Thanks SS! This helps tremendously!
AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A
-
@P@nther:
Another question:
One of the SU’s NO is: “Gain 5 IPC if no Allied forces are present in a territory controlled by the SU and if the Soviets control Archangel.”Let us consider a scenario, in which the SU controlls and holds only Russia and Archangel. All other soviet territories are captured by Axis powers.
The SU will still gain 5 IPC because no Allied forces are present in one of the two territories controlled by the SU.
Am I right?
Sounds like 5 more IPCs for the Axis to me!
I’ll ask a followup to this one. When it says “controlled by the soviet union” that means currently controlled, not “originally” controlled, right? If russia controls norway, and the UK lands there, it’s bye-bye bonus, correct?
-
Correct.
-
ok, i got one more :)
Lets say a japanese AC+2FTR are in Iwo Jima seazone. american combat move :
4 subs attack AC
2TN 2inf 2arm land Iwo Jima.since naval battle must be conducted first, lets assume AC sunk. planes now must land on iwo jima. so they get to defend against amphibious invasion right?
edit: argh i just realized the planes would sink the TN before they could assault… so the 2 TN would need surface battleships… which would mean that the fighters would be destroyed…
-
ok, i got one more :)
Lets say a japanese AC+2FTR are in Iwo Jima seazone. american combat move :
4 subs attack AC
2TN 2inf 2arm land Iwo Jima.since naval battle must be conducted first, lets assume AC sunk. planes now must land on iwo jima. so they get to defend against amphibious invasion right?
edit: argh i just realized the planes would sink the TN before they could assault… so the 2 TN would need surface battleships… which would mean that the fighters would be destroyed…
For an island with only 1 sea zone surrounding it, that’s correct, but for something like Algeria, say that America has a carrier in sz 12 and Germany attacks it with a sub and destroys it. Germany or Italy already controls Gibraltar. Also, the German Mediteranean transport does an amphibious assault on the American-controlled Algeria and wins the battle. I assume that the fighters can’t participate in both battles, so because they have no place to land, they would be destroyed. Now the question would be, if you do the naval battle first, can the fighters land on Algeria before the amphibious assault? I assume not.
-
I think the rulebook helps out here:
First of all in an amphib. assault sea combat occurs before land combat (p17).
Second: when a carrier is attacked, its fighters are considered to be defending in the air (p28).
Third: a fighter based on a defending carrier that is destroyed in combat must try to land … this movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attacker’s NCM phase begins (p27).HTH :-)
-
Hmmm. My work here may be done. :wink:
-
A question:
- Improved Industry allows you build two more guys in a IC
Can you build a IC in a zero value territory (Gibraltar, Solomon) if you have Improved Industry and then build 2 guys each round in it?
There is a rule that says you cannot buy ICs in a zero-value territory. I think then the answer to my question should be NO, but since the rule doesn’t says nothing about improved industry, I want to be totally sure
-
Well, maybe not completely done.
Technology developments don’t override other rules unless they specifically say that they do, so having Improved Factory Production doesn’t allow you to build ICs in zero-IPC territories.
-
- 1 karma for patience, competence, friendliness and cool german name :lol:
i dare you to smite me for hypocrisy :P
-
ok, i got one more :)
Lets say a japanese AC+2FTR are in Iwo Jima seazone. american combat move :
4 subs attack AC
2TN 2inf 2arm land Iwo Jima.since naval battle must be conducted first, lets assume AC sunk. planes now must land on iwo jima. so they get to defend against amphibious invasion right?
edit: argh i just realized the planes would sink the TN before they could assault… so the 2 TN would need surface battleships… which would mean that the fighters would be destroyed…
I would think that during sea combat the planes would defend but their hits can only go against transport. Then they would land on the island. IMHO this amphibious plan not a good idea and a waste. The attacking sub can only sink the AC and the Transport and their cargo would be automatically sunk by the planes on the AC.
-
Can the Chinese fighter attack ships within range? The rules talk about occupation of land territories but I don’t see anything about seazones.
-
@Emperor:
Can the Chinese fighter attack ships within range? The rules talk about occupation of land territories but I don’t see anything about seazones.
no, i believe th FAQ says that the chinese fig can never leave chinese territories even if it returns in the same turn.
-
If an AC is sunk how many moves do the planes get to find friendly territory?
-
If an AC is sunk how many moves do the planes get to find friendly territory?
One territory.
-
depends who is attacking/defending.
10 subs attack 1 AC + 2 ftr > AC sunk > fighters 1 move to land
AC + 2 ftr attack DD > AC/ DD sunk > fighters get normal non combat move
-
If the carrier and fighters are defending, they get to move one space after all combats are completed. If they are attacking, they get their remaining movement allowance in noncombat movement, as normal.
-
Krieghund–there are too many posts to filter through to see if this has already been asked so sorry for a repeat.
Scenario: Japan builds a factory on Manchuria. The U.S captures the factory and holds it. Can they–the US-- now build units there? Does China still get the territory bonus towards its infantry count plus the ability to place men on Manchuria? thx in advance
-
@Heavy:
Krieghund–there are too many posts to filter through to see if this has already been asked so sorry for a repeat.
Scenario: Japan builds a factory on Manchuria. The U.S captures the factory and holds it. Can they–the US-- now build units there? Does China still get the territory bonus towards its infantry count plus the ability to place men on Manchuria? thx in advance
The US would not be capturing the territory. They would liberate it. The territory would count for its infantry allowance. Since China doesn’t collect IPC they wouldn’t be able to use the factory. Factories cannot be destroyed so it would collect dust untill Germany or Japan retake the territory. Germany would then only be able to use the factory if Japan island would be in Allies hand. One Japan would be liberated the factory would return to Japan control.
-
You’re mostly right, ElCapitan. However, if Germany or Italy captured the territory from China, they would be able to use the IC normally. It’s no different from Japan taking India and building an IC there, then the UK recapturing it, then Germany taking it. It doesn’t matter who built the IC, only who controls the territory.
-
You’re mostly right, ElCapitan. However, if Germany or Italy captured the territory from China, they would be able to use the IC normally. It’s no different from Japan taking India and building an IC there, then the UK recapturing it, then Germany taking it. It doesn’t matter who built the IC, only who controls the territory.
Thank you. I thought since Japan was the original owner of the teritory (taken from China before the start of the scenario, that some of the same rules for the IC in Karelia for Allies applied.