• You must be pretty desperate if you have to sacrifice 10 carriers to kill 5 transports

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

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    You must be pretty desperate if you have to sacrifice 10 carriers to kill 5 transports

    Right.  I think he said it was hypothetical, though.


  • I know, but still

  • Official Q&A

    @gamerman01:

    If you have 4 planes (plus boat(s)) engaged against subs and transports, the 4 planes sink 4 transports per round.

    No, they don’t, at least not automatically.  Hits are rolled and assigned normally, with attacking air hits assigned to defending transports, as they have no other targets.  Only after all of the attacking ships (leaving only attacking air units) or all of the defending subs (leaving only defending transports) are sunk are any transports destroyed automatically.

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

    @Krieghund:

    @gamerman01:

    If you have 4 planes (plus boat(s)) engaged against subs and transports, the 4 planes sink 4 transports per round.

    No, they don’t, at least not automatically.  Hits are rolled and assigned normally, with attacking air hits assigned to defending transports, as they have no other targets.  Only after all of the attacking ships (leaving only attacking air units) or all of the defending subs (leaving only defending transports) are sunk are any transports destroyed automatically.

    Oops!  Right!  Glad you caught that right away, thanks.  I’ll edit my post.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Krieghund:

    Your scenarios are played out correctly, Bardoly.  The important thing to understand about the defenseless transport rule is that it is designed purely to keep players from having to roll several rounds of combat just to reach an inevitable conclusion.  It takes effect only when one side that can’t retreat no longer has units capable of hitting the other side’s units.

    To answer your specific questions:

    @Bardoly:

    1)  COULD I have retreated my naval ships at the beginning of round 3, leaving only my 2 jets in the battle so as to sink the transport?  I don’t believe so, but I’d like a confirmation.

    No.

    @Bardoly:

    2)  Is my single jet hit in round 4 applied to the transport because there are no other eligible targets?

    Yes.

    @Bardoly:

    3)  Did I play this out correctly?  In other words, is my battle turn sequence and choosing casualties correct?

    Yes.

    @Bardoly:

    4)  My opponent says that he has never experienced this situation before, but he believes that I must destroy the sub first before destroying the transport, but he’s not for certain, so that’s why we’re getting this ruling.  If he is correct, then what would happen if we went to Round 5, and his final sub’s surprise strike hit my bb, and my fighters both missed?  Would we go to Round 6, with 2 jets firing at 1 sub, but both sides NEVER hitting?

    He’s not correct (in this situation).

    Thanks Krieg for clearing that up, it was such an unusual sitituation I wanted to get a ruling on record for future games.


  • Hello to everybody, I hope this is the right topic for clarification on the rules: if there’s an UK AAgun in a Russian controlled territory, does it prevent Russia from collecting it’s Nat Obj bonus??
    thank you


  • Yes it does.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Russian NO Reads:

    “Gain 5 IPCs if no other Allied forces are present in a territory controlled by the Soviet Union and if the Soviets control Archangel.”

    pg 23

    Page 25 of the Axis and Allies Revised manual states that Anti-Aircraft guns revert to the ownership of the original owner when liberated, thus implying they are that player’s forces.

    It is thus my belief, that a British Anti-Aircraft gun in Soviet territories negates the Russian National Objective.

    If they did not, it is my belief they would act like Industrial Complexes and, when liberated, revert to who ever owned the land the complex was on, not who first purchased the unit.

    The distinction is, if Germany captures an AA Gun (Russian) and moves it to France where it is liberated by the Americans later in the game, the AA Gun is replaced with a Russian gun.

    If Russia purchases an Industrial Complex on Poland, losses it to Germany, and the Americans subsequently liberate the complex, it becomes American.

  • Official Q&A

    Per the Revised FAQ, the AA gun reverts to the original owner of the territory.  In your example, the US would get the AA gun.

    The same applies to AA50.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    They changed it in the FAQ, huh?  Usually, in F2F games, we just put a control marker under the gun so people know who owned it originally.


  • Yes that is the standard way to do it when you move an AA gun into an allied territory, but when the territory gets captured, say goodbye to your AA gun. It is going to your ally.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I understand that, I’m just thinking that’s a cheap way to give someone free AA Guns…great if your ally has rockets but is strapped for cash!

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

    @Cmdr:

    I understand that, I’m just thinking that’s a cheap way to give someone free AA Guns…great if your ally has rockets but is strapped for cash!

    Or radar.  Or rockets AND radar  😄

    Easy way to convert Italian AA’s to German - put it in France (for example)


  • Or put them in Ukraine or Algeria


  • @gamerman01:

    @Cmdr:

    I understand that, I’m just thinking that’s a cheap way to give someone free AA Guns…great if your ally has rockets but is strapped for cash!

