AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

But there is an underlying rule that non combat movements can not result in any combat.  I believe this is the rule that is causing the confusion.

The sole exception being tpt and subs, which can always be ignored.

I would THINK that moving a sub into a SZ with an enemy destroyer would create a combat situation since the SZ is occupied with a DD.

So, following this logic, there is an inferred special capability of a sub to move during NCM into an enemy DD occupied SZ.  Call it whatever, but no other units can move during NCM into enemy controlled SZ’s.

I think that if you reread the paragraph “sub movement” of the sub, page 30, you get the point : a sub can go into hostile zone ; the DD just forces him to stop there. Therefore, yes this is an exception to the “do not go in an hostile SZ”, due to the “stealth” sub capacity.

Was it already the case in revised ? (because then I would really have missed somthing)

@Yoshi:

I think that if you reread the paragraph “sub movement” of the sub, page 30, you get the point : a sub can go into hostile zone ; the DD just forces him to stop there. Therefore, yes this is an exception to the “do not go in an hostile SZ”, due to the “stealth” sub capacity.

Exactly.  The rule reads, “Also, submarines treat hostile sea zones as if they were friendly for purposes of movement.  However, if a submarine enters a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer, its movement ends immediately.”  It’s the exception that subs treat hostile sea zones as if they were friendly that allows them to move into a hostile (to other units) sea zone in noncombat movement.  Since it is a noncombat movement, no combat is initiated.

This concept is also stated on page 15: “A submarine may move through or into a sea zone containing enemy warships during either the Combat Move or Noncombat Move phase.  Unlike other sea units, a submarine may end its noncombat movement in a hostile sea zone.  However, if a submarine enters a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer, its movement ends immediately.”

@Yoshi:

Was it already the case in revised ? (because then I would really have missed somthing)

No, it wasn’t.

@Krieghund:

As to people not knowing this rule, I’m not I understand that.  It’s clearly stated in the Rulebook.  The only explanation I can think of is that it’s “baggage” from previous games’ rules.

I think I can help you with this one.

It’s pretty simple - people think of destroyers as the anti-sub ship.  It’s in most people’s minds that subs can’t go into a zone with a destroyer without a fight.  Period.

I’m sure virtually everyone overlooked the fact that a sub could move into a sea-zone with a massive enemy fleet complete with destroyers, during non-combat move.  This is a big eye-opener.  That said, I do really like the rule, because it means more options.

I guess the important thing for everyone to carry away from this discussion is that movement and combat are separate phases.  Combat never affects movement.  What affects movement is hostile spaces.  Combat, on the other hand, is affected by movement.  Moving into a hostile space in combat movement (or not moving out of one) is what triggers combat.

Each of the abilities of subs applies to a specific phase or phases.  Submersible, Surprise Strike, and Cannot Be Hit by Air Units apply to the Conduct Combat phase only, while Sub Movement applies to the movement (combat and noncombat) phases only.

As an aside, this separation of phases also applies in a situation that often comes up concerning attacking transports.  Many people ask if they can still move units through a sea zone if they’re attacking a transport in that sea zone with other units.  The answer is yes, because the sea zone containing the transport is still not hostile.  The attack on it does not change its status, so it does not block movement.

quick question, came up in my game with Zhukov.  on G2 i attacked z2 with a sub, ftr, 2 bombers.  he had 3 transports, a sub, acc, cruiser, and 2 fighters defending.

after round 2 the battle was down to a sub and 2 bombers attacking and a sub and a fighter defending.

if in round 2 my sub is the only unit to hit, his defending sub is sunk and round 3 becomes a submarine and 2 bombers against a fighter.  at this point, the bombers could disengage and the submarine would still sink the transports correct?  or I could continue with the air battle but at any point retreat any remaining aircraft and the sub still sinks the transports right?  i guess if for some crazy reason I wanted to retreat the submarine to a certain location (maybe to avoid a destroyer in range) I could go ahead and kill two of the transports and retreat the sub right?

thanks

Partial retreats are not allowed, except in the case of amphibious assaults.  If you want your sub to sink the transports, you must continue the battle until either the sub sinks the transports through rolling hits or all of the air units on one side (doesn’t matter which one) are destroyed, ending the battle by leaving it in a state where no units are capable of hitting each other.

@Krieghund:

Partial retreats are not allowed, except in the case of amphibious assaults.  If you want your sub to sink the transports, you must continue the battle until either the sub sinks the transports through rolling hits or all of the air units on one side (doesn’t matter which one) are destroyed, ending the battle by leaving it in a state where no units are capable of hitting each other.

oh yeah, not sure what i was thinking.  obviously you can only disengage air and continue a battle if it’s amphibious.  so IF the defending fighter had downed both attacking bombers and the submarine survived, the transports would be sunk.  in that case, the sub could sink two of the three transports and then retreat.  right?  or even if the second round roll had the attacking sub and both bombers hit and the defenders missed, the sub, fighter and 1 transport would be hit and the attacker could retreat the submarine?

thanks

@Boldfresh:

so IF the defending fighter had downed both attacking bombers and the submarine survived, the transports would be sunk.

