AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

Thanks Krieghund!  So helpful!!  The people I was playing with were saying otherwise in the case of the Manchurian IC, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed it shouldn’t be useable.

Here’s another:
(From page 12 of rulebook)
3. Paratroopers. Each of your bombers can act as
a transport for up to one infantry, but it must stop in
the first hostile territory it enters during a turn and
drop off the infantry, ending its combat movement.
The bomber may still attack during the Conduct
Combat phase, but it cannot make a strategic
bombing run in a turn that it transports an infantry
unit. The infantry unit may retreat normally to a
friendly adjacent space during combat.

Q: I’m assuming a vacant (or containing nothing other than AA and IC) territory in enemy control is considered a hostile territory and ends the movement of the paratrooper, causing the paratrooper to conquer the territory.  The rules say “bomber may still attack”… does that imply the bomber may choose not to attack?  If the bomber chooses not to attack, does a present AA gun in the territory still get to fire?  I assume not… especially if it is a vacant territory, as the territory will is (maybe?) already considered conquered territory before the conduct combat phase begins… however, what about the case of a non-vacant territory.  Can the bomber avoid AA fire by choosing not to attack?

@Stoney229:

I’m assuming a vacant (or containing nothing other than AA and IC) territory in enemy control is considered a hostile territory and ends the movement of the paratrooper, causing the paratrooper to conquer the territory.

Yes.  Any territory under enemy control is hostile, whether it’s occupied or not.

@Stoney229:

The rules say “bomber may still attack”… does that imply the bomber may choose not to attack?  If the bomber chooses not to attack, does a present AA gun in the territory still get to fire?  I assume not… especially if it is a vacant territory, as the territory will is (maybe?) already considered conquered territory before the conduct combat phase begins… however, what about the case of a non-vacant territory.  Can the bomber avoid AA fire by choosing not to attack?

The bomber is subject to AA fire simply by virtue of bringing in the paratroopers.  The timing of paratrooper drops will be clarified in an upcoming erratum in the FAQ.

It seems to me I remember from AAR that air units could retreat separately from other attacking units, or at least separate from amphibious units (is this true?).  Is this true of AA50?  I cannot find mention of it in the rules.  If it is true, can they retreat separate from each other (retreat bombers but not yet fighters), or must they all retreat together?

In both games, air units can retreat separately only in amphibious assaults.  In normal battles, they retreat at the same time as everything else.  In AA50, land units that enter the battle by land may also retreat from an amphibious assault battle.

In any case, partial retreats are never allowed.  If a retreat occurs, all units that are eligible to retreat must do so together.

Page 20: “(Note, if you are playing in the 1942 scenario, place you marker on top of the original control
marker; do not remove it)”

What is the purpose of this statement, if the original controller is printed on the gameboard?  If Japan starts 1942 in control of Philipines, and UK conquers it, do you place a UK marker over the Japan marker which is on top of the US symbol, or do you just remove the Japan marker and control goes to US?

A sub move into a SZ with an enemy destroyer.  Can the sub just stop there, or is it forced to attack?

The purpose of the page 20 quote is in direct reference to territories that start the game conquered.  That way you don’t have situations where Russia liberates a territory Japan starts with and Germany takes it back and it becomes German.  It is supposed to be liberated for Japan like any orange territory would be.

It doesn’t mean to keep stacking control markers until you reach the ceiling then call Larry and bitch him out for three hours. (Trust me, he’s tired of getting my phone calls at 3:00 AM Eastern Time…last time he said something about “This is not the white house, STOP CALLING ME!” or some such thing, it was really sad…you’d expect more from your leaders in a time of international, global, Axis and Allies crisis!)

@Cmdr:

The purpose of the page 20 quote is in direct reference to territories that start the game conquered.  That way you don’t have situations where Russia liberates a territory Japan starts with and Germany takes it back and it becomes German.  It is supposed to be liberated for Japan like any orange territory would be.

It doesn’t mean to keep stacking control markers until you reach the ceiling then call Larry and b**** him out for three hours. (Trust me, he’s tired of getting my phone calls at 3:00 AM Eastern Time…last time he said something about “This is not the white house, STOP CALLING ME!” or some such thing, it was really sad…you’d expect more from your leaders in a time of international, global, Axis and Allies crisis!)

So if UK conquers Philippines, then it is liberated for US, but if Germany then conquers it, it is liberated for Japan?  If that is the case, I don’t think it is made clear in the rules.

in 1942 that is correct.
in 1941 that is incorrect since America starts with Philippines, so Japan would first take it, America would liberate it and Germany would then take it.

