AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

[Capt. Winters]

So Destroyers act as a block for subs, as a sub may not pass through a destroyer occupied zone.  What about the other way around?  I have a German sub that could move to Z6 and if the English destroyer has to fight there, well now, that really warrants me purchasing a few subs for Germany in Z5 doesn’t it?

[Bardoly]

@Capt.:

So Destroyers act as a block for subs, as a sub may not pass through a destroyer occupied zone.  What about the other way around?  I have a German sub that could move to Z6 and if the English destroyer has to fight there, well now, that really warrants me purchasing a few subs for Germany in Z5 doesn’t it?

No, subs may not block any movement of any units.  :-(

[Krieghund]

Bardoly is correct.

[tloger]

Krieg i have noticed in some forum games, that players sometimes place fighters in seazones when they do their purchase faze with an adjacent seazon to sit on a CV, and place fighters in their non com faze to wait arrival for a newly purchased CV during the placement stage.  I am unaware of this, are these legal moves?

[jsp4563]

@RogertheShrubber:

Krieg i have noticed in some forum games, that players sometimes place fighters in seazones when they do their purchase faze with an adjacent seazon to sit on a CV, and place fighters in their non com faze to wait arrival for a newly purchased CV during the placement stage.  I am unaware of this, are these legal moves?

Fighters can be moved during non-combat move to a seazone adjacent to an IC, where they plan to build a purchased Carrier.  Newly purchased fighters can be placed in a sea zone adjacent to an IC where their carrier already exists.  What is not legal is placing newly purchased fighters on an allied carrier, adjacent to their IC.

[Krieghund]

@Emperor:

Fighters can be moved during non-combat move to a seazone adjacent to an IC, where they plan to build a purchased Carrier.  Newly purchased fighters can be placed in a sea zone adjacent to an IC where their carrier already exists.  What is not legal is placing newly purchased fighters on an allied carrier, adjacent to their IC.

This is correct.  New fighters can also be placed directly onto new carriers.  The Revised method of moving existing fighters from the IC territory onto a new carrier when the carrier is placed is not legal in Anniversary.

[squirecam]

@Krieghund:

@Emperor:

Fighters can be moved during non-combat move to a seazone adjacent to an IC, where they plan to build a purchased Carrier.  Newly purchased fighters can be placed in a sea zone adjacent to an IC where their carrier already exists.  What is not legal is placing newly purchased fighters on an allied carrier, adjacent to their IC.

This is correct.  New fighters can also be placed directly onto new carriers.  The Revised method of moving existing fighters from the IC territory onto a new carrier when the carrier is placed is not legal in Anniversary.

Its been about 5 years, hasn’t it, but I still chuckle a bit when I see this topic.  8-)

[BrokenEagle98]

This topic came up in a recent game, and it’s obvious to me what the correct answer is, but for the sake of completeness I’m asking it here.
The wording “and/or” in the NOs was interpreted by some to mean that both countries listed on both sides of the “and/or” must be owned to achieve the NO.
For instance in the Italian NO of “Axis control of at least three out of the following: Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France and/or Gibraltar”, two of the three countries under Axis control from that list must be France and Gibraltar since the “and/or” is between them.  For this particular example, my interpretation is that any of the three countries under Axis control will suffice to achieve that particular NO.

[Stoney229]

@BrokenEagle98:

This topic came up in a recent game, and it’s obvious to me what the correct answer is, but for the sake of completeness I’m asking it here.
The wording “and/or” in the NOs was interpreted by some to mean that both countries listed on both sides of the “and/or” must be owned to achieve the NO.
For instance in the Italian NO of “Axis control of at least three out of the following: Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France and/or Gibraltar”, two of the three countries under Axis control from that list must be France and Gibraltar since the “and/or” is between them.  For this particular example, my interpretation is that any of the three countries under Axis control will suffice to achieve that particular NO.

Yes, any three of these four territories under Axis control will suffice.  If the other interpretation were the correct one, I think the NO would be worded like this: “Axis control both France and Gibraltar, and at of at least one of the following: Egypt and/or Trans-Jordan.”

[Krieghund]

Yes, that’s correct.

[chunksoul]

i have a question about the suez canal

in previous versions you had to hold both sides of your canal at the start of your turn.

in this version can i capture both side of the canal then non combat through the canal ?

[Krieghund]

The rules for canals haven’t changed.  Your side must have been in control of both sides of a canal at the the beginning of your turn in order for you to use it.

[deslock]

Do subs block an amphibious attack after a sea combat?

The manual clearly states that subs do not block transports from conducting an amphibious attack.  Additionally, page 17 specifies that even after a sea battle, subs do not block trns:

Step 3. Land Combat: If the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy warships except submarines and transports, and the attacker still has land units committed to the coastal territory, move all attacking and defending units to the battle board and conduct combat using the general combat rules (on the next page). Remember to put casualties from bombardment (if any) in the casualty zone.

