestimally small chance of succeeding but there is a chance so would it be a legal move?
See my reply above
-
Ok, thats what I thought just wanted to make sure about the second scenario and then I couldnt find the line that says when the surviving defending air units move.
-
What are the rules re. new carriers and existing figs for AA50 and the new Spring 42? For example, let’s say I’m UK and I use a fighter from UK in an attack on sz5. Let’s say I’m buying an AC and placing it in SZ2. Can I place this fighter (which returns to UK) on the new AC, or is that illegal since that would be 5 moves?
-
You can’t place existing ftrs on a new carrier. So yes that would be illegal.
What you can do is fly a ftr during NCM to a sea zone next to a territory with an IC if you built a carrier. The ftr in that case would not die at the end of NCM and then you can place the carrier in that sz and the ftr can land.
So if you wanted to attack sz 5 and be able to land the ftr on a newly purchased AC you would have to place the AC in sz 3, 6, or 7 and not sz 2. If you want to land an existing ftr onto an AC that you will build in sz 2 it has to fly to sz 2 during NCM.
-
You CAN place existing fighters on a new carrier.
You don’t fly it to Great Britain, and then out to sea (5 moves).
Like ksmckay said, you fly it to a sea zone in NCM where you build the carrier.
So yes, you can attack SZ5, build a carrier, and land on it on the way back all in one move. AA50 and Spring '42.
-
right but you couldn’t attack sz 5 and land it on a new carrier in sz 2 as the ftr cant make it to sz 2. It would have to be a new carrier in sz 3, 6, or 7.
-
Ah, yes. SZ2 is way out there and is 5 moves. Gonna need LRA first, pal!
Zhukov, that’s a relic from the past, from Revised!
Taking you a bit to get used to the new and improved, isn’t it? ;)
-
That’s the confusion……is it still possible to place the fig on the ac even after it has already moved 4 spaces, but has landed on UK?
It’s a pretty critical question because there are a lot of circumstances where you need all the figs you can get on the new ACs.
I’m actually not certain whether this is possible or not in Revised, so I guess my question extends to that rule-set as well.
Gamer I’m mostly AA50 these days, and enjoying it.
-
I can’t imagine what is confusing about the answers you’ve gotten other than the fact that they probably weren’t what you expected/wanted to hear.
It’s pretty simple. The plane ends the turn in whatever territory or seazone it ends its movement in. The plane can not be moved from land to sea during mobilization of the carrier. If it can reach a seazone in NCMs it can end its turn there and you can use a new carrier in that sz as the landing place.
In your example, because going UK to sz5 to sz2 is 5 movement, you could not end the turn with the fig in sz5 without either getting LRA tech, or by forgoing the fig for the attack on sz5.
IIRC, for Revised I believe the out-of-the-box (OOB) rules allowed you to move the fig from land to a new carrier during mobilization, but the Larry Harris Tournament Rules (a.k.a LHTR -the ruleset used for league and tournaments at most online sites, including this one, and other events to clear up a lot of vague, unbalanced, and inconsistent items in the OOB rules) used a rule akin to the AA50 rule above.
-
Well that’s probably the case but I’d still like confirmation from Kreighund on this one. The reason is it’s relatively common on TripleA to use edit to move the fig onto the AC in this sort of circumstance, and I don’t want to object to this kind of edit without being absolutely sure of the rules.
-
ksmckay, gamerman01 and TimTheEnchanter are all correct.
In AA42, AA50 and LHTR, the fighter must end its move in the sea zone. In OOB Revised, the fighter must end its move in the territory, and it may then be moved onto the carrier during mobilization.
-
OK much appreciated everyone!
-
In AA50-41, I’m not sure who ultimately takes control in the following situation:
1. Japan controls Moscow, but the US and UK occupy and control various Russian territories in eastern Europe.
2. The allies liberate Moscow.
3. Control of Moscow and all territories (and aa guns) under allied control revert to Russian control.
4. Japan retakes Moscow on its turn, takes Russia’s money (newly collected after being liberated - all territories previously controlled by the Allies would count toward the total when Russia collects).Who controls the Russian territories now occupied by the UK and US? Do the allies have to “run back over” the territories to retake them or do they just return to an allied player’s control if that player occupies the territory at the end of their turn? In either case, who gets control if both the UK and US occupy a Russian territory at the end of a turn?
I hope that question makes sense… :|
-
In AA50-41, I’m not sure who ultimately takes control in the following situation:
1. Japan controls Moscow, but the US and UK occupy and control various Russian territories in eastern Europe.
2. The allies liberate Moscow.
3. Control of Moscow and all territories (and aa guns) under allied control revert to Russian control.
4. Japan retakes Moscow on its turn, takes Russia’s money (newly collected after being liberated - all territories previously controlled by the Allies would count toward the total when Russia collects).Who controls the Russian territories now occupied by the UK and US? Do the allies have to “run back over” the territories to retake them or do they just return to an allied player’s control if that player occupies the territory at the end of their turn? In either case, who gets control if both the UK and US occupy a Russian territory at the end of a turn?
I hope that question makes sense… :|
Control has nothing to do with UK or US occupation. Control is Russia’s, as you correctly identified, once Moscow was liberated. It will remain Russia’s territory until captured by Axis. Then the Allies could take it back and get the income and use of factories, but only if the Axis capture it first, after Japan’s 2nd capturing of Moscow.
So yes, by liberating Moscow and then losing it again, the Allies lose all the other original Russian territory benefits (income and production and AA control). This must be considered carefully when liberating a capital, especially since, in your scenario, Japan was able to take it back immediately after Russia’s turn.
-
Yeah, makes sense. I don’t know why I didn’t see that before… :-P
Suggested Topics
