• @Emperor:

    Question:
    US has a fleet w\TP in SZ62 and ground forces in Manchuria.  Japan buys a DD and places it in SZ62.  Can US destroy the TP and then pick up forces from Manchuria with the TP in sz62 and move them during Non combat move?  I say no.  They either leave the combat zone (move over) or they fight with the rest of the fleet (move over).

    Yes you are correct. The thing to remember is transports can only load in friendly sea zones and if they were part of a sea battle or were forced to retreat in the combat movement phase, then their turn is done, they cannot come back and load once the battle is over. 8-)

  • Moderator

    What’s the ruling on AA-guns,

    Scenerio -
    Japan takes control of Persia and gains control of an AA-gun.
    Russia liberates Persia.

    Is the AA-gun now Russian or UK?

  • Official Q&A

    Since Persia is liberated, the UK gets the AA gun along with the territory.


  • page 12 allows a player to not place units that were build this round, but delay the placement to one of the following rounds.

    Ok let’s try that: UK builds an  IC + 2 destroyers + cruiser  (43 IPC) in round 1, but places only the IC in India.

    now round 2 rule questions:

    a) placing the three navel units from round 1 that haven’t placed yet:

    can they be placed only in a sea zone next to UK or also to sz 35 because in round 2 there is a new IC in India that can also be used ?

    b) if placing that units in another factory is allowed in general, does this “old units” count for the IC limit, or does an Indian IC (as an example) build 3 units + place all units from previous rounds ?

  • Moderator Official Q&A 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12 TripleA

    @Crossover:

    page 12 allows a player to not place units that were build this round, but delay the placement to one of the following rounds.

    This is not a general allowance. The official faq (to be found here:  http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf  )
    clarifies (see page 5):

    Q. On page 22 it says that any new units that you don’t place in the Mobilize Units phase aren’t
      lost, but can be placed on a future turn. Does this mean that I don’t have to mobilize my units
      if I don’t want to?
    A. You must mobilize all of your purchased units that you are able to. You may only hold back units that
      you can’t mobilize because you don’t have sufficient production capacity. These units remain in the
      mobilization zone until they are mobilized by you.

    @Crossover:

    Ok let’s try that: UK builds an  IC + 2 destroyers + cruiser  (43 IPC) in round 1, but places only the IC in India.

    now round 2 rule questions:

    a) placing the three navel units from round 1 that haven’t placed yet:

    can they be placed only in a sea zone next to UK or also to sz 35 because in round 2 there is a new IC in India that can also be used ?

    b) if placing that units in another factory is allowed in general, does this “old units” count for the IC limit, or does an Indian IC (as an example) build 3 units + place all units from previous rounds ?

    Considering the above quotation from the FAQ the naval units can be only held back if there is not enough production capacity left to place them - and in round one that is not likely.

    If you run into a situation where you cannot place your units except an IC you will be allowed to place those units to any of your existing ICs in later rounds - without differing “older units” from “newer units”.

  • Official Q&A

    Thanks, P@nther!


  • AA guns again

    pg. 20 “Liberating a Territory”

    “…AA or IC in that (liberated for ally) revert to the original controller of the territory.”

    Does this mean that if an WUS AA gun is in WCA, japan does a walk in from alaska, then next turn if USA takes WCA the AA gun gets british, because it was in their territroy ?

  • Official Q&A

    Yup.


  • Based on the rules when mixed planes attack a territory with an AA gun, the shots against different aircraft (i.e., against figs and against bombers) are rolled as separate groups, then casualties are chosen from among those groups.

    Here’s my question: If some, but not all, of the bombers are carrying paratroopers, do all bombers still roll as a single group and then casualties are chosen?  I can’t find any rule citation in the OOB book or the FAQ that would seem to clarify this.

  • Official Q&A

    The intent is that each air unit is fired upon individually.  However, the rules allow for all fighters to be rolled for together and all bombers to be rolled for together, rather than rolling for each unit separately.  This brings the precision to the level of unit types, if not individual units.  The only material difference between one fighter and another would be how far it has travelled to get to the battle, so that’s all that’s given up by rolling them all together.

    However, if some bombers are carrying paratroopers and some are not, there is as significant a difference between them as there is between a fighter and a bomber.  They must be rolled for separately.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Here’s an interesting Rules question.  The US\UK have a combined fleet in SZ13, the US CV has 2 UK fighters on board.  It’s Germany’s turn, they have an IC in France and place a DD in SZ13.  On UK’s turn can the UK fighters stay put or do they have to be involved in Combat or leave the seazone if UK does not attack?

