@kwaspek104 The answer to all three questions is “yes”.
Posts made by Krieghund
-
RE: Question About Kamikazes
-
RE: USA Turn 1 reinforcement question
@The_Good_Captain They do not carry over, and are treated normally in the next turn.
-
RE: Amphibious loading
@SuperbattleshipYamato From page 15 of the rulebook:
Land units that begin your turn in contested territories can only be moved to territories that at the beginning of your turn were either controlled by your power or contained units belonging to your power. If they are moved by transport, they may also remain at sea.
Such a unit being moved by transport may either stay at sea or offload in the same turn. If it offloads in the same turn, it must do so into a territory that at the beginning of the turn was either controlled by your power or contained units belonging to your power. Of course, if it stays at sea, it can offload anywhere in a later turn.
Such a unit may also load onto a friendly power’s transport. In that case, it would obviously remain at sea.
-
RE: US 30 IPC bonus question
@Hakuin Yes, you understand correctly.
-
RE: Russian naval units
@SuperbattleshipYamato They are immediately removed from play. Any Allied units on Russian transports are lost.
-
RE: AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night)
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night):
… easier then ‘forfilling’ one of the other AAZ cards you mean?
Yes.
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night):
One more question…
Z CONSCRIPTION card
I think this has been covered before. But just asking for now:
(1) Do ICs and AA guns (and Mobilization Centers) qualify as a unit in the context of this card?
My guess: yes.
Yes.
(2) But… what if you have lost control of one of your areas containing an IC… to Zs? Then this IC is no longer yours I guess? So then that IC cannot be used in the context of this card?
Correct.
(3) If you have unit in an area controlled by an ally and you use this card… then this Z gets replaced by one of YOUR infantry. Is this correct?
Yes.
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night):
Following up on this:
Z DOMESTICATION card
If you have an unit in an area controlled by one of your allies and you play this game then I guess YOU get the money?
And not your ally…BTW: Card says ‘units’ but I guess one unit is enough…
Correct.
-
RE: AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night)
@thrasher1 I don’t think it’s any easier than some of the other ones.
-
RE: "Liberated" Capital
@The_Good_Captain Moscow must be recaptured. Making it contested is not good enough.
-
RE: AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night)
@thrasher1
(1) The presence of zombies does not itself make a territory hostile - it’s about who controls it. If you control a territory that contains zombies, it’s just like a territory you control that doesn’t contain zombies, with one exception: you are allowed to in effect treat it as a hostile territory if it contains zombies. This means you can make a combat movement into it and/or attack it, and also that units may combat move out of it if you’re attacking it. Other than that, the normal rules of combat movement, combat, and noncombat movement apply.In your example, the units in Western US could legally do all of the things you mentioned. If they attack the zombies in Western US, any units not attacking would need to move out in combat movement, to either hostile or friendly territories. The only way to move out in noncombat movement would be to not attack the zombies.
(2) I can’t find a card that gives you something “if you kill at least 3 zombies”. You must be referring to “Research Mission”, which grants you a technology “if at least 3 zombies are destroyed”. In this case, it doesn’t matter who destroys them, and it doesn’t matter whether or how many new zombies are created.
-
RE: FAQ Now Available
@thrasher1 Yes, that’s the latest version available. There was a later version that addressed an issue with AAA, but it never got published. All of these issues are addressed in the Renegade Rulebook.
-
RE: Zombies and 1942 scenario
@thrasher1 There’s not likely to ever be an official answer to this (or any other) Zombies question. Using the standard 1942 setup seems to work.
-
RE: Flying over a sea zone with a fighter to attack.
@The_Good_Captain Such an attack is not legal. Per page 17 of the rulebook (Renegade version, in the FAQ for the original), when attacking by both sea and land (a flying fighter counts as by land), there must be at least one infantry unit in the land force.
If the land attacking force did also contain an infantry (making the attack legal), the artillery preemptive strike would occur before determining air supremacy, as the latter is part of the land combat sequence. Of course, if this were possible in your example, you wouldn’t need to do the amphibious assault at all.
-
RE: Amphibious Assault Questions
@Chris_Henry The mines remain active for Germany as long as it controls the naval base. It controls the naval base as long as the territory is either controlled by Germany or contested, unless Berlin is not controlled by Germany. See “Naval Mines” in the rulebook if you have the new Renegade printing, or the FAQ if you have original one.
-
RE: Playtesters Wanted for A&A: North Africa by Renegade Games
@imperious-leader Thanks, IL. I’m already on board!
-
RE: US IPC Bonus (Looking for Affirmation)
@lotuk said in US IPC Bonus (Looking for Affirmation):
But why wouldn’t the US then also get the 30 IPC bonus income for holding western US at the start of their turn? (getting 60 bonus IPC).
The 30 IPCs for controlling Western United States, unlike the one-time bonus for an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, is from a National Objective. It, like all National Objective income, is collected in the Collect Income phase (at the end) of the power’s turn.
The rules for declaring war state that it’s technically not required if they declared war on you “as the two powers are already at war” (see below extract from page 11). Though I feel like this must excludes the US and they must “declare war” during their combat move despite already being at war?
No, it’s not necessary.
-
RE: Fighters moving out of contested zones and attacking
@superbattleshipyamato Land units can’t. Fighters have no such restriction. See page 15 of the rulebook.
-
RE: Fighters moving out of contested zones and attacking
@superbattleshipyamato Assuming that land units are also moving into Tyrolia (fighters must end their movement in a territory containing land units belonging to the same power), there’s no reason why it couldn’t. In fact, the fighter can move directly from Vienna to Tyrolia, without going through Trieste.
-
RE: Attacking Japan w/ a naval battle first...aircraft question.
@andrewaagamer I have not heard of such a document, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
-
RE: Attacking Japan w/ a naval battle first...aircraft question.
@andrewaagamer You may be thinking of the Rules Clarifications document for the 2nd edition that came out in 1991.