    Or radar.  Or rockets AND radar  😄

    Easy way to convert Italian AA’s to German - put it in France (for example)

    Yeah, because the Italians are usually flush with cash.  😛  :lol:

    Unless you are already expecting to trade france for a turn, that would be a very expensive way just to transfer ownership of AA guns.  Even if you go with the assumption that ONLY italian troops are in france, and you can move out everything but the AA’s, you still give the us 6ipc for the territory + 5 for the NO, plus you force germany to take and hold France (if they continue to trade, they won’t be able to use the guns as rockets)without the ability to land air for defense.

    I think I might have once allowed a british AA to be captured so the russians could take it back, but that is really only worth it if you’ve already given up the 5 ipc Russian NO


  • On the topic of captured AA’s, if an allied AA gun is moved to china, then captured by japan, but then recaptured by allied forces (presumably russian), does it belong to china (and thus fall under china’s ridiculous movement restrictions)?  Can china even own AA guns? Or can they only own infantry, captured ICs (which they can’t use) and the FT fig.

    I assume it belongs to china and thus is unable to retreat to russia, but I wasn’t 110% sure.

  • Official Q&A

    @TimTheEnchanter:

    On the topic of captured AA’s, if an allied AA gun is moved to china, then captured by japan, but then recaptured by allied forces (presumably russian), does it belong to china (and thus fall under china’s ridiculous movement restrictions)?  Can china even own AA guns? Or can they only own infantry, captured ICs (which they can’t use) and the FT fig.

    I assume it belongs to china and thus is unable to retreat to russia, but I wasn’t 110% sure.

    Yes, it belongs to China, and it may be used.

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

    @TimTheEnchanter:

    Yeah, because the Italians are usually flush with cash.  😛  :lol:

    Unless you are already expecting to trade france for a turn, that would be a very expensive way just to transfer ownership of AA guns.  Even if you go with the assumption that ONLY italian troops are in france, and you can move out everything but the AA’s, you still give the us 6ipc for the territory + 5 for the NO, plus you force germany to take and hold France (if they continue to trade, they won’t be able to use the guns as rockets)without the ability to land air for defense.

    I think I might have once allowed a british AA to be captured so the russians could take it back, but that is really only worth it if you’ve already given up the 5 ipc Russian NO

    I’m well aware of all this.  Let’s not get off topic - this is a Rules errata thread.  But to respond quickly to your response, early in the game as Germany sometimes I concede France because it will often cost the Allies a transport and a man and opportunity cost to take it.  If Germany gets radar or rockets in the first round, it would definitely not be a bad move to move an Italian AA to an empty France to convert to a German unit.  And it was just an example.  calvinhobbesliker gave a couple other good examples.


  • @Krieghund:

    @TimTheEnchanter:

    On the topic of captured AA’s, if an allied AA gun is moved to china, then captured by japan, but then recaptured by allied forces (presumably russian), does it belong to china (and thus fall under china’s ridiculous movement restrictions)?  Can china even own AA guns? Or can they only own infantry, captured ICs (which they can’t use) and the FT fig.

    I assume it belongs to china and thus is unable to retreat to russia, but I wasn’t 110% sure.

    Yes, it belongs to China, and it may be used.

    TRUE!!!


  • Can a transport starting in another sea zone pick up troops in a sea zone which contains an enemy sub and then proceed to another seazone and attack with said troops while at the same time, naval ships (including a destroyer from an entirely different sea zone enter the sea zone containing the enemy sub to attack the enemy sub?  This is all happening during the combat move phase.


  • @Bardoly:

    Can a transport starting in another sea zone pick up troops in a sea zone which contains an enemy sub and then proceed to another seazone and attack with said troops while at the same time, naval ships (including a destroyer from an entirely different sea zone enter the sea zone containing the enemy sub to attack the enemy sub?  This is all happening during the combat move phase.

    I think so.

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

    @Bardoly:

    Can a transport starting in another sea zone pick up troops in a sea zone which contains an enemy sub and then proceed to another seazone and attack with said troops while at the same time, naval ships (including a destroyer from an entirely different sea zone enter the sea zone containing the enemy sub to attack the enemy sub?  This is all happening during the combat move phase.

    Yes.


  • To be even more precise about this situation, in one of my current games, I am playing as the Asis.  It is Japan’s turn.  I have a transport in sz37, I have 2 infantry units in Borneo which is in sz49, but the UK has a submarine in sz49.  I have a destroyer in sz50 which wants to attack the sub in sz49, and my transport in sz37 wants to move to sz49, pick up troops and then proceed to sz48 and capture NewGuniea.  I want to make sure if this is a valid move.

    For anyone interested in the map of this situation, you may download the map which is attached to this post.

    Rules question situation map.aam


  • Russia is doing very well

Suggested Topics

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

40
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts