AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

[Battlingmaxo]

@gamerman01:

You can’t even mobilize ground units on YOUR OWN transports, let alone an ally’s.  You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.

Good point gamerman…I didn’t even think of it. :mrgreen:

[Yoshi]

@gamerman01:

You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.

I did not know this one…

[special forces]

@Battling:

@gamerman01:

You can’t even mobilize ground units on YOUR OWN transports, let alone an ally’s.  You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.

Good point gamerman…I didn’t even think of it. :mrgreen:

Ground units can’t jump off a boat to fight a sea battle, but i see no reason why planes couldn’t.

I can imagine american fighter pilots on a brittisch carrier saying “are we under attack? mehh, they’re not attacking ME so i ain’t taking orders”. makes no sense. (i mean in defending)

I read somewhere  they are considered cargo. That would be so if they were loaded on the ship, not landing on them.

[anchovy]

@anchovy:

I’m pretty sure about this one, too, but I couldn’t seem to find the explicit rule in the rulebook.

If a power attacks a sea zone with a cv that is loaded with one or more fighters belonging to another, friendly power, what happens if the cv is destroyed in combat?  My understanding is that the ftrs are treated as cargo and would go down with the ship (as with loaded transports).  I also think that the loaded ftrs could NOT be chosen as casualties during the combat.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

@Krieghund:

You’ve got it right.

@jeffdestroyer:

I assume the CV is attacking with a loaded friendly fig aboard and not defending?

The statement looked like it could be read either way when I first read it.

Thanks, belatedly, for the answer Krieghund.  And yes, I did mean the attacking cv.  I see now that it is, indeed, not clear from the way I wrote it.

[boldfresh]

Sorry that wasn’t worded the best…  here is the revised question

quick question from an AA50 game.  if i have a US fleet with transports in z62 and US infantry in Bry - Can i engage in a fleet battle with a destroyer placed by japan in z62 and then IN THE NON-COMBAT MOVE load my infantry onto transports that never moved from z62 in the combat move?  i know that if i do load them IN NONCOMBAT, I cannot move them from z62 but I’m not 100% sure if the transports can remain in z62 during combat and then be loaded in noncombat.

Alternative question, not wanting to do it in this situation but wondering if it’s possible.  If I would move a transport from z62 to z63 in the combat move, could I then load units to the transport in the noNON-COMBAT phase?

Thanks!

[Jennifer]

I believe the rule is that you cannot load in a combat zone.  However (and I could be wrong) you should be able to move from SZ 62 to SZ 63, load your units in Buryatia (since it borders both sea zones) then move your transport back to SZ 62 to amphibiously assault Japan.  Of course, hitting Manchuria isn’t as important as the destroyer in SZ 62 prevents the battleships and cruisers from bombarding anyway, so just walk there.

[boldfresh]

that’s not my question Jen, i’m wondering if i could load men onto the transports in the Non-combat phase after the destroyer is sunk

[boldfresh]

Sorry that wasn’t worded the best…  here is the revised question

quick question from an AA50 game.  if i have a US fleet with transports in z62 and US infantry in Bry - Can i engage in a fleet battle with a destroyer placed by japan in z62 and then IN THE NON-COMBAT MOVE load my infantry onto transports that never moved from z62 in the combat move?  i know that if i do load them IN NONCOMBAT, I cannot move them from z62 but I’m not 100% sure if the transports can remain in z62 during combat and then be loaded in noncombat.

Alternative question, not wanting to do it in this situation but wondering if it’s possible.  If I would move a transport from z62 to z63 in the combat move, could I then load units to the transport in the noNON-COMBAT phase?

Thanks!

[Krieghund]

@boldfresh:

if i have a US fleet with transports in z62 and US infantry in Bry - Can i engage in a fleet battle with a destroyer placed by japan in z62 and then IN THE NON-COMBAT MOVE load my infantry onto transports that never moved from z62 in the combat move?  i know that if i do load them IN NONCOMBAT, I cannot move them from z62 but I’m not 100% sure if the transports can remain in z62 during combat and then be loaded in noncombat.

They cannot be loaded in noncombat movement, as they have participated in combat.

@boldfresh:

Alternative question, not wanting to do it in this situation but wondering if it’s possible.  If I would move a transport from z62 to z63 in the combat move, could I then load units to the transport in the noNON-COMBAT phase?

No.

