AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

@IWillNeverGrowUp:

@Gamerman01:

@Battling:

Is anyone playing this anymore ??

No

Yes, of course.  But the majority of attention always goes to the newest, shiniest toy (in this case, AA1914 WW1)

wrong.  G40

Kreig,

Does a player have to collect income on Phase 7, or can he choose  not too collect?
We are playing triple AAA.

@indignation:

Kreig,

Does a player have to collect income on Phase 7, or can he choose  not too collect?
We are playing triple AAA.

You must collect all income due you, including NO’s (if you’re playing with NO’s) - it is not an option.

@Gamerman01:

@indignation:

Kreig,

Does a player have to collect income on Phase 7, or can he choose  not too collect?
We are playing triple AAA.

You must collect all income due you, including NO’s (if you’re playing with NO’s) - it is not an option.

Of course, assuming that you CAN collect income.  By this, I mean that you own your capital.  If your capital is in enemy hands, you can not collect income.

It is my understanding that you can buy an aircraft carrier for planes to land.
I also believe you can do this to extend their range into a battle. 
In other words, the SZ I wish to move 2 ftrs into battle is 4 moves for the ftrs.  Without a carrier to move into that same SZ (either existing or bought) these planes can not go into that SZ battle (no kamikazes as planes need to have a <potential>landing zone).

If an A/C is bought to catch planes, and those planes are lost, the A/C does not have to be moved/placed in that SZ.
But if 1 planes still survives, then the A/C must be moved.

Is this the same with the PLACEMENT of the A/C?  I would think that the planes survival would require the A/C to be placed in that SZ (instead of another IC adjacent to water).  In other words, just because I BOUGHT a new A/C, that I can let the surviving plane(s) crash dive by placing the new A/C elsewhere.

Just trying to confirm my understanding.  Thank you!</potential>

You must mobilize the carrier in the declared sea zone if a fighter survives.  If no fighters survive, you may mobilize the carrier elsewhere, assuming you have another option.  In any case, the carrier must be mobilized somewhere (assuming you have sufficient capacity).

I’m pretty sure I no the answer to this question but just need to make sure.
Can you place newly bought ftrs on friendly carriers?
Say Americans have a carrier off the coast of England
Can the British place newly bought ftrs on that carrier?

Thanks Flip,

You can’t do that.
Page 22 of rulebook

Rulebook is here:
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AxAl-AnEd_Rules.pdf

Thank you sir,I did not think so!

Any time -
Never hesitate to ask

The official FAQ has been updated per September 3, 2014.

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AxAl-AnEd_Errata.pdf

I don’t have a copy of the old FAQ in front of me; does anyone know what the differences are this new version?

@Lozmoid:

I don’t have a copy of the old FAQ in front of me; does anyone know what the differences are this new version?

In the Global40-FAQ- thread a loophole in the rules has been discussed.
This loophole has been closed in all games starting from AA50.
See
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.msg1320859#msg1320859
to read the new part that was introduced. If you follow the discussion there you will see what it is all about.
HTH :-)

If there is a transport in a sea zone adjacent to a land territory that the attacker wishes to conduct an amphibious assault, I understand that naval vessels can do one or the other (not both):

1. Conduct offshore support (cruisers, battleships)
2. sink the transport

This is due to the fact that you cannot split naval combats in the sea zone into two separate battles.

Can a fighter be allocated to sink the transport, allowing the naval vessels to conduct an offshore support shot?

I am afraid not: the friendly naval vessels are “dragged” into the combat with the Fighter.

Japan’s NO reads “Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, Australia, and/or India.”

Should that be for each, or is just 5 IPCs if they have any of them?

@Mill:

Japan’s NO reads “Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, Australia, and/or India.”

Should that be for each, or is just 5 IPCs if they have any of them?

The gain for Japan is only 5 IPCs. 
The axis has to control 1 (or more) of India, Australia, or Hawaii

Hi everyone!

It’s been a few years since I played any sort of A&A.  This version in particular saw limited play because I starting playing 1940 as soon as it came out.  I’m feeling the itch to play again, but I’m a little rusty so please bear with me…

Heavy Bombers: 
I seem to recall these being nerfed so as to roll two dice but only choose one.  These were not worth researching - I was kind of pissed!  Digging out my rules & FAQ, I’m not seeing this.  Did I dream it?

Closed Dardanelles:
I vaguely recall Germany and Italy could put a lot of pressure on Russia here.  Was this option for balance?  Did this edition favour the Axis?  Is this rule recommended?  I remember having an opinion about this, but no recollection of what it was!

Thanks!

There are 2 scenarios!  I assume you’re talking 1941.  Yes it favors the Axis and closing the Dardanelles goes a long way toward balancing it.

Heavy bombers choose best of two dice, yes.

Definitely talking about the Anniversary edition - never played 1941.

I remember being under the impression that roll-two-choose-one was the official rule.

Could I be confusing this with Global.  But IIRC, Global didn’t have R&D (unless I’m confusing Global with 1942).  :?

Sorry for all the confusion.  I haven’t played A&A since my child was born in 2012!