AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

The reason that escort fighters’ attack value is increased by Jet Power is that Jet Power directly affects fighters’ attack value.  That increase applies in both normal combat and SBRs.  In contrast, Increased Factory Production increases an IC’s ability to mobilize units, not the IPC value of its territory.  Since bombing damage is limited by the IPC value of the territory, it is unaffected by IFP.

The mobilization capacity and the damage cap being based on two different numbers creates a little shift in the balance between how many points of damage are directly applied to production and how many are applied to “infrastructure”, as the numbers are no longer 50/50.  However, the total damage exposure is unchanged.  This is attributed to the increase in efficiency of the factories.

Basically, the designers felt that giving an increase in the number of damage points that can be applied would in effect be penalizing the player for getting the tech.  However, part of the reason that IFP’s effects are now limited to ICs in territories worth three IPCs or more is so that situations like the one you’re talking about, where ICs can’t be shut down by SBRs, don’t occur.

@Krieghund:

The reason that escort fighters’ attack value is increased by Jet Power is that Jet Power directly affects fighters’ attack value.  That increase applies in both normal combat and SBRs.  In contrast, Increased Factory Production increases an IC’s ability to mobilize units, not the IPC value of its territory.  Since bombing damage is limited by the IPC value of the territory, it is unaffected by IFP.

The mobilization capacity and the damage cap being based on two different numbers creates a little shift in the balance between how many points of damage are directly applied to production and how many are applied to “infrastructure”, as the numbers are no longer 50/50.  However, the total damage exposure is unchanged.  This is attributed to the increase in efficiency of the factories.

Basically, the designers felt that giving an increase in the number of damage points that can be applied would in effect be penalizing the player for getting the tech.  However, part of the reason that IFP’s effects are now limited to ICs in territories worth three IPCs or more is so that situations like the one you’re talking about, where ICs can’t be shut down by SBRs, don’t occur.

WOW!!!  Now THAT was a detailed, informative answer!

Thanks Krieg, you are truly the MAN!!!

@P@nther:

As far as I understand the rules - even with IFP - the maximum damage to Caucasus is 12.
You still have to remove for example 8 damage to produce 2 units.

You have to remove all 12 damage to be able to produce 6+2=8 units.

So IFP takes effect only on production capacities that are not damaged.

Am I right?

Not quite.  The maximum damage that can be inflicted is not affected by IFP, as it’s tied to the territory’s IPC value, and that doesn’t change.  Even with IFP, Caucacus’ IC can still only receive eight damage points maximum.  The difference is that you’d only need to repair three damage points in order to produce a unit there if the damage was at maximum.

Also my Caucasus example was completely wrong……  I flip-flopped the IFP and IR rules. And I was making the Caucasus territory worth 6 not 4 for some idiotic reason!

@Krieghund:

@P@nther:

As far as I understand the rules - even with IFP - the maximum damage to Caucasus is 12.
You still have to remove for example 8 damage to produce 2 units.

You have to remove all 12 damage to be able to produce 6+2=8 units.

So IFP takes effect only on production capacities that are not damaged.

Am I right?

Not quite.  The maximum damage that can be inflicted is not affected by IFP, as it’s tied to the territory’s IPC value, and that doesn’t change.  Even with IFP, Caucacus’ IC can still only receive eight damage points maximum.  The difference is that you’d only need to repair three damage points in order to produce a unit there if the damage was at maximum.

Got it, thank you :-)

@I:

Got a Tech question for Krieg (or anyone).   :-)

I just checked out the updated FAQ.  I saw that Jet  Fighter Tech changes the attack value of the fighter escorts from 1 to 2.

With that in mind, if the tech changes the rules for fighter escorts, wouldn’t it be logical to change the rules for Industrial Raids of a power that has Increased Factory Production?

As I see it, “Industrial raids” are strongly affected by IFP tech, as the power of industrial raids is effectively cut in half, considering with IFP 1 IPC pays for 2 damage instead of one.  Am I wrong?

@Krieghund:

… part of the reason that IFP’s effects are now limited to ICs in territories worth three IPCs or more is so that situations like the one you’re talking about, where ICs can’t be shut down by SBRs, don’t occur.

@I:

I just checked out the updated FAQ.  I saw that Jet  Fighter Tech changes the attack value of the fighter escorts from 1 to 2.

Where is it said that there are restricted territories for IFP and Jet fighter effects for escorting fighters?  The FAQ linked to in the first post of this thread says nothing of these things, as far as I can see.

@Stoney229:

As I see it, “Industrial raids” are strongly affected by IFP tech, as the power of industrial raids is effectively cut in half, considering with IFP 1 IPC pays for 2 damage instead of one.  Am I wrong?

Nope, you’re not wrong.

@Stoney229:

Where is it said that there are restricted territories for IFP and Jet fighter effects for escorting fighters?  The FAQ linked to in the first post of this thread says nothing of these things, as far as I can see.

That version is old.  The latest version is here.

Hello all! Long time reader, first time poster…
There’s one thing that’s been bugging me for a while; my playgroup and I are divided as to the possibillity of reinforcing a newly conquered territory with ground units during the non combat move phase. Now, I know the rules say that you’re not allowed to land fighters, but there is no clear statement in the rulebook concerning ground units - which is why I feel that it is allowed. Anyone out there that could help to clarify?
:mrgreen:

@TimmyBravo:

Hello all! Long time reader, first time poster…
There’s one thing that’s been bugging me for a while; my playgroup and I are divided as to the possibillity of reinforcing a newly conquered territory with ground units during the non combat move phase. Now, I know the rules say that you’re not allowed to land fighters, but there is no clear statement in the rulebook concerning ground units - which is why I feel that it is allowed. Anyone out there that could help to clarify?
:mrgreen:

It is legal to move ground units into a newly conquered territory during the non-combat move phase. I’ve done it a number of times myself.

