AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

@critmonster:

subs
it says they can submerge instead of fire without a DD present, this is why planes can’t attack them alone. But do they HAVE to submerge? Say you hit my fleet with air, can I leave my subs on the surface to soak hits for my CA,BB,CV’s?

@Krieghund:

No. Air unit hits can never be assigned to subs unless there is a destroyer friendly to the air unit(s) in the battle.

That is lame IMHO. if the subs stay topside why can’t the air fire on them? sure would be nice to have that fodder unit for naval vs. air engagements as well

@Krieghund:

China and the US take their turns at the same time, but China must complete its Combat Movement and Conduct Combat phases before the US begins its Combat Movement phase, or vice versa.  Either one can perform these phases first, and it can vary from turn to turn.  Since their turns are simultaneous otherwise, and both powers conduct noncombat movement at the same time, US planes can’t land in territories that were captured by China during the current turn.

We have coordinated some US and chinese efforts.
USA once took manchuria, then chinese units were added there at the end of the US/China turn.

Was this legal?

It should be.  Chinese units can be placed in any Chinese controlled territory.

1. The rules refer as the submarine surprise strike as “attack”! Given that there is no enemy destroyer present on the attacking side do the submarines fire with “1” (regular defense value) or “2” (attack value for this special strike!)?

2. Can the Chinese player his new units in territories he just captured in his turn?

@jeffdestroyer:

@axis_roll:

@Krieghund:

China and the US take their turns at the same time, but China must complete its Combat Movement and Conduct Combat phases before the US begins its Combat Movement phase, or vice versa.  Either one can perform these phases first, and it can vary from turn to turn.  Since their turns are simultaneous otherwise, and both powers conduct noncombat movement at the same time, US planes can’t land in territories that were captured by China during the current turn.

We have coordinated some US and chinese efforts.
USA once took manchuria, then chinese units were added there at the end of the US/China turn.

Was this legal?

It should be.  Chinese units can be placed in any Chinese controlled territory.

Jeffdestroyer is correct.  China can place its units in any territory that it controls during the Mobilize New Units phase, provided there aren’t three Chinese units there already.

@xxstefanx:

1. The rules refer as the submarine surprise strike as “attack”! Given that there is no enemy destroyer present on the attacking side do the submarines fire with “1” (regular defense value) or “2” (attack value for this special strike!)?

“Attack” was a poor choice of words, given that defending subs also get a surprise strike.  Defending subs always hit on a 1, whether they get a surprise strike or not.

@xxstefanx:

2. Can the Chinese player his new units in territories he just captured in his turn?

Yes, as long as there aren’t three Chinese units there already.

Mechanised infantery: can they blitz or even move 2 spaces in combat moves phase? They must start and end their move with the tank, true?

They must move with the tank, starting and ending in the same territories.  They do everything along with the tank, including blitzing.

The rules state that ICs can receive double damage at one time. Is this the maximum damage any one IC can sustain or, can they receive over and above damage several times during a turn, or over several turns without repair?

Max double.  You cannot do anymore damage until the enemy repairs it.

Thank you, that’s how I’ve been playing but that " at one time" was confusing.

Page 3 of the official Errata sheet states “China is considered to be the original controller of Manchuria and
Kiangsu.”

Therefore if USSR conquers Manchuria from Japan, they are only liberating it and control goes to China.

If Japan builds an Industrial Complex in Manchuria, and then USSR liberates it for China, China cannot use it (they have no money), and a literal reading of this rule suggests USSR also cannot use it, since China’s capital is not in enemy control since they have no capital at all:

(From page 22)
“You cannot place your new units at an industrial complex owned by a friendly power, unless that power’s capital is in
enemy control and you have taken control of the industrial complex from an enemy power after the friendly power’s
capital was captured.”

This rule seems not to have taken into account that China has no capital, but is this Manchurian Industrial Complex rendered useless by the liberation (that is, until recaptured by the Axis)?

Page 10 of the Rulebook states that new Chinese units cannot be placed in a territory already containing 3 or more Chinese (Errata sheet) units.  It does not address the situation of all Chinese territories containing three or more units.

Page 22 of the Rulebook states: “If you do not place some of your units the turn you purchase them, they are not lost. You can place them on one of your future turns during your Mobilize New Units phase.”

Does this rule apply to the aforementioned Chinese situation (even though Chinese units are not “purchased”), or are potential new Chinese units lost in this case?

@Imperious:

This thread is for issues directly relating to questions and clarifications on rules for AA50. Eventually an errata sheet will be prepared from these posts and this first post will be edited to reflect that information.

Is this related to the official Avalon Hill Errata sheet (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20081212)?  If not, where do they come up with their FAQs?

From the “Weapons Development” section of the document:
Q. Can paratroopers retreat if they attack without other land units or with an amphibious assault?
A. No. Since land units can only retreat to a territory from which at least one of them came, no retreat is
possible if no land units attacked from an adjacent territory.

This is in contrast with what is stated in the published rules (Page 12: “The infantry unit may retreat normally to a
friendly adjacent space during combat.”), and therefore should be listed in the “Errata” section of the document.

