AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

apologies for not going thru 72 pages of this thread (or even doing a search), flog my lazy a$$ for that  :-o

Can I non-combat a sub into a SZ that contains a Destroyer and immediately submerge?  I know I have to stop in a SZ with a destroyer (can not pass thru), but not sure just moving into the same SZ as the DD would always require combat if I wanted to enter and dive without a battle.

Thank you!

Yes, you can non-com a sub into a fleet including a destroyer and there will never be any combat - the conduct combat phase is past.

And no one is expected to go through the past posts, so there will be no flogging.

@axis_roll:

Can I non-combat a sub into a SZ that contains a Destroyer and immediately submerge?

You can non-combat move into that SZ but you cannot submerge. Submerging is done during Conduct Combat Phase. Also a Destroyer cancels the Submersible ability of subs.
Combat would result in case the move happened during Combat Move Phase.

@P@nther:

@axis_roll:

Can I non-combat a sub into a SZ that contains a Destroyer and immediately submerge?

You can non-combat move into that SZ but you cannot submerge. Submerging is done during Conduct Combat Phase. Also a Destroyer cancels the Submersible ability of subs.
Combat would result in case the move happened during Combat Move Phase.

So when would the ensuing combat occur? Does it necessarily happen during the next Conduct Combat phase, or does it only occur if the active power has combat to conduct in that zone?

Can I sketch some scenarios?

1. G sub moves into SZ with UK DD.
on next (UK) turn, can they move DD out of that zone, avoiding combat? If so, is that a combat move or a non-combat move?

2. G sub moves into SZ with US DD.
on next (UK) turn, if they have no units in (and move no units into) that SZ, does combat still occur between the G sub and US DD? Can the UK move through that space and ignore the sub, even though it is not ‘submerged?’

@vodot:

@P@nther:

@axis_roll:

Can I non-combat a sub into a SZ that contains a Destroyer and immediately submerge?

You can non-combat move into that SZ but you cannot submerge. Submerging is done during Conduct Combat Phase. Also a Destroyer cancels the Submersible ability of subs.
Combat would result in case the move happened during Combat Move Phase.

So when would the ensuing combat occur? Does it necessarily happen during the next Conduct Combat phase, or does it only occur if the active power has combat to conduct in that zone?

Can I sketch some scenarios?

1. G sub moves into SZ with UK DD.
on next (UK) turn, can they move DD out of that zone, avoiding combat? If so, is that a combat move or a non-combat move?

2. G sub moves into SZ with US DD.
on next (UK) turn, if they have no units in (and move no units into) that SZ, does combat still occur between the G sub and US DD? Can the UK move through that space and ignore the sub, even though it is not ‘submerged?’

Combat is initiated by the power moving during Combat Move Phase. It is resolved during the Conduct Combat Phase immediately after the Combat Move Phase.

Scenario 1: Here the “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones” rules apply (rulebook page 14). The UK destroyer moves from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as its combat move (also on page 13), then.

Scenario 2: In case Germany moves the sub into the SZ during Combat Move Phase, combat occurs during Germany’s Conduct Combat Phase.
In case Germany moves the sub there during Noncombat Move Phase no combat occurs, as this is not a Combat Move and the Conduct Combat Phase is over for that German turn. UK can move through that space simply ignoring the German sub - (the German sub can’t be submerged, as submerging takes place only during Conduct Combat Phase). When it comes to US’ turn, US can choose to engage the sub or not.

@P@nther:

@vodot:

@P@nther:

@axis_roll:

Can I non-combat a sub into a SZ that contains a Destroyer and immediately submerge?

You can non-combat move into that SZ but you cannot submerge. Submerging is done during Conduct Combat Phase. Also a Destroyer cancels the Submersible ability of subs.
Combat would result in case the move happened during Combat Move Phase.

So when would the ensuing combat occur? Does it necessarily happen during the next Conduct Combat phase, or does it only occur if the active power has combat to conduct in that zone?

Can I sketch some scenarios?

1. G sub moves into SZ with UK DD.
on next (UK) turn, can they move DD out of that zone, avoiding combat? If so, is that a combat move or a non-combat move?

2. G sub moves into SZ with US DD.
on next (UK) turn, if they have no units in (and move no units into) that SZ, does combat still occur between the G sub and US DD? Can the UK move through that space and ignore the sub, even though it is not ‘submerged?’

Combat is initiated by the power moving during Combat Move Phase. It is resolved during the Conduct Combat Phase immediately after the Combat Move Phase.

Scenario 1: Here the “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones” rules apply (rulebook page 14). The UK destroyer moves from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as its combat move (also on page 13), then.

