AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

[Jennifer]

I think the clarification to that is this:

If Paratroopers are attacking in conjunction with normal ground units attacking, then they may retreat with the ground units. (As opposed to if you attack in an amphibious assault, then none of the troops can retreat.)

As for blitzers taking precedence, since you cannot engage in combat twice, blitzing an enemy territory during the CM is not considered a combat move but a move towards combat.  Thus, mechanized infantry and paratroopers would not have to stop there.  However, if the territory is NOT blitzed, then it is an “enemy” territory that must be “attacked” before you can pass over head.

Honestly, having to stop because some yahoo with a Bowie knife is whittlin a piece of wood while chewing on straw and humming Camptown Races is kinda stupid in my mind.  You’re 11,000 feet up (or more) in a nice big, shiney, aireo plane.  What’s he gunna do, throw curses at you?  Wasn’t the whole point of paratroopers to land BEHIND enemy lines?

[Krieghund]

@Stoney229:

Page 3 of the official Errata sheet states “China is considered to be the original controller of Manchuria and
Kiangsu.”

Therefore if USSR conquers Manchuria from Japan, they are only liberating it and control goes to China.

If Japan builds an Industrial Complex in Manchuria, and then USSR liberates it for China, China cannot use it (they have no money), and a literal reading of this rule suggests USSR also cannot use it, since China’s capital is not in enemy control since they have no capital at all:

(From page 22)
“You cannot place your new units at an industrial complex owned by a friendly power, unless that power’s capital is in
enemy control and you have taken control of the industrial complex from an enemy power after the friendly power’s
capital was captured.”

This rule seems not to have taken into account that China has no capital, but is this Manchurian Industrial Complex rendered useless by the liberation (that is, until recaptured by the Axis)?

Because China has no capital, it will never be in the position that one of the other Allied powers can take possession of a Chinese territory.  This makes an Axis-built Chinese IC useless when it’s controlled by China, as they have no IPCs.  However, there is always some value to keeping Japan from using it.

@Stoney229:

Page 10 of the Rulebook states that new Chinese units cannot be placed in a territory already containing 3 or more Chinese (Errata sheet) units.  It does not address the situation of all Chinese territories containing three or more units.

Page 22 of the Rulebook states: “If you do not place some of your units the turn you purchase them, they are not lost. You can place them on one of your future turns during your Mobilize New Units phase.”

Does this rule apply to the aforementioned Chinese situation (even though Chinese units are not “purchased”), or are potential new Chinese units lost in this case?

The units would be retained until they can be placed.  However, it should be easy to reposition Chinese forces to allow for placement during noncombat movement.

@Stoney229:

@Imperious:

This thread is for issues directly relating to questions and clarifications on rules for AA50. Eventually an errata sheet will be prepared from these posts and this first post will be edited to reflect that information.

Is this related to the official Avalon Hill Errata sheet (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20081212)?  If not, where do they come up with their FAQs?

No, it’s not related.  I wrote the official FAQ, and it was approved by Larry Harris.

@Stoney229:

From the “Weapons Development” section of the document:
Q. Can paratroopers retreat if they attack without other land units or with an amphibious assault?
A. No. Since land units can only retreat to a territory from which at least one of them came, no retreat is
possible if no land units attacked from an adjacent territory.

This is in contrast with what is stated in the published rules (Page 12: “The infantry unit may retreat normally to a
friendly adjacent space during combat.”), and therefore should be listed in the “Errata” section of the document.

It’s not really in conflict.  According to the rule, paratroopers can “retreat normally”.  Normally, land units retreat to an adjacent territory from which at least one of the units moved.  In the case of paratroopers, there may not be such a space.  The FAQ is simply clarifying that paratroopers may not retreat if there were no land units attacking with them from an adjacent territory, as a retreat route has not been established.

[Krieghund]

@a44bigdog:

That isn’t the only inconsistency. All combat is supposed to occur simultaneously. Yet now according to the FAQ Blitzing tanks convert an enemy territory to friendly so Paratroopers can fly through it.

