• Official Q&A

    No, you can’t.  It’s in the FAQ.

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

    Ah, there it is!  It was just a one-liner and I must have overlooked it.  I knew I read that once, but it had been a long time.
    Thought I’d double check since I have about 9 heavy bombing paratrooper-enabled bombers!
    Thanks again, Krieg!  Your fast response time is much appreciated!!


  • I know china CAN control manchuria and/or kiangsu and use those countries towards china infantry units, but i was wondering if russia happens to take those countries first, does russia get the IPCs or do the countries revert back to china?

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

    No other allied power can ever control any Chinese territory, ever.  So Russia, USA, and UK can never gain IPC’s from China.
    (Kwangtung is British, and Chinese can go there, but never control it)
    Therefore, any IC that any Axis power builds in China (usually Japan) can never be used by any Allied power.  Ever.

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

    This raises an obscure question on my part, however.
    What happens if an Allied power other than China captures an AA gun in China?  AA guns are supposed to go to the country who owns the TT, so would China then control an AA gun?  Seems to me they would.
    I suppose China could capture an AA gun themselves.  Yeah, I think I answered my own question.  Funny, though, the creator of ABattlemap did not anticipate this because there’s no Chinese AA gun icon.
    This hasn’t happened in my games yet, but it inevitably will.


  • thanks for your input on the last question gamerman01, but now i have another to ask. what happens to an axis complex built in manchuria and/or kiangsu when china takes control of those countries or if an ally liberates those territories for china? i’ve been playing as if the complex is just dead in the water til one of the axis players liberates either country with the complex on it. i’m wondering if i’ve been playing correctly in that sort of situation cuz that has happen to me once before. there was a complex in manchuria and i was the allies. i had used the russians to liberate manchuria. me and my friend were both confused on what exectly happens to the complex cause if you follow all other rules the complex should be in china’s control, but china can’t use a complex so we decide its just worthless until an axis player takes it back and holds it for a turn. so is that correct or is there something more?

  • Official Q&A

    @gamerman01:

    Yeah, I think I answered my own question.

    I think so, too.  🙂

    @Profile2012:

    thanks for your input on the last question gamerman01, but now i have another to ask. what happens to an axis complex built in manchuria and/or kiangsu when china takes control of those countries or if an ally liberates those territories for china? i’ve been playing as if the complex is just dead in the water til one of the axis players liberates either country with the complex on it. i’m wondering if i’ve been playing correctly in that sort of situation cuz that has happen to me once before. there was a complex in manchuria and i was the allies. i had used the russians to liberate manchuria. me and my friend were both confused on what exectly happens to the complex cause if you follow all other rules the complex should be in china’s control, but china can’t use a complex so we decide its just worthless until an axis player takes it back and holds it for a turn. so is that correct or is there something more?

    You’ve been playing it correctly.


  • Let’s say a naval battle happens. Attackers kills all defending combat ships, remaining only trannies, but the trannies are not killed in the attack. Let’s imagine attacker has one BB and the defender has 2 trannies:

    • Can the BB retreat and let the trannies alive? (It can give advantage to attacker by tactical reasons and maybe another power will kill the lone trannies a bit after)
    • Can the BB make more attacking rounds after one trannie is killed and then retreat and let the second alive?

    All the stuffs involving defenseless trannies annoys me. It was so difficult give them a defense of 1 and still being the last ones being killed?

  • Official Q&A

    @Funcioneta:

    Let’s say a naval battle happens. Attackers kills all defending combat ships, remaining only trannies, but the trannies are not killed in the attack. Let’s imagine attacker has one BB and the defender has 2 trannies:

    • Can the BB retreat and let the trannies alive? (It can give advantage to attacker by tactical reasons and maybe another power will kill the lone trannies a bit after)
    • Can the BB make more attacking rounds after one trannie is killed and then retreat and let the second alive?

    The answer to both questions is no.  The transports are destroyed as soon as all defending combat units capable of hitting the attackers are destroyed, as long as attacking combat units remain.  Combat units can’t retreat once they’ve won the battle.

  • '10

    OK, I know that subs can pass through sea zones where there are only enemy tnps, ignoring their presence… but if I engage that transport with a different sub from a different sea zone in the same combat movement phase, I don’t know if sub number 1 can still pass under the transport on the combat move to engage an enemy the next sea zone over.

