Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

@Texas:

@ghr2:

It seems a lot easier to keep your marker where it is until the territory is actually taken, and you just subtract it during the collect income phase.  Like convoy disruption except there is no dice rolling, you just don’t collect.

Not sure how that would be easier.  Say AH takes Venice then Italy contests again.  You will soon forget whose income you need to subtract from.  Much simpler to adjust when it becomes contested and increase income when a territory is captured.  Especially since some territories will remain contested for several turns.

Here is what I do for contested territories:

When an army moves in to contest a territory, I immediately place that attacking army’s control marker on the territory upside down. I then also immediately deduct the lost income on the chart to show the contested situation. Much simpler to show the changes.

Good idea.

Next edition: have “contested” printed on the reverse of control counters.

sorry if this has been covered, but can anyone (other than US before war) move into Spanish Morocco and claim it?

Anyone can claim it anytime for a free IPC.

@TheVenocWarlord:

Here is what I do for contested territories:

When an army moves in to contest a territory, I immediately place that attacking army’s control marker on the territory upside down. I then also immediately deduct the lost income on the chart to show the contested situation. Much simpler to show the changes.

I believe the rule book (p.15) has you deduct the income immediately also.  Remembering to do that will save a lot of time when calculating income.  I use orange chips from HBG to identify contested territories.  I guess you could also use the grey or red chips from other AA games.

Regarding calling off an amphibious assault: can this be done due to the loss of ANY unit involved in the operation; for example a cruiser escorting the transports, or a Battleship intending to bombard; or must the loss include that of a transport carrying  the intended invading land units?

The former.

The rules state that units being loaded onto a transport “must use their entire move to load onto and/or offload from a transport.” A fighter’s move is 2 spaces. Does this indicates that fighters cannot move 1 space into the coastal tt, then use the remaining 1 space of their movement as their “move” onto the transport? Like tanks in the WWII versions?

Also can land a plane on a transport if the transport is not on the coast, but still 2 movement spots away?

@anoid226:

The rules state that units being loaded onto a transport “must use their entire move to load onto and/or offload from a transport.” A fighter’s move is 2 spaces. Does this indicates that fighters cannot move 1 space into the coastal tt, then use the remaining 1 space of their movement as their “move” onto the transport?

They cannot.

@anoid226:

Like tanks in the WWII versions?

They can’t, either.

@Quintus:

Also can land a plane on a transport if the transport is not on the coast, but still 2 movement spots away?

No.

So when exactly can I “call off” an amphibious assault; say my only escort is sunk by mines, rendering the operation impossible, can the transports stay where they are and not roll for mines. Or, since movement is considered simultaneous, do they still have to roll for mines even though they will not in fact be moving through to the target SZ even if they avoid the mines?

Or do they still have to move through anyway, but just not make the assault, which might be delayed suicide if there are hostile ships where they are moving to?

In other words you can call off the landing, but not the planned movement leading to the landing, even if it involves the transports moving 2 SZs including moving unescorted into a mined and hostile SZ?

@Flashman:

In other words you can call off the landing, but not the planned movement leading to the landing, even if it involves the transports moving 2 SZs including moving unescorted into a mined and hostile SZ?

That’s correct.

@Krieghund:

@Flashman:

In other words you can call off the landing, but not the planned movement leading to the landing, even if it involves the transports moving 2 SZs including moving unescorted into a mined and hostile SZ?

That’s correct.

Attempt it as your own risk.  8-)

Apparently there’s been some confusion about one of the clarifications:

If the colony of a minor power aligned to your power is moved into or captured by a friendly power, that power takes control of the territory.

The intent of this clarification was to indicate which power takes control when the colony was moved into for the first time.  It was never intended that a power can steal a colony from another major power on the same side.  For example, if Italy moves into Belgian Congo initially, it gets control of the territory.  However, if all Italian units later leave the territory, Britain cannot move units in and take control.  Britain can only gain control if the Central Powers take Belgian Congo from Italy and then Britain retakes it.

I have updated the entry on page 14 of this thread to the following:

If the colony of a minor power aligned to your power is moved into for the first time or captured by a friendly power, that power takes control of the territory.

A minor point on RR; an original Russian tt is occupied entirely by British units at the Revolution.

I think the rule is that the Brits have to leave by the end of their next turn or be interned, and that that no other units of either side may ever enter the tt again.

Do I place a Russian “Commissar” unit there to indicate that this is an off-limits tt, rather than “empty” as a result of a wipeout?

@Flashman:

I think the rule is that the Brits have to leave by the end of their next turn or be interned, and that that no other units of either side may ever enter the tt again.

Correct.

@Flashman:

Do I place a Russian “Commissar” unit there to indicate that this is an off-limits tt, rather than “empty” as a result of a wipeout?

There’s no need, as it’s not a shared territory.  The fact that it’s controlled by Russia indicates that it’s off limits.

wow, 29 pages already

krieg, are you going to put together an official FAQ and Errata with all answers to all questions?

i would hope so, otherwise this is going to go to the global mark of 100+ page faq thread…

@Krieghund:

@Flashman:

In other words you can call off the landing, but not the planned movement leading to the landing, even if it involves the transports moving 2 SZs including moving unescorted into a mined and hostile SZ?

That’s correct.

Unless I’m mistaken, according to the rules, transports can’t move unescorted into a hostile seazone, so how does this work?

[Edit: Added ‘unescorted’]

They weren’t unescorted when you moved them in.  It’s your bad luck if they end up that way after rolling for mines.

@Krieghund:

They weren’t unescorted when you moved them in.  It’s your bad luck if they end up that way after rolling for mines.

Ok, gotcha. Thanks!