AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

From page 19:

In a sea battle, if both sides have only transports remaining, the attacker’s transports may remain in the contested sea zone or retreat per the rules in Condition B below.

When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the units in it.  Therefore, to win the battle, you must normally destroy all of those units.  However, transports are an exception, as they aren’t warships and don’t make a sea zone hostile.  Under the rare circumstances that Telamon has brought up, the attacker has effectively won the battle by destroying all of the defending combat units.  The above rule was added in order to clarify this point and keep an amphibious assault from being blocked by transports alone.  Since the attacking transports may remain in the sea zone, the assault may go forward, as P@nther pointed out.

The wording of the amphibious assault land combat rule on page 17 was intended to support this concept, but unfortunately it left fighters out of the equation.  I agree that this needs an erratum, and I’m already working on it.

Thanks once again Krieg.

I’m happy with that outcome.  The whole thing is very intuitive, but I can appreciate it’s very difficult to explain it as a set of written rules.

If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?

@Pvt.Patterson:

If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?

Defending fighters can move one space to find a legal landing space (a land territory they control bordering that sea zone or a carrier in an adjoining sea zone) other wise the fightes are destroyed (ran out of fuel).

@Pvt.Patterson:

If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?

Retreating after they take the CV’s off the board is an interesting question and I’m curious to see what Krieg has to say.  I actually saw this move done today on tripleA and the fighters where destroyed because they weren’t in range of a safe landing zone.

@I:

@Pvt.Patterson:

If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?

Retreating after they take the CV’s off the board is an interesting question and I’m curious to see what Krieg has to say.  I actually saw this move done today on tripleA and the fighters where destroyed because they weren’t in range of a safe landing zone.

It’s a fairly common tactic, so you have to be careful when declaring your losses.

The emperor is correct.  The stranded fighters may move up to one space to a safe landing spot.  If none can be found, they are lost.  The movement occurs after all combats are completed, but before the active player begins his/her noncombat movements.

That is what makes submarines very dangerous when combined with an airforce.

Let’s say you attack a 3 fully loaded carriers with 6 fighters, you have 6 subs and 2 bombers.

Results will be that your 2 bombers might as well not have been used since you end up losing them versus fighters which can’t shoot subs. So obviously, you go only with subs and have a field day.

If the ennemy has a destroyer escort to counter your subs, he actually still shoot himself in the foot. The reason is that he actually give you the option to select subs as casualties from his fighters, enabling them to shield your air force.

In short, in lowluck ( I hate it but everyone plays that ), you will lose 5 subs first round and take out 2 carriers, 1 destroyer, +1.3 added casualty ( 1 fighter ). You then retreat planes and keep up on the remaining carrier with last sub that can’t be shot from planes anymore. IF he elected for 3 CV losses, your job is done and you withdraw bombers.

For a German player, the only thing you need to strafe the ally fleet is your starting fighters and enough subs to soak up the first round of casualties + 1 sub remaining so you can retreat planes. Italy could do it to a lesser extent.

I’m pointing this out because an opponent of mine insisted that his planes was not shooting my subs but my planes instead, yet he did have a destroyer which actually played against him overall.

@Corbeau:

In short, in lowluck ( I hate it but everyone plays that ), you will lose 5 subs first round and take out 2 carriers, 1 destroyer, +1.3 added casualty ( 1 fighter ). You then retreat planes and keep up on the remaining carrier with last sub that can’t be shot from planes anymore. IF he elected for 3 CV losses, your job is done and you withdraw bombers.

Except for the case of amphibious assaults, partial retreats aren’t allowed.  You can’t retreat your bombers and keep fighting with your sub, as you must retreat everything or nothing.  Of course, subs can leave the ongoing battle by submerging, but that’s a different case.

So Destroyers act as a block for subs, as a sub may not pass through a destroyer occupied zone.  What about the other way around?  I have a German sub that could move to Z6 and if the English destroyer has to fight there, well now, that really warrants me purchasing a few subs for Germany in Z5 doesn’t it?

