AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

[Zhukov44]

Well that’s probably the case but I’d still like confirmation from Kreighund on this one.  The reason is it’s relatively common on TripleA to use edit to move the fig onto the AC in this sort of circumstance, and I don’t want to object to this kind of edit without being absolutely sure of the rules.

[Krieghund]

ksmckay, gamerman01 and TimTheEnchanter are all correct.

In AA42, AA50 and LHTR, the fighter must end its move in the sea zone.  In OOB Revised, the fighter must end its move in the territory, and it may then be moved onto the carrier during mobilization.

[Zhukov44]

OK much appreciated everyone!

[anchovy]

In AA50-41, I’m not sure who ultimately takes control in the following situation:

1.  Japan controls Moscow, but the US and UK occupy and control various Russian territories in eastern Europe.
2.  The allies liberate Moscow.
3.  Control of Moscow and all territories (and aa guns) under allied control revert to Russian control.
4.  Japan retakes Moscow on its turn, takes Russia’s money (newly collected after being liberated - all territories previously controlled by the Allies would count toward the total when Russia collects).

Who controls the Russian territories now occupied by the UK and US?  Do the allies have to “run back over” the territories to retake them or do they just return to an allied player’s control if that player occupies the territory at the end of their turn?  In either case, who gets control if both the UK and US occupy a Russian territory at the end of a turn?

I hope that question makes sense…  :|

[gamerman01]

@anchovy:

In AA50-41, I’m not sure who ultimately takes control in the following situation:

1.  Japan controls Moscow, but the US and UK occupy and control various Russian territories in eastern Europe.
2.  The allies liberate Moscow.
3.  Control of Moscow and all territories (and aa guns) under allied control revert to Russian control.
4.  Japan retakes Moscow on its turn, takes Russia’s money (newly collected after being liberated - all territories previously controlled by the Allies would count toward the total when Russia collects).

Who controls the Russian territories now occupied by the UK and US?  Do the allies have to “run back over” the territories to retake them or do they just return to an allied player’s control if that player occupies the territory at the end of their turn?  In either case, who gets control if both the UK and US occupy a Russian territory at the end of a turn?

I hope that question makes sense…  :|

Control has nothing to do with UK or US occupation.  Control is Russia’s, as you correctly identified, once Moscow was liberated.  It will remain Russia’s territory until captured by Axis.  Then the Allies could take it back and get the income and use of factories, but only if the Axis capture it first, after Japan’s 2nd capturing of Moscow.

So yes, by liberating Moscow and then losing it again, the Allies lose all the other original Russian territory benefits (income and production and AA control).  This must be considered carefully when liberating a capital, especially since, in your scenario, Japan was able to take it back immediately after Russia’s turn.

[anchovy]

Yeah, makes sense.  I don’t know why I didn’t see that before…  :-P

[gamerman01]

Haha - your question just made me realize, I get one more IPC with Japan (77 instead of 76  :-D) because I took Libya and Italy is currently under US control….
Then when I liberate Italy, she will get income for Libya as well - nice - double dipping!  :-D

[Zhukov44]

This may be obvious, but since I’m not sure…

If a sea zone contains an enemy sub, and I go in with a transport and gear, is it possible to land that gear without interference from the sub?  Or does the sub have an effect on the transport?

[Zhukov44]

@Zhukov44:

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

If a sea zone contains an enemy sub, and I go in with a transport and gear, is it possible to land that gear without interference from the sub?  Or does the sub have an effect on the transport?

[gamerman01]

@Zhukov44:

This may be obvious, but since I’m not sure…

If a sea zone contains an enemy sub, and I go in with a transport and gear, is it possible to land that gear without interference from the sub?  Or does the sub have an effect on the transport?

Yes, you can land the gear and ignore the sub in combat movement.  No, the sub has no effect on the transport.  It is only in AAP40 that it can roll once on a 2 to try and sink the transport.  Not in AA50.

[Yoshi]

@anchovy:

3.  Control of Moscow and all territories (and aa guns) under allied control revert to Russian control.

Unless I’m wrong, the AAguns are not converted to Russia when Moscou is liberated. They stay what they are

[Krieghund]

You’re right, Yoshi, they do.

[Yoshi]

I believe that a CV can be produced in a sea zone where there is an ennemy fleet (you can produce as many vessels or fighters - if there are enough CV with - in this season can’t you ? ). But can a fighter wait this CV during his non combat move there, even with the ennemy fleet ?

[Krieghund]

Yes.

[Yoshi]

Thanks !

[axis_roll]

I know a sub can not pass thru a SZ with a destroyer, but is the opposite true?

Can a DD move thru a SZ containing a sub? 
Please answer for both combat and non-combat….however I think the answer will be the same for both.

Thanks!

[TimTheEnchanter]

@axis_roll:

I know a sub can not pass thru a SZ with a destroyer, but is the opposite true?

Can a DD move thru a SZ containing a sub? 
Please answer for both combat and non-combat….however I think the answer will be the same for both.

Thanks!

Absolutely.  ANY ship can pass into or through a zone with just subs, including transports.  Applies to both combat (assuming those ships are involved in combat in a sz or amphib attack somewhere) and non-combat moves

And one clarification about subs moving into sz with destroyers.  the sub can move into a sz with a destroyer in Non-combat without engaging the defending fleet.  However they can not pass through.

@Official:

[Under [u]Special Combat Movement…Submarines]
Submarines are capable of moving undetected due to their ability to submerge. For this reason, they have special movement rules. 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.

This ability of submarines to avoid detection also allows enemy ships to ignore their presence. Any sea zone that contains only enemy submarines does not stop the movement of a sea unit. Sea units ending their combat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy submarines may choose to attack them or not. Sea units may also end their noncombat movement in a sea zone  containing only enemy submarines.

[Emphasis Added]

[jsp4563]

I want to double check something.  Can China build in a territory that contains more than 3 units if some of those units are allied (UK\US\Russia)?

[gamerman01]

Emperor -
China can build in any Chinese territory where there are 2 or less Chinese units (flying tigers is a Chinese unit).  Other allied units are irrelevant.

I’m 100% certain.

There is no rule about “more than 3”.  The rule is they cannot place units on any territory that already contains “three or more” units (so 2 or less is OK).  That’s straight from page 10 of the rulebook.

The rulebook is not clear that this is only Chinese units.  However, Krieg, etc, has established that on this thread.  You only count Chinese units.

[jsp4563]

@gamerman01:

Emperor -
China can build in any Chinese territory where there are 2 or less Chinese units (flying tigers is a Chinese unit).  Other allied units are irrelevant.

I’m 100% certain.

There is no rule about “more than 3”.  The rule is they cannot place units on any territory that already contains “three or more” units (so 2 or less is OK).  That’s straight from page 10 of the rulebook.

The rulebook is not clear that this is only Chinese units.  However, Krieg, etc, has established that on this thread.  You only count Chinese units.

I think i missed that, can you link me.