    Example: UK tnp in z51, Jap sub z50, Jap sub z62, UK dd z53.

    Can sub from z50 engage the dd in zone 53 AND the sub from z62 engage the tnp in z51 in the same combat movement?

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

    Yes, sure.  They’re two different actions.  One sub ignores sea zone entirely (no DD there), other engages transport.  Nothing says you can’t do that.


  • So the initial link to the rules and errata seems to have gone bad and I don’t feel like sifting through all 40 pages of this thread to find the fixed one.  Is there a way to edit the original post so it’s a good link again?

  • Official Q&A

    @gamerman01:

    Yes, sure.  They’re two different actions.  One sub ignores sea zone entirely (no DD there), other engages transport.  Nothing says you can’t do that.

    Correct.  Technically, the sea zone containing the transport is not hostile until combat actually begins, so other units can still move through it even though you’re attacking it.  Of course, even if the ship in sea zone 51 were a warship (other than a destroyer), the sub could still move through, as subs have that ability.

    @plumsmugler:

    So the initial link to the rules and errata seems to have gone bad and I don’t feel like sifting through all 40 pages of this thread to find the fixed one.  Is there a way to edit the original post so it’s a good link again?

    I can’t change the original post, but here’s the corrected link:
    AA50 FAQ


  • Do you have to retreat land units to a territory you attacked from?

    Ex:
    2 inf trj -> egy.  retreat to Sud.

  • Official Q&A

    They may only retreat to a territory from which one land unit came.


  • You’re a big part of the reason I patron this game!  Love the quick and sensible rulings.


  • @souL:

    You’re a big part of the reason I patron this game!  Love the quick and sensible rulings.

    Rulings?

    He’s quoting the rules…


  • Question.
    Germany captures Egypt. UK takes it back. Italy recaptures it. Is it Germany’s or Italy’s?

    Thanks.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Joe:

    Question.
    Germany captures Egypt. UK takes it back. Italy recaptures it. Is it Germany’s or Italy’s?

    Thanks.

    Italy’s.  Egypt can be captured by either Axis, and since Italy takes it, they get it.

  • Official Q&A

    Italy’s.  Capturing a territory doesn’t give you a future claim on it after you lose it.


  • Thanks Gents.

  • '16 '15 '10

    Tech question…

    If a power has mechanized infantry… is it possible to land infantry, and then move them along with the tanks already on the territory they are landing?

    This is what happened to me on TripleA.  Japan landed 2 infantry on Manchuria, then moved these infantry to Stanovoj along with the tanks already on Manchuria.

    Is this is legal move or a software bug?

  • '10

    @Zhukov44:

    Tech question…

    If a power has mechanized infantry… is it possible to land infantry, and then move them along with the tanks already on the territory they are landing?

    This is what happened to me on TripleA.  Japan landed 2 infantry on Manchuria, then moved these infantry to Stanovoj along with the tanks already on Manchuria.

    Is this is legal move or a software bug?

    No on two counts…the transporting counts as the move and the units have to start their turn in the same territory as the tanks


  • Question. A British CV moves to attack with 2 US fighters on it. The CV gets destroyed. Can the fighters land:
    *On an adjacent spot before the CV moves?
    *On an adjacent spot after the CV is destroyed?
    *Do they sink with the ship?

    My guess would be the 2nd option. Just like a sub attack on a CV, the fighters get one free space for safe landing. I must admit my opinion is biased.

    Thanks again!

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

    @Joe:

    Question. A British CV moves to attack with 2 US fighters on it. The CV gets destroyed. Can the fighters land:
    *On an adjacent spot before the CV moves?
    *On an adjacent spot after the CV is destroyed?
    *Do they sink with the ship?
    My guess would be the 2nd option. Just like a sub attack on a CV, the fighters get one free space for safe landing. I must admit my opinion is biased.

    The answer is on page 15, under “Special Combat Movement”.  Under “Aircraft Carriers” - 2nd paragraph - "Guest fighters belonging to a friendly power on board another power’s carrier must remain on board as cargo if the carrier moves in combat.  They cannot take part in combat and are destroyed if the carrier is destroyed.
    Sorry.  Dem’s da rules.  (Bold emphasis added)

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

71
Online

15.8k
Users

37.4k
Topics

1.6m
Posts