Yes.

@Boldfresh:

in that case, the sub could sink two of the three transports and then retreat.  right?  or even if the second round roll had the attacking sub and both bombers hit and the defenders missed, the sub, fighter and 1 transport would be hit and the attacker could retreat the submarine?

No to both.  You can’t retreat if there is nothing from which to retreat (nothing that can hit you, that is).  In both cases, the battle would be over and all the transports would be sunk.

hmm, not sure why I thought this, but I thought transports took hits, just couldn’t fire back.  so if there were 10 defending units, including 3 transports, and the attacker got 9 hits, I thought he could retreat to a legal zone leaving one transport alive.

so a sub against three transports could keep firing until he got 2 hits and then retreat was what I always believed.  please confirm because i have thought this way for a long time.

thanks

@Boldfresh:

hmm, not sure why I thought this, but I thought transports took hits, just couldn’t fire back.

That’s true.

@Boldfresh:

so if there were 10 defending units, including 3 transports, and the attacker got 9 hits, I thought he could retreat to a legal zone leaving one transport alive.

so a sub against three transports could keep firing until he got 2 hits and then retreat was what I always believed.  please confirm because i have thought this way for a long time.

No.  Once one side (or both) is out of units that can either hit enemy units or retreat, the battle is over.  No retreat is possible, and defenseless transports are destroyed.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Let’s say there is a transport and a sub in the same zone.  I attack the zone with a fighter (to kill the transport) and I also bring a transport into the zone to land units.  Since I am attacking the enemy transport, does that give the sub the ability to shoot at the my transport?  Or does the presence of an enemy transport (and my move to destroy it) have no effect on my ability to ignore the sub?

This question is actually a reference to the Spring 42 version, so if there is any difference in sub/transport rules between Spring 42 and AA50 please elaborate.

If you attack a sea zone, you attack all enemy units that are in it.  You can’t pick and choose.  By attacking the transport, your fighter allows the enemy sub to defend the sea zone.  If you want to do the amphibious assault, you need to either ignore both the enemy sub and transport or bring something to the battle that can kill the sub as well.

There is no difference between the various post-Revised rule sets on this issue.

@Krieghund:

If you attack a sea zone, you attack all enemy units that are in it.  You can’t pick and choose.  By attacking the transport, your fighter allows the enemy sub to defend the sea zone.  If you want to do the amphibious assault, you need to either ignore both the enemy sub and transport or bring something to the battle that can kill the sub as well.

There is no difference between the various post-Revised rule sets on this issue.

Thanks for the clarification.  Turns out my own interpretation was wrong, so it’s good be corrected  :-)

I have a situation where I can attack sz12 containing 4 transports with a fighter which requires the fighter to move 3 spaces from sz16. The only safe landing spot would be sz13. I have a carrier with another fighter in sz16. There is a fleet of 2 destroyers, a carrier, and 2 fighters in sz13.

In the Air Units section it states:

"In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You cannot, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a possible safe landing zone for any fighter.

If you declare that a carrier will move during the Noncombat Move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter moved in the Combat Move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move phase unless the fighter has landed safely elsewhere of has been destroyed before then."

My plan is to attack sz12 with 1 fighter to kill the transports and to attack the fleet in sz13 with the other fighter. I will declare the carrier will noncom to sz13. Using what is said in the air units section, I can assume my lone fighter will kill the fleet and I will be able to land the fighters.

If the fleet in sz13 kills my fighter and maintains control of sz13, then I cannot noncombat move the carrier to sz13 since it is hostile. Therefore the fighter is lost in sz12.

Is this a valid move per the rulebook?

@Ol’:

My plan is to attack sz12 with 1 fighter to kill the transports and to attack the fleet in sz13 with the other fighter. I will declare the carrier will noncom to sz13. Using what is said in the air units section, I can assume my lone fighter will kill the fleet and I will be able to land the fighters.

Exactly.

If the fleet in sz13 kills my fighter and maintains control of sz13, then I cannot noncombat move the carrier to sz13 since it is hostile. Therefore the fighter is lost in sz12.

Right. And your carrier is free to go elsewhere. If you are able to go through the Suez canal, your carrier could even go the opposite direction from Z12 - to Z34. The fighter in Z12 with no eligible landing spot during non-combat is forfeit. It’s not your fault the fighter in Z13 didn’t do its job! :-D

Is this a valid move per the rulebook?

Absolutely. You have it all right.

Thanks Gamer! I have had it pulled on me in a different scenario and thought it was brillant…just feels a little dirty is all  :|

Anytime.

It definitely feels dirty.  I wish I could pull it off once in awhile.

I have played a lot of games and am always aware of possibilities like this, yet I very rarely get an opportunity. Apparently a lot of my opponents know the rules well. People are very careful with transports. I almost never see more than one or two transports ever undefended, and if they are, people are extremely careful about rules like this. You don’t win games throwing away masses of transports.