Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

A Sub attacks a Cruiser and misses. The Cruiser misses too. The Sub chooses to submerge instead of roling a dice. Is the cruiser allowed to attack the sub while it submerges?

Sorry can´t find my rulebook…

Yes.

Yes it does.
The Sub can  submerge instead of rolling its attack, but the Cruiser gets a shot.
Alternatively, The Sub could also retreat and avoid combat completely  in the second round.

There are no retreats in this game (unless you’re playing by the tournament rules).  It is possible to break off the attack and remain in the sea zone, though.

Thanks!

If it decides to retreat (TT-rules) the cruiser can no longer attack it right?

So the german sub has submerged and the french cruiser did miss it while doing that. Can after the french turn a british cruiser try to attack Uboot or is the sub sumerged until Germanys next turn?

@Chacmool:

If it decides to retreat (TT-rules) the cruiser can no longer attack it right?

Correct.  The sub will no longer be in the sea zone.  Of course, the cruiser can move into the sub’s sea zone and attack it on its turn.

@Chacmool:

So the german sub has submerged and the french cruiser did miss it while doing that. Can after the french turn a british cruiser try to attack Uboot or is the sub sumerged until Germanys next turn?

The sub is turned upright as soon as the battle ends.  Submerging only removes a sub from the current battle; it has no further effect after that.

Question about minefields again.You are saying that they are active just when the territory is controlled or contested by ‘‘home power’’ but how about the territory was in hands of ‘‘enemy power’’ and after is contested?Because if I understand correctly the rules if there is a battle and everyone dies the territory still in ‘‘enemy hands’’ so thats why dont understand why I have to roll again for mines when is contested{before everyone dies}?

@Dukla:

You are saying that they are active just when the territory is controlled or contested by ‘‘home power’’ but how about the territory was in hands of ‘‘enemy power’’ and after is contested?

If the territory becomes controlled by an enemy power, the minefield becomes inactive.  If the territory becomes contested again, the minefield becomes active again for the original controller.  In effect, a mine field is only inactive when its corresponding territory is enemy-held.

@Dukla:

Because if I understand correctly the rules if there is a battle and everyone dies the territory still in ‘‘enemy hands’’ so thats why dont understand why I have to roll again for mines when is contested{before everyone dies}?

If both sides are eliminated in a battle for any territory with an original controller, the original controller regains control (regardless of who had control last).  See the bottom of page 19 in the rulebook.  The only exception is when the original controller’s capital is held by the enemy, in which case the liberator assumes control until the capital is liberated.

Austria contests Sevastopol with the Russia. Russia undergoes revolution. Can Austria continue to build up in Sevastopol without any threat from the British in the middle east? Can Germany and Ottomans do the same, or would they have needed troops in the TT when it became shared?
I assume the answer would be the same if the British were defending Sevastopol when Russia went under, because a Soviet comisar would be added. Also, can the British attack into Ukraine/Romania/Tatarstan, or must they retreat to Persia/Mesopotamia? (unless there are no Brits in either, in which case they just go to Siberia?)

@ColonelCarter:

Can Austria continue to build up in Sevastopol without any threat from the British in the middle east?

Yes.

@ColonelCarter:

Can Germany and Ottomans do the same, or would they have needed troops in the TT when it became shared?

They can do the same.

@ColonelCarter:

I assume the answer would be the same if the British were defending Sevastopol when Russia went under, because a Soviet comisar would be added.

Correct.

@ColonelCarter:

Also, can the British attack into Ukraine/Romania/Tatarstan, or must they retreat to Persia/Mesopotamia? (unless there are no Brits in either, in which case they just go to Siberia?)

They may not move into original Russian territories.

I should have been more clear on these two.
@Krieghund:

@ColonelCarter:

Can Austria continue to build up in Sevastopol without any threat from the British in the middle east?

Yes.

Can Austria also move into Mesopotamia/Persia regardless of their status (Ottoman controlled/British controlled/contested)?

@Krieghund:

@ColonelCarter:

Also, can the British attack into Ukraine/Romania/Tatarstan, or must they retreat to Persia/Mesopotamia? (unless there are no Brits in either, in which case they just go to Siberia?)

They may not move into original Russian territories.

What if the CP controlled all three of these territories? The official errata would seem to imply so.
@Krieghund:

Original Russian territories that are controlled by the Central Powers at the time of the revolution are considered to have no original controller for the remainder of the game.  If such a territory is captured by an Allied power, that power takes control rather than returning it to Russia.  If such a territory is left without units in it after a battle due to both sides being eliminated, it will not be controlled by any power (place any national control marker on it face down to denote this status) until a power moves units into it.

Thank you in advance.

Krieghund, any news on whether the “tournament rules” with the setup changes will be officially installed in a 2nd edition???  I’ve played the last few times with those rules (setup change is better along with the economic/political collaspe etc) and its been a lot better IMHO.

@ColonelCarter:

Can Austria also move into Mesopotamia/Persia regardless of their status (Ottoman controlled/British controlled/contested)?

Yes, as long as at least one Central Powers infantry unit remains in Sevastopol.

@ColonelCarter:

What if the CP controlled all three of these territories? The official errata would seem to imply so.

I should have been more specific.  The British may not move into original Russian territories that are either controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.  If the territory is controlled by the Central powers, they may move there.  (For some reason, I assumed they were also contested.)

@questioneer:

Krieghund, any news on whether the “tournament rules” with the setup changes will be officially installed in a 2nd edition???  I’ve played the last few times with those rules (setup change is better along with the economic/political collaspe etc) and its been a lot better IMHO.

I have heard nothing yet about the possibility of a second edition.

If UK walks into Portuguese east Africa or Angola, do the territories become french controlled?

No, they become controlled by Britain.

They are not french preferred neutrals then?  The color makes that a tad confusing.

@ghr2:

They are not french preferred neutrals then?  The color makes that a tad confusing.

They are colonies of French-aligned neutrals, hence their coloring.  A territory must have a major power’s small emblem on it in order to be aligned.  Colonies don’t have them, so they can be controlled by anyone.

@Krieghund:

@ghr2:

They are not french preferred neutrals then?�  The color makes that a tad confusing.

They are colonies of French-aligned neutrals, hence their coloring.  A territory must have a major power’s small emblem on it in order to be aligned.  Colonies don’t have them, so they can be controlled by anyone.

Krieghund, I know how this works w/colonies in the game. I was just wondering while you guy’s were in the development/testing stages if those linked colonies had a different role (simple yes or no will do).

Did the colonies join the ranks when the main aligned neutral (capital) was activated at any time through the process?

Just wondering if this was considered part of the game at some point, but was shelved.

Yes.