@Capt.:

So Destroyers act as a block for subs, as a sub may not pass through a destroyer occupied zone.  What about the other way around?  I have a German sub that could move to Z6 and if the English destroyer has to fight there, well now, that really warrants me purchasing a few subs for Germany in Z5 doesn’t it?

No, subs may not block any movement of any units.  :-(

Bardoly is correct.

Krieg i have noticed in some forum games, that players sometimes place fighters in seazones when they do their purchase faze with an adjacent seazon to sit on a CV, and place fighters in their non com faze to wait arrival for a newly purchased CV during the placement stage.  I am unaware of this, are these legal moves?

@RogertheShrubber:

Krieg i have noticed in some forum games, that players sometimes place fighters in seazones when they do their purchase faze with an adjacent seazon to sit on a CV, and place fighters in their non com faze to wait arrival for a newly purchased CV during the placement stage.  I am unaware of this, are these legal moves?

Fighters can be moved during non-combat move to a seazone adjacent to an IC, where they plan to build a purchased Carrier.  Newly purchased fighters can be placed in a sea zone adjacent to an IC where their carrier already exists.  What is not legal is placing newly purchased fighters on an allied carrier, adjacent to their IC.

@Emperor:

Fighters can be moved during non-combat move to a seazone adjacent to an IC, where they plan to build a purchased Carrier.  Newly purchased fighters can be placed in a sea zone adjacent to an IC where their carrier already exists.  What is not legal is placing newly purchased fighters on an allied carrier, adjacent to their IC.

This is correct.  New fighters can also be placed directly onto new carriers.  The Revised method of moving existing fighters from the IC territory onto a new carrier when the carrier is placed is not legal in Anniversary.

@Krieghund:

@Emperor:

Fighters can be moved during non-combat move to a seazone adjacent to an IC, where they plan to build a purchased Carrier.  Newly purchased fighters can be placed in a sea zone adjacent to an IC where their carrier already exists.  What is not legal is placing newly purchased fighters on an allied carrier, adjacent to their IC.

This is correct.  New fighters can also be placed directly onto new carriers.  The Revised method of moving existing fighters from the IC territory onto a new carrier when the carrier is placed is not legal in Anniversary.

Its been about 5 years, hasn’t it, but I still chuckle a bit when I see this topic.  8-)

This topic came up in a recent game, and it’s obvious to me what the correct answer is, but for the sake of completeness I’m asking it here.
The wording “and/or” in the NOs was interpreted by some to mean that both countries listed on both sides of the “and/or” must be owned to achieve the NO.
For instance in the Italian NO of “Axis control of at least three out of the following: Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France and/or Gibraltar”, two of the three countries under Axis control from that list must be France and Gibraltar since the “and/or” is between them.  For this particular example, my interpretation is that any of the three countries under Axis control will suffice to achieve that particular NO.

@BrokenEagle98:

This topic came up in a recent game, and it’s obvious to me what the correct answer is, but for the sake of completeness I’m asking it here.
The wording “and/or” in the NOs was interpreted by some to mean that both countries listed on both sides of the “and/or” must be owned to achieve the NO.
For instance in the Italian NO of “Axis control of at least three out of the following: Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France and/or Gibraltar”, two of the three countries under Axis control from that list must be France and Gibraltar since the “and/or” is between them.  For this particular example, my interpretation is that any of the three countries under Axis control will suffice to achieve that particular NO.

Yes, any three of these four territories under Axis control will suffice.  If the other interpretation were the correct one, I think the NO would be worded like this: “Axis control both France and Gibraltar, and at of at least one of the following: Egypt and/or Trans-Jordan.”

Yes, that’s correct.

i have a question about the suez canal

in previous versions you had to hold both sides of your canal at the start of your turn.

in this version can i capture both side of the canal then non combat through the canal ?