  • '10

    My interpretation is that the fight or clear rule applies to warships only so the fighters would have the option to do either as they can be considered cargo. Lets consider the case of 2 brit infantry on a us transport……they can do neither as they cannot move on their own or offload as the seazone is hostile.

  • 2007 AAR League

    It is a grey area, but the UK inf would be allowed to conduct an assault on any of the land terrritories bordering sz13 since that is a legal combat move.  But they have no way of leaving the seazone or particpating in a sea battle, so they really don’t have an option.  The fighters are more tricky, they are only considered “cargo” when the carrier is attacked.  My guess is that the fighters will have to battle or leave, but I can’t point to any specific rule to support that, only an extrapolation of existing rules and precedents, this is definitely one for the AA Supreme Court to decide.  😄

  • Official Q&A

    @Battlingmaxo:

    My interpretation is that the fight or clear rule applies to warships only so the fighters would have the option to do either as they can be considered cargo.

    Correct.  The fighters could stay put and do nothing (remaining cargo), stay put and attack, or leave and attack somewhere else.  They could even return to the carrier after attacking somewhere else, as the noncombat move rules for fighters only require that the carrier be friendly, not the sea zone.

    @Battlingmaxo:

    Lets consider the case of 2 brit infantry on a us transport……they can do neither as they cannot move on their own or offload as the seazone is hostile.

    @Emperor:

    It is a grey area, but the UK inf would be allowed to conduct an assault on any of the land terrritories bordering sz13 since that is a legal combat move.  But they have no way of leaving the seazone or particpating in a sea battle, so they really don’t have an option.

    The UK infantry would indeed be stuck on the transport, as they may only conduct an amphibious assault if the sea zone is cleared of enemy surface warships.  The only way they could attack is if UK forces cleared the German destroyer.  If outside UK forces attacked, any US-carrier-based UK fighters in the sea zone would either have to attack in the sea zone or leave.


  • Another rules question.

    Situation:  The UK and the US both have a fleet controlling sea zone 7.  On UK’s turn (let’s call it turn 5), they load troops onto a US transport with the intent of attacking either France or Northwest Europe. (The US Fleet and transport are not going anywhere.)  Now, I believe that it was earlier stated that those troops could not immediately attack.  They must wait until the following UK turn (turn 6) and then attack.

    Here’s the question.  On the following turn (turn 6) on which they attack during UK’s combat phase, may the UK during its non-combat phase load the US transport with more troops or does it have to wait until the following turn (turn 7)?  The transport is still in sea zone 7 and has never left sea zone 7 for the purpose of this question.

  • Official Q&A

    It must wait until the following turn.  A transport can’t load again in the same turn after it unloads.

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3.  So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.

    I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).  I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says).  What do you think about my house rule?  (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)

  • Official Q&A

    @gamerman01:

    I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).

    That’s one reason.  The other is that increasing an IC’s production capacity by 100 or 200 percent seemed a bit excessive.  Your house rule certainly solves the problem that you mentioned, though.


  • Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

  • Official Q&A

    @Joe:

    Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

    Your guess is correct.  The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as the assaulting transport(s).


  • @Krieghund:

    @Joe:

    Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

    Your guess is correct.  The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as the assaulting transport(s).

    Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as at least one assaulting transport(s)”

    I don’t have the link but I recall this being discussed by you at length a while back.

  • Official Q&A

    Yes, that’s correct.  Any number of battleships and cruisers up to the total number of land units amphibiously assaulting may bombard from sea zones from which at least on land unit landed.  For example, if six infantry landed from sea zone A and one landed from sea zone B, up to seven ships could bombard from sea zones A and/or B, regardless of which sea zone they’re actually in.


  • Question about the half-priced repairs with improved factory tech:

    If I want to repair  3 damage on one IC and 5 damage on another, do I have to pay 4 ipcs for 8 total repairs or do I pay 2 ipcs to repair the three on the first factory and 3 ipcs to repair the 5 on the other (total 2+3=5 ipcs)?  In other words, is rounding done on a per-IC basis or a per-turn basis?

    The rules state “you can remove two damage markers at a time for the cost of 1 IPC (half price).”  and doesn’t state that they have to be removed from same factory, so my assumption is that rounding would be on a per-turn basis, but just thought I’d get clarification.

  • Official Q&A

    You can split the two damage marker repairs between two ICs.


  • So you’re saying he would only have to pay the 4 I.P.C’s instead of 5, like his example is showing ?

Suggested Topics

  • 89
  • 1
  • 17
  • 2
  • 9
  • 5
  • 1
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

37
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts