AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

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

It can be done, but not in one turn.  The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next.  The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.

@Krieghund:

It can be done, but not in one turn.  The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next.  The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.

Thanks! That is what I believed, but just to be sure…

@Krieghund:

It can be done, but not in one turn.  The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next.  The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.

Actually Kreig, the question should be can UK units be mobilized onto US trannies sitting in the Channel ?  I would think they’d have to be mobilized  in England and board the transports on a subsequnt turn  although I’m not sure this would be the case with a UK ftr being mobilized on a US cv in the Channel.

@Battling:

@Krieghund:

It can be done, but not in one turn.  The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next.  The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.

Actually Kreig, the question should be can UK units be mobilized onto US trannies sitting in the Channel ?  I would think they’d have to be mobilized  in England and board the transports on a subsequnt turn  although I’m not sure this would be the case with a UK ftr being mobilized on a US cv in the Channel.

I don’t think you can mobilize anything on ally’s ships

@Battling:

@Krieghund:

It can be done, but not in one turn.  The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next.  The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.

Actually Kreig, the question should be can UK units be mobilized onto US trannies sitting in the Channel ?  I would think they’d have to be mobilized  in England and board the transports on a subsequnt turn  although I’m not sure this would be the case with a UK ftr being mobilized on a US cv in the Channel.

You can’t even mobilize ground units on YOUR OWN transports, let alone an ally’s.  You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.

@gamerman01:

You can’t even mobilize ground units on YOUR OWN transports, let alone an ally’s.  You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.

Good point gamerman…I didn’t even think of it. :mrgreen:

@gamerman01:

You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.

I did not know this one…

@Battling:

@gamerman01:

You can’t even mobilize ground units on YOUR OWN transports, let alone an ally’s.  You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.

Good point gamerman…I didn’t even think of it. :mrgreen:

Ground units can’t jump off a boat to fight a sea battle, but i see no reason why planes couldn’t.

I can imagine american fighter pilots on a brittisch carrier saying “are we under attack? mehh, they’re not attacking ME so i ain’t taking orders”. makes no sense. (i mean in defending)

I read somewhere  they are considered cargo. That would be so if they were loaded on the ship, not landing on them.

@anchovy:

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.

@Krieghund:

You’ve got it right.

@jeffdestroyer:

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.

Thanks, belatedly, for the answer Krieghund.  And yes, I did mean the attacking cv.  I see now that it is, indeed, not clear from the way I wrote it.

Sorry that wasn’t worded the best…  here is the revised question

quick question from an AA50 game.  if i have a US fleet with transports in z62 and US infantry in Bry - Can i engage in a fleet battle with a destroyer placed by japan in z62 and then IN THE NON-COMBAT MOVE load my infantry onto transports that never moved from z62 in the combat move?  i know that if i do load them IN NONCOMBAT, I cannot move them from z62 but I’m not 100% sure if the transports can remain in z62 during combat and then be loaded in noncombat.

Alternative question, not wanting to do it in this situation but wondering if it’s possible.  If I would move a transport from z62 to z63 in the combat move, could I then load units to the transport in the noNON-COMBAT phase?

Thanks!

I believe the rule is that you cannot load in a combat zone.  However (and I could be wrong) you should be able to move from SZ 62 to SZ 63, load your units in Buryatia (since it borders both sea zones) then move your transport back to SZ 62 to amphibiously assault Japan.  Of course, hitting Manchuria isn’t as important as the destroyer in SZ 62 prevents the battleships and cruisers from bombarding anyway, so just walk there.

that’s not my question Jen, i’m wondering if i could load men onto the transports in the Non-combat phase after the destroyer is sunk

Sorry that wasn’t worded the best…  here is the revised question

quick question from an AA50 game.  if i have a US fleet with transports in z62 and US infantry in Bry - Can i engage in a fleet battle with a destroyer placed by japan in z62 and then IN THE NON-COMBAT MOVE load my infantry onto transports that never moved from z62 in the combat move?  i know that if i do load them IN NONCOMBAT, I cannot move them from z62 but I’m not 100% sure if the transports can remain in z62 during combat and then be loaded in noncombat.

Alternative question, not wanting to do it in this situation but wondering if it’s possible.  If I would move a transport from z62 to z63 in the combat move, could I then load units to the transport in the noNON-COMBAT phase?

Thanks!

@boldfresh:

if i have a US fleet with transports in z62 and US infantry in Bry - Can i engage in a fleet battle with a destroyer placed by japan in z62 and then IN THE NON-COMBAT MOVE load my infantry onto transports that never moved from z62 in the combat move?  i know that if i do load them IN NONCOMBAT, I cannot move them from z62 but I’m not 100% sure if the transports can remain in z62 during combat and then be loaded in noncombat.

They cannot be loaded in noncombat movement, as they have participated in combat.

@boldfresh:

Alternative question, not wanting to do it in this situation but wondering if it’s possible.  If I would move a transport from z62 to z63 in the combat move, could I then load units to the transport in the noNON-COMBAT phase?

No.

thanks Krieg

Question about the rule of produced cv that can take existing fighters with them.

Let assume that the US have a (big enough) fleet in sz62 and trannies in sz63. Japan does not have a fleet anymore, but still have 2 fighters in Kiangsu.

SFE and Buryatia have been liberated by the US.

If Japan produces a CV, is it possible to attack sz63 with 1 fighter from Kiangsu without attacking sz62 ? Or is it mandatory to send the second fighter against sz62 to have the (theoretical) possibility of destroying the fleet, and therefore enable a safe landing of the fighter in sz62 on the produced cv ?

I believe option 2 is the good one, but I’m not 100% sure.

An attack on sea zone 62 is not necessary.  The new carrier will provide a landing spot for the fighter, as the rules only require that there be a friendly carrier in the sea zone, not that the sea zone be friendly.