@Stoney229:

Page 20: “(Note, if you are playing in the 1942 scenario, place you marker on top of the original control
marker; do not remove it)”

What is the purpose of this statement, if the original controller is printed on the gameboard?  If Japan starts 1942 in control of Philipines, and UK conquers it, do you place a UK marker over the Japan marker which is on top of the US symbol, or do you just remove the Japan marker and control goes to US?

The statement has no purpose.  It was a leftover from a previous rule.  There’s no need to have more than one control marker on a territory.  Per the FAQ, the original owner of each territory is the same regardless of the scenario being played, and it’s the marker printed on the board.  In your example, the US would gain control of the Philippines.

@Stoney229:

A sub move into a SZ with an enemy destroyer.  Can the sub just stop there, or is it forced to attack?

If a sub ends its combat movement in a hostile sea zone, it must attack, however the sub can submerge before any shots are fired if there are no enemy destroyers in the sea zone.  It may only move into a hostile sea zone without attacking during noncombat movement.

@Krieghund:

@Stoney229:

A sub move into a SZ with an enemy destroyer.  Can the sub just stop there, or is it forced to attack?

If a sub ends its combat movement in a hostile sea zone, it must attack, however the sub can submerge before any shots are fired if there are no enemy destroyers in the sea zone.  It may only move into a hostile sea zone without attacking during noncombat movement.

But subs can make a non combat move into (but not through) a SZ containing an enemy destroyer?

Yes.

Page 15 in the rulebook says guest fighters on an allied carrier remain as cargo on the carrier if the carrier moves into combat and are then destroyed if the carrier gets destroyed.  I cannot find, however, what happens to defending fighters (of the same or friendly power as the carrier) when the defending carrier is destroyed but the fighters survive the combat.  If there are other carriers in the same SZ with available space are the fighter forced to land there?  And if there is not available space in the SZ?

In previous editions of the game, defending fighters, regardless of nationality, were airborne during the combat and defended normally, therefore, if the carrier is lost, I would assume they get to land like any defending fighter, if possible.

@Stoney229:

Page 15 in the rulebook says guest fighters on an allied carrier remain as cargo on the carrier if the carrier moves into combat and are then destroyed if the carrier gets destroyed.  I cannot find, however, what happens to defending fighters (of the same or friendly power as the carrier) when the defending carrier is destroyed but the fighters survive the combat.  If there are other carriers in the same SZ with available space are the fighter forced to land there?  And if there is not available space in the SZ?

Jenn answered it correctly. Look at page 28 at the attributes for carriers.

@a44bigdog:

@Stoney229:

Page 15 in the rulebook says guest fighters on an allied carrier remain as cargo on the carrier if the carrier moves into combat and are then destroyed if the carrier gets destroyed.  I cannot find, however, what happens to defending fighters (of the same or friendly power as the carrier) when the defending carrier is destroyed but the fighters survive the combat.  If there are other carriers in the same SZ with available space are the fighter forced to land there?  And if there is not available space in the SZ?

Jenn answered it correctly. Look at page 28 at the attributes for carriers.

I did look on page 28.  It does not address my questions.  I believe in AAR the fighters were allowed a movement of 1, and if there was no eligible landing zone within 1 space, they died.  I do not know if they are forced to land in in the same SZ if they can in AAR.

Page 27 under the fighters attributes. If you are familiar with Revised you should also be familiar with how the rulebook  seems to scatter stuff all through out it.

And yes it is the same as Revised 1 space.

@a44bigdog:

Page 27 under the fighters attributes. If you are familiar with Revised you should also be familiar with how the rulebook  seems to scatter stuff all through out it.

And yes it is the same as Revised 1 space.

Ah thank you.  At least it’s there… I was surprised I couldn’t find it… don’t know why I didn’t look there too.

Another one.

I wonder if this statement from page 26 is a mistake:
“You cannot place your new units at an industrial complex owned by a friendly power, unless that power’s capital is in enemy hands.”

This implies that you can place your new units at an IC owned by a friendly power if their capital is in enemy hands.  I expect this is intended to refer to the fact that you can mobilize units at IC that a friendly power originally controlled if you conquered the territory containing it from a enemy power while the capital of the original controller of the territory is in enemy hands.  However, in this scenario you own the territory (pg 20: “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,…”) until the capital is liberated, not the friendly power.  Surely it cannot be true that you can place your new units at an IC owned by a friendly power even if their capital is in enemy hands?

No, you can’t.  Your interpretation is correct.