Scenario 2: In case Germany moves the sub into the SZ during Combat Move Phase, combat occurs during Germany’s Conduct Combat Phase.
In case Germany moves the sub there during Noncombat Move Phase no combat occurs, as this is not a Combat Move and the Conduct Combat Phase is over for that German turn. UK can move through that space simply ignoring the German sub - (the German sub can’t be submerged, as submerging takes place only during Conduct Combat Phase). When it comes to US’ turn, US can choose to engage the sub or not.

Ok, so units of two opposing powers can be present in the same SZ without combat, as long as it is not the Conduct Combat phase during one of those powers’ turn? Appreciate the help and your patience.

@vodot:

Ok, so units of two opposing powers can be present in the same SZ without combat, …

All that has been said is covered by the rulebook’s turn order and the destroyer and sub special abilities.

Please see:

@rulebook:

A destroyer cancels the Sub Movement special ability of any enemy submarine that moves into the sea zone with it. This
means that the submarine must immediately end its movement, whether combat or noncombat, upon entering the sea zone. If
a submarine ends its combat movement in a sea zone with an enemy destroyer, combat will result.

@rulebook:

Sub Movement: Submarines treat hostile sea zones as if they were friendly for purposes of both combat and noncombat
movement. However, if a submarine enters a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer, its movement ends immediately. If
it ends its combat move in a hostile sea zone, combat will occur.

Also:

@rulebook:

Phase 5: Noncombat Move
…
Only aircraft and submarines may move through hostile spaces during this phase.

Other (than submarines) ships can’t treat hostile seazones as friendly.

I wanna be like P@nther when I grow up!
What a pro

Hi, naval question.

Japanese attack USA:

• 1 submarine, 3 fighters, 1 bomber (Japanese)
• 2 submarines, 1 destroyer (USA)

I want to know what can happen if USA decides NOT to submerse its submarines.

The USA submarines will have a 1st strike against the Japanese submarine. Let’s assume they miss. After that, the Japanese roll all dice simultaneously (no 1st strike). Suppose all Japanese units strike hits, are USA then allowed to assign all these hits to USA destroyer? The Japanese submarine is capable of hitting a USA submarine, but it is obviously in USA’s interest to assign all hits to the same unit (destroyer). Is that legal?

@Ozymandiac:

Hi, naval question.

Japanese attack USA:

• 1 submarine, 3 fighters, 1 bomber (Japanese)
• 2 submarines, 1 destroyer (USA)

I want to know what can happen if USA decides NOT to submerse its submarines.

The USA submarines will have a 1st strike against the Japanese submarine. Let’s assume they miss. After that, the Japanese roll all dice simultaneously (no 1st strike). Suppose all Japanese units strike hits, are USA then allowed to assign all these hits to USA destroyer? The Japanese submarine is capable of hitting a USA submarine, but it is obviously in USA’s interest to assign all hits to the same unit (destroyer). Is that legal?

No, it is not.

@rulebook:

As many hits as possible must be assigned. For instance, if 1 cruiser and
2 submarines attack a carrier with a fighter and score 3 hits, the defender must assign
the cruiser hit to the fighter and the submarine hits to the carrier. The defender may not
assign the cruiser hit to the carrier, as the subs cannot hit the fighter and 1 sub hit would
be lost.

So the Japanese submarine’s hit must be assigned to a US submarine, as the Japanese air units can only hit the US destroyer.

@P@nther:

@Ozymandiac:

Hi, naval question.

Japanese attack USA:

• 1 submarine, 3 fighters, 1 bomber (Japanese)
• 2 submarines, 1 destroyer (USA)

I want to know what can happen if USA decides NOT to submerse its submarines.

The USA submarines will have a 1st strike against the Japanese submarine. Let’s assume they miss. After that, the Japanese roll all dice simultaneously (no 1st strike). Suppose all Japanese units strike hits, are USA then allowed to assign all these hits to USA destroyer? The Japanese submarine is capable of hitting a USA submarine, but it is obviously in USA’s interest to assign all hits to the same unit (destroyer). Is that legal?

No, it is not.

@rulebook:

As many hits as possible must be assigned. For instance, if 1 cruiser and
2 submarines attack a carrier with a fighter and score 3 hits, the defender must assign
the cruiser hit to the fighter and the submarine hits to the carrier. The defender may not
assign the cruiser hit to the carrier, as the subs cannot hit the fighter and 1 sub hit would
be lost.

So the Japanese submarine’s hit must be assigned to a US submarine, as the Japanese air units can only hit the US destroyer.

