Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

@GoSanchez6:

Hey Krieg can fighters stay in a contested territory as long as you have units there?

Yes

I thought so BJ just wanted to be sure. Thanks

@GoSanchez6:

I thought so BJ just wanted to be sure. Thanks

No problem, here to help.

Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:

Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’

Thanks

@ossel:

Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:

Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’

Thanks

The way I found it simplest to think of it is that if your movement changes the status of the territory from not contested to contested, you must attack. If it was already contested, you can choose. Haven’t yet got a one line mantra for this, but maybe someone has something to share. It’s a rule that I think is one of the easier ones to forget.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@ossel:

Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:

Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’

Thanks

The way I found it simplest to think of it is that if your movement changes the status of the territory from not contested to contested, you must attack. If it was already contested, you can choose. Haven’t yet got a one line mantra for this, but maybe someone has something to share. It’s a rule that I think is one of the easier ones to forget.

Where in the rules does it say this? Anyway, I’ll wait for the official answer.

I don’t think you can avoid combat in a contested tt……if so…evryone will want to defend and not to attack…In D-day…i think…you could not avoid combat in a contested tt

Yes if on your turn you contest a territory, you don’t have to order your troops out of the trenches into no man’s land; you can hunker down if you want.

OK, so following KHs rules definitions, I’m up to the UK turn.

I have 3 British units in Livonia, which they contest with the lone infantry Germany has been obliged to leave there, who it turn shares the tt with a Soviet Commissar.

The three adjacent tts are all Central Powers controlled.

Am I correct that the sharing of the tt by the German and the Soviet negates the “contested” status between the German and the Brit, and that therefore the UK units may attack 1, 2 or all of the adjacent German controlled tts (2 of which are undefended)?

Otherwise the 3 unit army (it may as well be 30) can do nothing but wait for the Siberian package holiday rep to appear at the end of their turn.

If I’m right, though, the British units who attack the German controlled Russian tts will survive and take control of the tt if they win, and even if the battle wipes out all units it renders the tt in effect an undefended neutral.

But what happens if a British attack results in a contested tt? Does it remain contested between G & B, or does it too receive its own Commissar making it a perpetually shared tt and thus trapping any surviving German in limbo?

My assumption is that Commissars only come into operation in tts contested at the time of the revolution as stated, not thereafter.

@ossel:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@ossel:

Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:

Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’

Thanks

The way I found it simplest to think of it is that if your movement changes the status of the territory from not contested to contested, you must attack. If it was already contested, you can choose. Haven’t yet got a one line mantra for this, but maybe someone has something to share. It’s a rule that I think is one of the easier ones to forget.

Where in the rules does it say this? Anyway, I’ll wait for the official answer.

Bottom of page 17 in the rules, first paragraph under “Phase 3: Conduct Combat”

VonLettowVorbeck1914 is correct.

@Flashman:

Am I correct that the sharing of the tt by the German and the Soviet negates the “contested” status between the German and the Brit, and that therefore the UK units may attack 1, 2 or all of the adjacent German controlled tts (2 of which are undefended)?

If I’m right, though, the British units who attack the German controlled Russian tts will survive and take control of the tt if they win, and even if the battle wipes out all units it renders the tt in effect an undefended neutral.

My assumption is that Commissars only come into operation in tts contested at the time of the revolution as stated, not thereafter.Â

All correct.

If you have a minute, Krieg, is the issue I bring up in reply 318 (Western allies pulling the rug out from the CP in Moscow merely by having 1 unit survive to Russia’s turn after Moscow is taken) something that you might be concerned about as being undesirable and/or against the spirit of the game/RR rules?

I’m just trying to get my head around the Rus Rev rules. Once the Rev happens you would need to look at each original Russian territory and determine its status. When I refer to allies I mean the other allies (not Russia).

You would need to look at each original Russian territory to determine:

1) Russian Controlled
Any territory that is Russian controlled would have only Russian units, or Russian & allied units, or only allied units, or no units at all (but not controlled by the CP). It would be off limits to both sides the rest of the game (no attacks). Any allied units that happen to be there would need to leave (or would be removed after their next respective turn). You may want to place a Russian inf in such a territory if it doesn’t have one just to remember it is Russian.

