AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

@TimTheEnchanter:

On the topic of captured AA’s, if an allied AA gun is moved to china, then captured by japan, but then recaptured by allied forces (presumably russian), does it belong to china (and thus fall under china’s ridiculous movement restrictions)?  Can china even own AA guns? Or can they only own infantry, captured ICs (which they can’t use) and the FT fig.

I assume it belongs to china and thus is unable to retreat to russia, but I wasn’t 110% sure.

Yes, it belongs to China, and it may be used.

@TimTheEnchanter:

Yeah, because the Italians are usually flush with cash.  :-P  :lol:

Unless you are already expecting to trade france for a turn, that would be a very expensive way just to transfer ownership of AA guns.  Even if you go with the assumption that ONLY italian troops are in france, and you can move out everything but the AA’s, you still give the us 6ipc for the territory + 5 for the NO, plus you force germany to take and hold France (if they continue to trade, they won’t be able to use the guns as rockets)without the ability to land air for defense.

I think I might have once allowed a british AA to be captured so the russians could take it back, but that is really only worth it if you’ve already given up the 5 ipc Russian NO

I’m well aware of all this.  Let’s not get off topic - this is a Rules errata thread.  But to respond quickly to your response, early in the game as Germany sometimes I concede France because it will often cost the Allies a transport and a man and opportunity cost to take it.  If Germany gets radar or rockets in the first round, it would definitely not be a bad move to move an Italian AA to an empty France to convert to a German unit.  And it was just an example.  calvinhobbesliker gave a couple other good examples.

@Krieghund:

@TimTheEnchanter:

On the topic of captured AA’s, if an allied AA gun is moved to china, then captured by japan, but then recaptured by allied forces (presumably russian), does it belong to china (and thus fall under china’s ridiculous movement restrictions)?  Can china even own AA guns? Or can they only own infantry, captured ICs (which they can’t use) and the FT fig.

I assume it belongs to china and thus is unable to retreat to russia, but I wasn’t 110% sure.

Yes, it belongs to China, and it may be used.

TRUE!!!

Can a transport starting in another sea zone pick up troops in a sea zone which contains an enemy sub and then proceed to another seazone and attack with said troops while at the same time, naval ships (including a destroyer from an entirely different sea zone enter the sea zone containing the enemy sub to attack the enemy sub?  This is all happening during the combat move phase.

@Bardoly:

Can a transport starting in another sea zone pick up troops in a sea zone which contains an enemy sub and then proceed to another seazone and attack with said troops while at the same time, naval ships (including a destroyer from an entirely different sea zone enter the sea zone containing the enemy sub to attack the enemy sub?  This is all happening during the combat move phase.

I think so.

@Bardoly:

Can a transport starting in another sea zone pick up troops in a sea zone which contains an enemy sub and then proceed to another seazone and attack with said troops while at the same time, naval ships (including a destroyer from an entirely different sea zone enter the sea zone containing the enemy sub to attack the enemy sub?  This is all happening during the combat move phase.

Yes.

To be even more precise about this situation, in one of my current games, I am playing as the Asis.  It is Japan’s turn.  I have a transport in sz37, I have 2 infantry units in Borneo which is in sz49, but the UK has a submarine in sz49.  I have a destroyer in sz50 which wants to attack the sub in sz49, and my transport in sz37 wants to move to sz49, pick up troops and then proceed to sz48 and capture NewGuniea.  I want to make sure if this is a valid move.

For anyone interested in the map of this situation, you may download the map which is attached to this post.

Rules question situation map.aam

Russia is doing very well

Yes this is a valid move, since you may ignore a sub or a tranny when making your moves.

I believe Kreig has already answered a similar question in this thread, but I will admit I’m too lazy to find it ;)

@Yoshi:

Yes this is a valid move, since you may ignore a sub or a tranny when making your moves.

I believe Kreig has already answered a similar question in this thread, but I will admit I’m too lazy to find it ;)

That’s the 3rd affirmative reply you’ve received, Bardoly.  If you aren’t satisfied until Krieg answers your question, than just say so.  We understood your question.  The answer is yes, it’s legal.

Attacking the sub doesn’t make the zone a “combat zone” that your transport can then not load units and pass through.  Krieg already explained that combat doesn’t happen until the combat phase.  This is the combat movement phase.  Z49 is friendly and your transport can pick up units, and your destroyer can make a combat move on the sub at the same time.  So game on, already!  :-)

@Yoshi:

I believe Kreig has already answered a similar question in this thread, but I will admit I’m too lazy to find it ;)

I’m not too lazy to find it  :-)

See replies #681, 682, and 683.

Just substitute your sub for my transport.

I’m pretty sure this has been answered, but I’d like to ask again just to be sure….

If a power buys an AC, is it possible to make an attack where this AC serves as the designated landing zone for those figs?

Example would be if there are Jap naval units in SZ53 (and Japs control Haw) and American fighters on Aussie.  USA buys an AC for 56, and 2 American figs attack 53, meaning to land on the newly built AC.

Is this maneuver legal in the new rule-set?

@Zhukov44:

I’m pretty sure this has been answered, but I’d like to ask again just to be sure….

If a power buys an AC, is it possible to make an attack where this AC serves as the designated landing zone for those figs?

Example would be if there are Jap naval units in SZ53 (and Japs control Haw) and American fighters on Aussie.  USA buys an AC for 56, and 2 American figs attack 53, meaning to land on the newly built AC.

Is this maneuver legal in the new rule-set?

Yes!  And if the fighters are destroyed, then you are free to place the CV at any IC your power has!

(This rule is an added reason for purchasing IC’s, like Germany, for France (creates possibility to fly fighters 3 spaces to invade London)

Looks like everything is under control here.  :-)

@Krieghund:

Looks like everything is under control here.   :-)

Aint it nice when you have the community trained, Krieg?

I’m pretty sure about this one, too, but I couldn’t seem to find the explicit rule in the rulebook.

If a power attacks a sea zone with a cv that is loaded with one or more fighters belonging to another, friendly power, what happens if the cv is destroyed in combat?  My understanding is that the ftrs are treated as cargo and would go down with the ship (as with loaded transports).  I also think that the loaded ftrs could NOT be chosen as casualties during the combat.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

You’ve got it right.

I assume the CV is attacking with a loaded friendly fig aboard and not defending?

The statement looked like it could be read either way when I first read it.

I read it as the carrier being the attacker, but I see now how you could interpret it the other way.

Sorry if this has been asked before, but may England use USA trannies as a bridge? If the trannie does not move, can the British load and unload on the same turn?

Thanks, JC