@ogrebait:

@TimmyBravo:

Hello all! Long time reader, first time poster…
There’s one thing that’s been bugging me for a while; my playgroup and I are divided as to the possibillity of reinforcing a newly conquered territory with ground units during the non combat move phase. Now, I know the rules say that you’re not allowed to land fighters, but there is no clear statement in the rulebook concerning ground units - which is why I feel that it is allowed. Anyone out there that could help to clarify?
:mrgreen:

It is legal to move ground units into a newly conquered territory during the non-combat move phase. I’ve done it a number of times myself.

I often do that.  When planning battles along a wide front I will often hold units back to reinforce a territory that had unusually high losses or take advantage of battle that went exceptionally well.

@TimmyBravo:

Hello all! Long time reader, first time poster…
There’s one thing that’s been bugging me for a while; my playgroup and I are divided as to the possibillity of reinforcing a newly conquered territory with ground units during the non combat move phase. Now, I know the rules say that you’re not allowed to land fighters, but there is no clear statement in the rulebook concerning ground units - which is why I feel that it is allowed. Anyone out there that could help to clarify?
:mrgreen:

yes it is legal.  a while ago I asked if it is legal specifically for AA guns (after Krieg said they could not be moved out of newly conquered territory), and Krieg said yes.

That was excactly what I thought, and was hoping to be correct! Thank you all,appreciate the answers :-D

Not only can you move into captured territories, but you can also move tanks THROUGH them as well (provided the territory you’re going to on the other side is also friendly).

@Krieghund:

Only defending fighters get the one-space movement.  In your example, the attacking fighter has used all of its movement, so it’s stuck in the sea zone.  Unless another carrier can be moved there in noncombat movement or the sea zone is adjacent to an IC from which a carrier is being mobilized in the current turn, the fighter will be lost.

Re risky missions:

I always assumed that if the only legal landing place for a fighter that has moved 4 spaces was a CV in the same SZ, then you can’t choose the CV as a casualty until the fighter had first been removed as a casualty (because removing the CV takes away any potential for the ftr to land).

@DY:

@Krieghund:

Only defending fighters get the one-space movement.  In your example, the attacking fighter has used all of its movement, so it’s stuck in the sea zone.  Unless another carrier can be moved there in noncombat movement or the sea zone is adjacent to an IC from which a carrier is being mobilized in the current turn, the fighter will be lost.

Re risky missions:

I always assumed that if the only legal landing place for a fighter that has moved 4 spaces was a CV in the same SZ, then you can’t choose the CV as a casualty until the fighter had first been removed as a casualty (because removing the CV takes away any potential for the ftr to land).

Close, but not quite.

You can choose to lose the CV before the ftr, but then you are dooming the ftr to be lost, even if he is never hit.

Seems to go against the idea of “risky” if you are guaranteeing the ftr has nowhere to land with 100% certainty.

Oh well, so long as I know the correct rule for simming purposes

Can someone clear this up for me?

It’s US3 and I have JPN bearing down on me with 2AC 4FIG and 2TRN with 3INF and 1ARM.  I have no ground troops in WUS and it’s my turn to buy.  I’m thinking 1DD and 6SS, no ground forces.  His fleet/fighters would have to engage the DD, hostile seazone, in order to drop troops in WUS and my subs would be entered into the battle.  Japan has no DD, will my subs stay engaged even after my DD is taken out?  Can he sink the DD and then opt out of the sub-battle, landing his amphibious and taking WUS?

I’m trying to visualize this, because I drop a DD will he have to fight through my subs 2AC vs 6SS in order to land?  Will I have 6@1 vs 2@1 and his loaded transports at risk?

@Capt.:

I’m trying to visualize this, because I drop a DD will he have to fight through my subs 2AC vs 6SS in order to land?  Will I have 6@1 vs 2@1 and his loaded transports at risk?

Yes, you are right. Subs can only be ignored during movement. And they can only be ignored when there are no surface warships with them. If your opponent decides to attack he attacks ALL your units (see top of page 5 of the FAQ).

HTH :-)

@Capt.:

Can someone clear this up for me?

It’s US3 and I have JPN bearing down on me with 2AC 4FIG and 2TRN with 3INF and 1ARM.  I have no ground troops in WUS and it’s my turn to buy.  I’m thinking 1DD and 6SS, no ground forces.  His fleet/fighters would have to engage the DD, hostile seazone, in order to drop troops in WUS and my subs would be entered into the battle.  Japan has no DD, will my subs stay engaged even after my DD is taken out?  Can he sink the DD and then opt out of the sub-battle, landing his amphibious and taking WUS?

I’m trying to visualize this, because I drop a DD will he have to fight through my subs 2AC vs 6SS in order to land?  Will I have 6@1 vs 2@1 and his loaded transports at risk?

Interesting situation.  The attacker will have to destroy your DD for sure.  Now since he has to attack your fleet he should not be able to ignore the SS.  If some or all his planes are participating in naval combat they will only be able to sink the DD.  His aircraft carriers will be left against the SS.  Risky for him.  Chance he would withdraw if he would attack at all ( I would not attack your coast myself with those odds).