@Cmdr:

As for blitzers taking precedence, since you cannot engage in combat twice, blitzing an enemy territory during the CM is not considered a combat move but a move towards combat.  Thus, mechanized infantry and paratroopers would not have to stop there.  However, if the territory is NOT blitzed, then it is an “enemy” territory that must be “attacked” before you can pass over head.

Actually, blitzing is considered to be a combat movement rather than a combat.  According to the rules, blitzed territories change hands immediately during the Combat Movement phase, as opposed to territories captured in battle during the Conduct Combat phase.  That difference is the basis for the FAQ entry, as the blitzing tank paves the way for deeper penetration into enemy territory.

[Jennifer]

Krieg:

Did you misunderstand what I had typed or were you confirming and clarifying what I typed?  Because our two “paragraphs” are virtually the same. hehe

[Krieghund]

Mostly just clarifying.  :-)

[Stoney229]

Thanks Krieghund!  So helpful!!  The people I was playing with were saying otherwise in the case of the Manchurian IC, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed it shouldn’t be useable.

Here’s another:
(From page 12 of rulebook)
3. Paratroopers. Each of your bombers can act as
a transport for up to one infantry, but it must stop in
the first hostile territory it enters during a turn and
drop off the infantry, ending its combat movement.
The bomber may still attack during the Conduct
Combat phase, but it cannot make a strategic
bombing run in a turn that it transports an infantry
unit. The infantry unit may retreat normally to a
friendly adjacent space during combat.

Q: I’m assuming a vacant (or containing nothing other than AA and IC) territory in enemy control is considered a hostile territory and ends the movement of the paratrooper, causing the paratrooper to conquer the territory.  The rules say “bomber may still attack”… does that imply the bomber may choose not to attack?  If the bomber chooses not to attack, does a present AA gun in the territory still get to fire?  I assume not… especially if it is a vacant territory, as the territory will is (maybe?) already considered conquered territory before the conduct combat phase begins… however, what about the case of a non-vacant territory.  Can the bomber avoid AA fire by choosing not to attack?

[Krieghund]

@Stoney229:

I’m assuming a vacant (or containing nothing other than AA and IC) territory in enemy control is considered a hostile territory and ends the movement of the paratrooper, causing the paratrooper to conquer the territory.

Yes.  Any territory under enemy control is hostile, whether it’s occupied or not.

@Stoney229:

The rules say “bomber may still attack”… does that imply the bomber may choose not to attack?  If the bomber chooses not to attack, does a present AA gun in the territory still get to fire?  I assume not… especially if it is a vacant territory, as the territory will is (maybe?) already considered conquered territory before the conduct combat phase begins… however, what about the case of a non-vacant territory.  Can the bomber avoid AA fire by choosing not to attack?

The bomber is subject to AA fire simply by virtue of bringing in the paratroopers.  The timing of paratrooper drops will be clarified in an upcoming erratum in the FAQ.

[Stoney229]

It seems to me I remember from AAR that air units could retreat separately from other attacking units, or at least separate from amphibious units (is this true?).  Is this true of AA50?  I cannot find mention of it in the rules.  If it is true, can they retreat separate from each other (retreat bombers but not yet fighters), or must they all retreat together?

[Krieghund]

In both games, air units can retreat separately only in amphibious assaults.  In normal battles, they retreat at the same time as everything else.  In AA50, land units that enter the battle by land may also retreat from an amphibious assault battle.

In any case, partial retreats are never allowed.  If a retreat occurs, all units that are eligible to retreat must do so together.

[Stoney229]

Page 20: “(Note, if you are playing in the 1942 scenario, place you marker on top of the original control
marker; do not remove it)”

What is the purpose of this statement, if the original controller is printed on the gameboard?  If Japan starts 1942 in control of Philipines, and UK conquers it, do you place a UK marker over the Japan marker which is on top of the US symbol, or do you just remove the Japan marker and control goes to US?

[Stoney229]

A sub move into a SZ with an enemy destroyer.  Can the sub just stop there, or is it forced to attack?

[Jennifer]

The purpose of the page 20 quote is in direct reference to territories that start the game conquered.  That way you don’t have situations where Russia liberates a territory Japan starts with and Germany takes it back and it becomes German.  It is supposed to be liberated for Japan like any orange territory would be.