Thanks Panther, exactly what I was looking for. I looked in the rulebook but couldn’t find it. Thanks for taking the time to find out

“If the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the
territory, you capture the territory, collect income from the newly captured territory, and use any industrial complex there
until the original controller’s capital is liberated.”

If you liberate a territory after a capital is captured, you get the IPCs and the use of the factory. If a capital falls and you still control a territory with a factory(say Russia falls and UK controls Karelia), you don’t get the IPCs or the use of the factory. Does this make any kind of reasonable sense? What’s the difference, other than a game technicality?

@MillCreek said in AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A:

If you liberate a territory after a capital is captured, you get the IPCs and the use of the factory.

Let’s say in turn X Germany, already owning Karelia, captures Russia. Later in this turn UK successfully attacks Karelia. If the SU had not lost its capital, Karelia would be liberated for the SU.
Now the SU has lost its capital, so UK can use the Karelian factory (next turn) and gain income.

In case SU later takes back its capital or an Ally liberates Russia for the SU, UK has to instantly revert ownership of Karelia to Russia.

So far so good.

If a capital falls and you still control a territory with a factory(say Russia falls and UK controls Karelia), you don’t get the IPCs or the use of the factory.

This scenario is impossible. UK cannot control Karelia at the moment Russia falls. UK cannot control Karelia as long as Russia is in SU’s hands. As in every case the SU controls its capital its territories not having been captured by the enemy are controlled by SU, too.
So let’s assume there are UK units in a SU owned Karelia. Those UK units do not control Karelia as Karelia is under SU’s control. In case Germany takes Russia then, Karelia remains SU-controlled.

Does this make any kind of reasonable sense? What’s the difference, other than a game technicality?

You can never control a territory of your Ally as long as your Ally controls his capital.
The only way to gain control over an Allied territory is to liberate an Allied territory (from the enemy) while your Ally’s capital is in enemy’s hands.

HTH :slightly_smiling_face:

@Panther Yes, thank you for the rule clarification. But my issue is that it doesn’t seem to make sense. I understand the rule. I just don’t like the rule. In both cases, your team has control of the territory. In one case, that control was gained after the fall of the capital. In the other case, you had control before the fall. It seems a poor rule that your team is punished for owning a territory longer. Sorry, you don’t get those IPCs or use of the factory, unless you let the enemy capture it, then recapture it.

@MillCreek said in AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A:

@Panther Yes, thank you for the rule clarification. But my issue is that it doesn’t seem to make sense. I understand the rule. I just don’t like the rule.

I did not intend to teach you things you already know. I just thought the best way to explain the difference was by the rules.

@MillCreek said in AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A:

In both cases, your team has control of the territory. In one case, that control was gained after the fall of the capital. In the other case, you had control before the fall. It seems a poor rule that your team is punished for owning a territory longer. Sorry, you don’t get those IPCs or use of the factory, unless you let the enemy capture it, then recapture it.

One can well argue about liking or disliking rules, for sure.
But here we are not talking about an isolated rule but about a concept behind:

Every power can only use Industrial Complexes owned by itself and it gains only income from territories controlled by itself. And all of this only if its own capital is not in enemy’s hands.

It must hurt to lose a capital: So if SU loses Russia while controlling Karelia it cannot use the factory and it does not gain income.
Why should UK be enabled to use a Russian factory then? Why should UK gain SU’s income then? Simply because of being there? UK does not control anything there at that moment. It is still SU’s control. And “team rewards” are not part of the game. There is no concept of “team control”.

If UK captures Karelia from Germany while Russia is not in SU’s hands, it can’t liberate that territory for the SU but gains control instead. It is the concept of the game that you can use fabrics and gain income from territories you control. This is a fair reward for the efforts of conquering it back from the enemy - in case this rule was not part of the ruleset, Karela would simply be liberated for a capital-less SU. No one would receive anything for that effort, so why risk anything here?

Usually when you liberate a territory for an ally controlling his capital himself, you don’t get anything either, you just strengthen your ally - that must be reward enough.

There is nothing that bothers me, personally, with the rules here. I think the concept is pretty logical and straightforward. But as I said above liking and dislinking can and will always be subject to discussions… :slightly_smiling_face:

@Panther Well said, thank you. Whether we like certain rules is subjective, so we can agree to disagree. I don’t like that if UK liberates Karelia the turn before Russia falls, the territory is rendered worthless, and the factory inoperable. But if the UK liberates Karelia the turn after Russia falls, they get the value of the territory and a fully functioning factory. I’d like to see control revert to any occupying allied force, upon lost of a capital. Losing a capital would still hurt, but it would make more sense than a territory suddenly becoming worthless and dormant.

But this isn’t a rules clarification, this is a rules wish. :-)