2) CP Controlled
Territories that are controlled by the CP basically become neutral territories controlled by the CP (no orig owner, Russia can’t reclaim them). The allies are allowed to enter/fight for them through out the rest of the game, and they would keep them if captured from the CP. They could obviously become contested, and whom ever controls it would collect income.

3) Shared Territory-Will have a Russian unit in it when said and done, you can’t fight in a shared territory, and no one collects income. As a shared territory the movement restriction of a contested territory don’t apply.

A) Any territory that is contested by the CP & Russia would now be a shared territory. The CP are still free to move in/out, but must leave an inf there the rest of the game. No allied units can enter these shared territories.

B) Any territory that is contested by the CP, Russia & the other allies are also considered to be shared. The allied units would need to leave (or would be removed after their next respective turn), and no allied units are allowed back in the rest of the game. The CP are still free to move in/out, but must leave an inf there the rest of the game.

C) Any territory that is contested by the CP and Allies (has no Russian units), would have a Russian inf placed there, and would be considered shared (same as above). The allied units would need to leave (or would be removed after their next respective turn), and no allied units are allowed back in the rest of the game. The CP are still free to move in/out, but must leave an inf there the rest of the game.

If anything the new definitions are even more bad news for the CPs, as it now means they have to leave a unit in each shared tt even though they collect no income from it, and the other Allies can now take over regions captured from CP control where previously they merely liberated them.

Can you jump your land units from your capital to your regional territories except colonies?

What is the meaning of: you can trace a line from your capital to all your regional territories except colonies?

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

Can you jump your land units from your capital to your regional territories except colonies?

What is the meaning of: you can trace a line from your capital to all your regional territories except colonies?

Land units can only move to adjacent territories.

Colonies are geographically separated from your capital.  You have to pass through a sea zone or someone else’s territory to move from it to your capital.  Regional territories can be reached from your capital without passing through a sea zone or another power’s territory.

For example Morocco is a colony, Marseilles is a regional territory.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

If you have a minute, Krieg, is the issue I bring up in reply 318 (Western allies pulling the rug out from the CP in Moscow merely by having 1 unit survive to Russia’s turn after Moscow is taken) something that you might be concerned about as being undesirable and/or against the spirit of the game/RR rules?

At this point, I’m just about convinced that the Russian Revolution rules will be exploitable no matter what they say.  They’re optional - don’t use them them if you don’t like them.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

Can you jump your land units from your capital to your regional territories except colonies?

No!

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

What is the meaning of: you can trace a line from your capital to all your regional territories except colonies?

What Texas Holders said.

@Krieghund:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

If you have a minute, Krieg, is the issue I bring up in reply 318 (Western allies pulling the rug out from the CP in Moscow merely by having 1 unit survive to Russia’s turn after Moscow is taken) something that you might be concerned about as being undesirable and/or against the spirit of the game/RR rules?

At this point, I’m just about convinced that the Russian Revolution rules will be exploitable no matter what they say.  They’re optional - don’t use them them if you don’t like them.

I realize the rule is optional, and I definitely appreciate all the effort you and Larry put forth to make games better once players post problems, but from a consumer’s perspective the Russian Revolution was a selling point  and it being optional does not seem to be a good reason to give up on it when it is shown to be subpar.

Do you think that making the RR count essentially as a non-Paris/London VC for the CP would eliminate most, if not all of the exploitation? The root of the problem is that in many cases the RR is GOOD for the Allies since it removes a VC from the possibility of the CP to capture, and all the reports I recall show Allied advantage anyways. Making it actually help towards CP victory will leave no doubt to the Allies that it is NOT something they want.

Another simple fix that might not go as far, but would still help, would be to remove the possibility of the Revolution as soon as a CP controls Moscow. Basically, if the CP take Moscow before the RR happens, the game continues as if there were no RR rules.

I support both those proposals:

Make a Revolutionary Moscow a completed Victory objective for the CPs;

Make a captured Moscow render the Revolution a dead letter.

In fact, only these make the Revolution occuring on the Russian turn make much sense; its a last chance for Russia to prevent an event that should never be a good thing for the Allies.

Question about Tanks:

If I attack with 1 Inf, 2 tanks and the defenders get 2 hits, do I:

1.  #1 Tank blocks a hit on the Inf; #2 Tank dies
2.  #1 Tank and #2 Tank block both hits