AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

[gamerman01]

@Krieghund:

@DutchmanD:

1. If China goes first and liberates a territory, the US cannot land aircraft there on its Noncombat movement. Larry’s answer to Telamon’s letter seemed to indicate that one of the China advantages is being able to go first with one or the other (China and US). I’m not sure why this would matter if there wasn’t some advantage regarding aircraft landings (aside from the Chinese being able to place new units in territories liberated by the US).

Any number of situations could exist in which it was advantageous for one country or the other to go first.  The best example that I can think of is for one side to “soften up” an Axis-held territory so that the other could take it.  It would depend on the relative composition of the forces involved, as well as the overall circumstances, as to the optimal order of execution of the battles.

Thanks for getting question 2, Gamerman01!

Reply #510

[gamerman01]

EM, I just put in “China” in the search box.  Worked like a charm.  I suggest searching this thread in the future when you have a question.  (see the 3 posts I quoted before this post for the product of your request)

[jsp4563]

Forgive me “Annointed One”, i hadn’t realized you had crowned yourself “Lord of the Rules Board”, i’ll make note of your “suggestion” before posting in the future. :lol: :lol:

[gamerman01]

@Emperor:

Forgive me “Annointed One”, i hadn’t realized you had crowned yourself “Lord of the Rules Board”, i’ll make note of your “suggestion” before posting in the future. :lol: :lol:

A simple “thank you” would suffice.

You wanted to know the answer to the rule, why didn’t you search for it yourself?  I don’t know why I went and found it for you, now.  I guess it was because I said I was 100% certain and you wanted proof.

There’s your proof.

[jsp4563]

Since you blocked any reply to your PM, I will post it here.

@gamerman01:

EM, I just put in “China” in the search box.  Worked like a charm.  I suggest searching this thread in the future when you have a question.

If I posted a response like that to you, wouldn’t you take offense?  You basically said, “Search before wasting our time” as if the board was your personal fiefdom.  If you don’t want people asking you to provide documentation for your interpretation of the rules, don’t answer.  It’s not like I asked you personally.

[gamerman01]

@Emperor:

Since you blocked any reply to your PM, I will post it here.

@gamerman01:

EM, I just put in “China” in the search box.  Worked like a charm.  I suggest searching this thread in the future when you have a question.

If I posted a response like that to you, wouldn’t you take offense?  You basically said, “Search before wasting our time” as if the board was your personal fiefdom.  If you don’t want people asking you to provide documentation for your interpretation of the rules, don’t answer.  It’s not like I asked you personally.

You misunderstood me.  I was telling you about the search function for your convenience.  Yes, I was a bit upset that you didn’t believe me.  No, I don’t really blame you for asking for proof.

Be careful before you start calling names, please.  Besides, you’re the one who calls himself “Emperor”.

[jsp4563]

@gamerman01:

@Emperor:

Since you blocked any reply to your PM, I will post it here.

@gamerman01:

EM, I just put in “China” in the search box.  Worked like a charm.  I suggest searching this thread in the future when you have a question.

If I posted a response like that to you, wouldn’t you take offense?  You basically said, “Search before wasting our time” as if the board was your personal fiefdom.  If you don’t want people asking you to provide documentation for your interpretation of the rules, don’t answer.  It’s not like I asked you personally.

You misunderstood me.  I was telling you about the search function for your convenience.  Yes, I was a bit upset that you didn’t believe me.  No, I don’t really blame you for asking for proof.

Be careful before you start calling names, please.  Besides, you’re the one who calls himself “Emperor”.

“We forgive you” <looks aloof=“” and=“” heads=“” for=“” his=“” throne=“”>, “Vir, send in the next one”  :lol: :lol: :lol:</looks>

[Yoshi]

One more sub question :

If there is a US transport and a japan sub in sz59. Japan turn, he attacks the transport with a fighter.

May the sub move during ncm or was it considered as participating to the combat (and therefore should move during the combat move) ?

[Krieghund]

If it wants to move, it must do so during the Combat Move phase or it will be participating in the attack on the transport.