It doesn’t mean to keep stacking control markers until you reach the ceiling then call Larry and bitch him out for three hours. (Trust me, he’s tired of getting my phone calls at 3:00 AM Eastern Time…last time he said something about “This is not the white house, STOP CALLING ME!” or some such thing, it was really sad…you’d expect more from your leaders in a time of international, global, Axis and Allies crisis!)

[Stoney229]

@Cmdr:

The purpose of the page 20 quote is in direct reference to territories that start the game conquered.  That way you don’t have situations where Russia liberates a territory Japan starts with and Germany takes it back and it becomes German.  It is supposed to be liberated for Japan like any orange territory would be.

It doesn’t mean to keep stacking control markers until you reach the ceiling then call Larry and b**** him out for three hours. (Trust me, he’s tired of getting my phone calls at 3:00 AM Eastern Time…last time he said something about “This is not the white house, STOP CALLING ME!” or some such thing, it was really sad…you’d expect more from your leaders in a time of international, global, Axis and Allies crisis!)

So if UK conquers Philippines, then it is liberated for US, but if Germany then conquers it, it is liberated for Japan?  If that is the case, I don’t think it is made clear in the rules.

[Jennifer]

in 1942 that is correct.
in 1941 that is incorrect since America starts with Philippines, so Japan would first take it, America would liberate it and Germany would then take it.

[Krieghund]

@Stoney229:

Page 20: “(Note, if you are playing in the 1942 scenario, place you marker on top of the original control
marker; do not remove it)”

What is the purpose of this statement, if the original controller is printed on the gameboard?  If Japan starts 1942 in control of Philipines, and UK conquers it, do you place a UK marker over the Japan marker which is on top of the US symbol, or do you just remove the Japan marker and control goes to US?

The statement has no purpose.  It was a leftover from a previous rule.  There’s no need to have more than one control marker on a territory.  Per the FAQ, the original owner of each territory is the same regardless of the scenario being played, and it’s the marker printed on the board.  In your example, the US would gain control of the Philippines.

@Stoney229:

A sub move into a SZ with an enemy destroyer.  Can the sub just stop there, or is it forced to attack?

If a sub ends its combat movement in a hostile sea zone, it must attack, however the sub can submerge before any shots are fired if there are no enemy destroyers in the sea zone.  It may only move into a hostile sea zone without attacking during noncombat movement.

[Stoney229]

@Krieghund:

@Stoney229:

A sub move into a SZ with an enemy destroyer.  Can the sub just stop there, or is it forced to attack?

If a sub ends its combat movement in a hostile sea zone, it must attack, however the sub can submerge before any shots are fired if there are no enemy destroyers in the sea zone.  It may only move into a hostile sea zone without attacking during noncombat movement.

But subs can make a non combat move into (but not through) a SZ containing an enemy destroyer?

[Krieghund]

Yes.

[Stoney229]

Page 15 in the rulebook says guest fighters on an allied carrier remain as cargo on the carrier if the carrier moves into combat and are then destroyed if the carrier gets destroyed.  I cannot find, however, what happens to defending fighters (of the same or friendly power as the carrier) when the defending carrier is destroyed but the fighters survive the combat.  If there are other carriers in the same SZ with available space are the fighter forced to land there?  And if there is not available space in the SZ?

[Jennifer]

In previous editions of the game, defending fighters, regardless of nationality, were airborne during the combat and defended normally, therefore, if the carrier is lost, I would assume they get to land like any defending fighter, if possible.

[a44bigdog]

@Stoney229:

Page 15 in the rulebook says guest fighters on an allied carrier remain as cargo on the carrier if the carrier moves into combat and are then destroyed if the carrier gets destroyed.  I cannot find, however, what happens to defending fighters (of the same or friendly power as the carrier) when the defending carrier is destroyed but the fighters survive the combat.  If there are other carriers in the same SZ with available space are the fighter forced to land there?  And if there is not available space in the SZ?

Jenn answered it correctly. Look at page 28 at the attributes for carriers.