However the FAQ states:

An attacking force consisting of two bombers, a destroyer and two loaded transports is attempting an amphibious assault.  The sea zone is defended by a destroyer and two submarines.  In the first combat round, all of the attacking units fire and get one hit.  The defender takes the destroyer as the casualty and returns fire, missing with his destroyer but rolling snake eyes for his subs and scoring two hits!  The attacker must take his destroyer for the first hit, since subs can’t hit planes and transports must be taken last as casualties.  The second hit must now be taken on a transport, since that’s the only eligible unit remaining.  The attacker is now in a sticky situation.  He has only two bombers and a transport remaining against two defending subs.  Since the bombers can no longer hit the subs (the attacker doesn’t have a destroyer), and the subs can’t hit the bombers, the only effective firing going on will be the subs firing on the transport.  It’s only a matter of time before the subs sink the transport, but the transport can still retreat before it is hit, so it’s not defenseless.  The attacker’s only real option at this point is to retreat before the remaining transport is destroyed.

So according to the FAQ, a defending sub that survived a sea battle blocks a trn.  That seems to contradict the manual, but I didn’t see anything in the Errata section correcting the manual.  So unless I missed something, either:

• The manual is correct and the FAQ is wrong, or

• The FAQ is correct, the manual is wrong, and the errata is incomplete.

IMO, if there are defending not-submerged subs after a battle, the trns should have to retreat before the amphibious landing or be destroyed (since if the battle continued, they’d be sunk by the subs).  But if defending subs submerge, then the amphibious attack happens.  I believe this is in line with the spirit of the rules and the FAQ (which states “When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the enemy units in that sea zone”), but what do you think?

[Krieghund]

Both the manual and the FAQ are correct.  The key concept is that subs can be ignored during movement.  From the FAQ:

Q.  Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships.  If at some point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I ignore the subs and end the battle?
A.  No.  Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them.  When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the enemy units in that sea zone.

So if there are only enemy subs and/or transports blocking your amphibious assault, you can choose to ignore them and they won’t block it.  However, if you choose to attack them (or if there are also surface warships there and you are forced to attack them), you must defeat all of the defending units before your amphibious assault can proceed.

In a nutshell, subs will only fail to block your assault if you never attack them in the first place or if they submerged after you attack them.  Once you attack them, they will block it until they are destroyed or they submerge.  Does that make sense?

As a side note, there is a pending erratum to change the wording of the passage you quoted from the manual to make it a little more clear.  The corrected wording will be “If there was no sea battle or the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy units except transports and submerged submarines,”.  I don’t yet know when this will be published.

[deslock]

@Krieghund:

Both the manual and the FAQ are correct.  The key concept is that subs can be ignored during movement.  From the FAQ:

Q.  Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships.  If at some point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I ignore the subs and end the battle?
A.  No.  Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them.  When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the enemy units in that sea zone.

So if there are only enemy subs and/or transports blocking your amphibious assault, you can choose to ignore them and they won’t block it.  However, if you choose to attack them (or if there are also surface warships there and you are forced to attack them), you must defeat all of the defending units before your amphibious assault can proceed.

In a nutshell, subs will only fail to block your assault if you never attack them in the first place or if they submerged after you attack them.  Once you attack them, they will block it until they are destroyed or they submerge.  Does that make sense?

As a side note, there is a pending erratum to change the wording of the passage you quoted from the manual to make it a little more clear.  The corrected wording will be “If there was no sea battle or the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy units except transports and submerged submarines,”.  I don’t yet know when this will be published.

Thanks for the reply.  That’s exactly how I interpreted it, except that I think the FAQ is correct and the manual is wrong since it says that an amphibious attack takes place in the step after a sea battle “If the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy warships except submarines and transports”.

Had that wording been “is clear of” instead of “has been cleared of”, it wouldn’t seem like they meant that subs could be there after a sea battle took place.  Good to know there’s updated errata on the way.

[Stoney229]

if 2 bombers and a cruiser attack a cruiser and 2 subs, and all attacking units hit in the first round, can the defender choose to take a casualty only on the cruiser or must he/she take one on a sub as well?

[Krieghund]

You must assign all of the hits that it’s possible to assign.  In your example, the cruiser hit must be assigned to a sub, and a bomber hit must be assigned to the cruiser.  This is the only way to assign the maximum possible number of hits.  The second bomber hit has no legal target, so it is wasted.

[jsp4563]

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).

[Krieghund]

You’re right.  If there’s a battle in the sea zone, all units there belonging to the attacker and defender(s) will participate, so they may not move in noncombat movement.

[Panzer Leader]

@chunksoul:

i have a question about the suez canal

in previous versions you had to hold both sides of your canal at the start of your turn.

in this version can i capture both side of the canal then non combat through the canal ?

In the rule book for AA50, page 4 under canals it states that you cannot use a cannal on the turn you captured it. Also it does state that you must control both sides in oreder to contorl the Suez.
Hope this helps. 8-)