[Yoshi]

That’s what I was thinking, but was not totally sure.

Thanks for the answer !

[jsp4563]

Question about the Feb 5th FAQ Errata regarding Heavy Bombers.

Is the 2 Dice pick best apply only to SBR?

[Gharen]

I think it applies to even normal attacks and I don’t think it nerfs the tech that bad.  Sure you still only get 1 hit but you get 2 dice rolls to try to get that hit.  It will result in less casualties from heavy bombers which I think is an attempt to make it more balanced cause when a country got the tech in the past that was all they ever built and they usually won the game by flooding boxes with dice hits.

[Krieghund]

It applies to both.

[lozmoid]

When attacking/SBRing with two or more Heavy Bombers, should we roll for each unit seperately? Or do we just through all the dice together and pick the best results out? For example: I attack with 3 Heavy Bombers - do I roll two dice for each unit seperately, or do I throw all six dice at once and pick the best three results?

Many thanks.

[gamerman01]

It’s separate - bomber by bomber.

[Battlingmaxo]

@Krieghund:

It applies to both.

I think Heavy Bombers suck now. I think I’ll take shipyards for Russia.

[gamerman01]

@Battlingmaxo:

@Krieghund:

It applies to both.

I think Heavy Bombers suck now. I think I’ll take shipyards for Russia.

Well said.

I’m in disbelief.  I will only play the old way - I’m sure there will be no shortage of opponents who agree.

If HB are nerfed like this, then LRA needs to be +1.  Mech infantry needs to be 2 armor to carry 1 inf.  Paratroopers need to be nerfed (hmmm, like no bombing by transporting bombers?) Rocket attacks should be like the old days - 1 attack per country per turn.  Oh, and increased production?  How about taking away the 1/2 price repairs?  Because if you don’t, increased production makes a power nearly impervious to SBR, even by punked “Light Heavy” bombers.  :lol:  Hmmm, radar should be every OTHER 2 hits, so you have to keep track of that too.

My point?  Heavy bombers aren’t overpowered in AA50.  LRA is, if anything is.

If you want to tweak a heavy bomber rule, it needs to be done in Classic or Revised, a lot more than it’s needed in Anniversary.

[Battlingmaxo]

Yes, I’ve managed to win some games where the opponent hit HB’s and LRA very early on. The key is to protect your fleets and for Germany to hit increased factory production. You know what I’m talking about gamer.

[gamerman01]

@Battlingmaxo:

Yes, I’ve managed to win some games where the opponent hit HB’s and LRA very early on. The key is to protect your fleets and for Germany to hit increased factory production. You know what I’m talking about gamer.

:-)

Ah, the memories, I will cherish them for a long time.

Yep, that’s why I said Revised and Classic need this tweak far more than 50.  50 has a bigger board - more territories - so Heavy bombers don’t cover as much ground as they used to.  The biggest thing are there are new techs that help counter heavies that weren’t there before.  Improved shipyards, increased production, radar, even war bonds.

We don’t need nerfed heavies in AA50.  If anything, it’s LRA that can kill you at almost any time, early or late.

I thought they’d already made all the adjustments that were needed to tone down the old heavy bomber doomsday scenarios.  Cheaper boats, the several compensating techs I already mentioned, NO’s that provide more money, more territories on the map, capped damage on SBR, the whole repair complex idea (as opposed to directly bombing money) etc.  Yet still people complain heavy bombers are the end-all be all.  I just haven’t seen it, and I’ve played about 30 games of AA50 with a wide variety of opponents.

Why did this rule get changed???  I’m not going to adhere - I’m only going to play people with 2-hit heavies, more out of protest for changing the rules on us than anything.  I guess the original rulebook was purposefully left ambiguous on the point (the rulebook was quite frankly terribly lacking on the tech rules, kind of expecting the reader to read the writer’s minds - see paratroopers, increased production, heavy bombers……  :|)

[Battlingmaxo]

I used to get a chubby when I hit HBs…what am I going to do now??  I don’t think Viagra and super subs will cut it.