That isn’t the only inconsistency. All combat is supposed to occur simultaneously. Yet now according to the FAQ Blitzing tanks convert an enemy territory to friendly so Paratroopers can fly through it.

I think the clarification to that is this:

If Paratroopers are attacking in conjunction with normal ground units attacking, then they may retreat with the ground units. (As opposed to if you attack in an amphibious assault, then none of the troops can retreat.)

As for blitzers taking precedence, since you cannot engage in combat twice, blitzing an enemy territory during the CM is not considered a combat move but a move towards combat.  Thus, mechanized infantry and paratroopers would not have to stop there.  However, if the territory is NOT blitzed, then it is an “enemy” territory that must be “attacked” before you can pass over head.

Honestly, having to stop because some yahoo with a Bowie knife is whittlin a piece of wood while chewing on straw and humming Camptown Races is kinda stupid in my mind.  You’re 11,000 feet up (or more) in a nice big, shiney, aireo plane.  What’s he gunna do, throw curses at you?  Wasn’t the whole point of paratroopers to land BEHIND enemy lines?

@Stoney229:

Page 3 of the official Errata sheet states “China is considered to be the original controller of Manchuria and
Kiangsu.”

Therefore if USSR conquers Manchuria from Japan, they are only liberating it and control goes to China.

If Japan builds an Industrial Complex in Manchuria, and then USSR liberates it for China, China cannot use it (they have no money), and a literal reading of this rule suggests USSR also cannot use it, since China’s capital is not in enemy control since they have no capital at all:

(From page 22)
“You cannot place your new units at an industrial complex owned by a friendly power, unless that power’s capital is in
enemy control and you have taken control of the industrial complex from an enemy power after the friendly power’s
capital was captured.”

This rule seems not to have taken into account that China has no capital, but is this Manchurian Industrial Complex rendered useless by the liberation (that is, until recaptured by the Axis)?

Because China has no capital, it will never be in the position that one of the other Allied powers can take possession of a Chinese territory.  This makes an Axis-built Chinese IC useless when it’s controlled by China, as they have no IPCs.  However, there is always some value to keeping Japan from using it.

@Stoney229:

Page 10 of the Rulebook states that new Chinese units cannot be placed in a territory already containing 3 or more Chinese (Errata sheet) units.  It does not address the situation of all Chinese territories containing three or more units.

Page 22 of the Rulebook states: “If you do not place some of your units the turn you purchase them, they are not lost. You can place them on one of your future turns during your Mobilize New Units phase.”

Does this rule apply to the aforementioned Chinese situation (even though Chinese units are not “purchased”), or are potential new Chinese units lost in this case?

The units would be retained until they can be placed.  However, it should be easy to reposition Chinese forces to allow for placement during noncombat movement.

@Stoney229:

@Imperious:

This thread is for issues directly relating to questions and clarifications on rules for AA50. Eventually an errata sheet will be prepared from these posts and this first post will be edited to reflect that information.

Is this related to the official Avalon Hill Errata sheet (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20081212)?  If not, where do they come up with their FAQs?

No, it’s not related.  I wrote the official FAQ, and it was approved by Larry Harris.

@Stoney229:

From the “Weapons Development” section of the document:
Q. Can paratroopers retreat if they attack without other land units or with an amphibious assault?
A. No. Since land units can only retreat to a territory from which at least one of them came, no retreat is
possible if no land units attacked from an adjacent territory.

This is in contrast with what is stated in the published rules (Page 12: “The infantry unit may retreat normally to a
friendly adjacent space during combat.”), and therefore should be listed in the “Errata” section of the document.

It’s not really in conflict.  According to the rule, paratroopers can “retreat normally”.  Normally, land units retreat to an adjacent territory from which at least one of the units moved.  In the case of paratroopers, there may not be such a space.  The FAQ is simply clarifying that paratroopers may not retreat if there were no land units attacking with them from an adjacent territory, as a retreat route has not been established.

@a44bigdog:

That isn’t the only inconsistency. All combat is supposed to occur simultaneously. Yet now according to the FAQ Blitzing tanks convert an enemy territory to friendly so Paratroopers can fly through it.

@Cmdr:

As for blitzers taking precedence, since you cannot engage in combat twice, blitzing an enemy territory during the CM is not considered a combat move but a move towards combat.  Thus, mechanized infantry and paratroopers would not have to stop there.  However, if the territory is NOT blitzed, then it is an “enemy” territory that must be “attacked” before you can pass over head.

Actually, blitzing is considered to be a combat movement rather than a combat.  According to the rules, blitzed territories change hands immediately during the Combat Movement phase, as opposed to territories captured in battle during the Conduct Combat phase.  That difference is the basis for the FAQ entry, as the blitzing tank paves the way for deeper penetration into enemy territory.

Krieg:

Did you misunderstand what I had typed or were you confirming and clarifying what I typed?  Because our two “paragraphs” are virtually the same. hehe

Mostly just clarifying.  :-)