[boldfresh]

thanks Krieg

[Yoshi]

Question about the rule of produced cv that can take existing fighters with them.

Let assume that the US have a (big enough) fleet in sz62 and trannies in sz63. Japan does not have a fleet anymore, but still have 2 fighters in Kiangsu.

SFE and Buryatia have been liberated by the US.

If Japan produces a CV, is it possible to attack sz63 with 1 fighter from Kiangsu without attacking sz62 ? Or is it mandatory to send the second fighter against sz62 to have the (theoretical) possibility of destroying the fleet, and therefore enable a safe landing of the fighter in sz62 on the produced cv ?

I believe option 2 is the good one, but I’m not 100% sure.

[Krieghund]

An attack on sea zone 62 is not necessary.  The new carrier will provide a landing spot for the fighter, as the rules only require that there be a friendly carrier in the sea zone, not that the sea zone be friendly.

[Yoshi]

ok, I see. Another trick to know :)

Thanks for the answer :)

[gamerman01]

@Yoshi:

ok, I see. Another trick to know :)

Thanks for the answer :)

If knowing the rules OOB is a trick…  :-)

[Jennifer]

@gamerman01:

@Yoshi:

ok, I see. Another trick to know :)

Thanks for the answer :)

If knowing the rules OOB is a trick…  :-)

The trick is how to make the rules work for you. ^_~

[Yoshi]

exactly :)

[lozmoid]

I apologise if this has been raised before but it occured to me just now:

My gaming group use the optional rule of ‘Fighter Escorts’ during SBR, as we prefer it. I am also aware that defending AA Guns now fire once at each Fighter, and then once at each Bomber. Now, I find that the two rules don’t work particularly well together because I would have thought that players would use their Fighter escorts to protect the Bombers from the AA Gun fire (i.e. the Fighters would be selected as casualties instead of the Bombers, if you so wished).

If I have got this right, then the only reason you would bring Fighter escorts is to protect the Bombers from defending Fighter fire… is this right? I would be grateful if somebody could explain/clarify.

Thank you  :-)

[gamerman01]

@Lozmoid:

I apologise if this has been raised before but it occured to me just now:

My gaming group use the optional rule of ‘Fighter Escorts’ during SBR, as we prefer it. I am also aware that defending AA Guns now fire once at each Fighter, and then once at each Bomber. Now, I find that the two rules don’t work particularly well together because I would have thought that players would use their Fighter escorts to protect the Bombers from the AA Gun fire (i.e. the Fighters would be selected as casualties instead of the Bombers, if you so wished).

If I have got this right, then the only reason you would bring Fighter escorts is to protect the Bombers from defending Fighter fire… is this right? I would be grateful if somebody could explain/clarify.

Thank you  :-)

You’re reading it right.  The escorts only protect the bombers from interceptors.  In 1940 games, escorts are not subject to AA fire.  I played several games of AA50 with escorts/interceptors, house-ruling that escorts are NOT subject to AA fire.  If you don’t, you’re pretty much making factories with AA guns and interceptors impervious to SBR’s, as you have yourself deduced.

[Jennifer]

I have to agree, the optional rule for escorts seems ridiculous to use in reality.  In theory, like communism, it works great, but like communism, it fails when implemented.  Why send fighters to get shot at by AA Guns?

Already the average dmg done by a bomber is 3.5 and at an average loss of 1 bomber every 6 runs it costs you 2 IPC for a net gain of 1.5 IPC.  If you add in one escort fighter each run, the change becomes 1 aircraft lost every 3 rounds, since it could be a fighter or a bomber, figure 11 IPCs lost every 3 rounds or 3.67 IPC lost a round, for a net loss of 0.67 IPC a round.  So why go SBR at all?  (This, of course, assumes you send 1 escort and not, say, 6 escorts or something.)

The fix in AA40 seems plausible, at this time, allowing you to escort bombers to get past any defending aircraft and then have the bombers face AA gun fire.  At least then you have a chance of killing a 10 IPC fighter for each 10 IPC fighter you might lose and still getting 3.5IPC in damage for every 2.5IPC you lose to AA Fire.

[lozmoid]

Thanks very much, both of you. I don’t have the AA40 games yet and so I wasn’t aware of the fact that Fighters escorting Bombers were no longer subject to AA Gun fire. That’s a great rule and I will house-rule it from now on. Cheers!  :-)