You’ll note from the credits that I had nothing to do with the Rulebook for AA50. I do bear some responsibility for continuing the error forward through copy-and-paste, though. However, in my defense, no one else noticed it in the past 6 years either. :-o
Don’t worry - we all still think you’re the bomb!
I’m still in the early stages of playing with this now known “loophole” and just realized an off-setting effect…
You can move a sub into a convoy zone with the enemy fleet and force him to choose between attacking the sub or making noncombat moves freely and leaving the sub alone, but even after leaving the sub alone for a turn, if the fleet remains there, then the sub is forced to leave on the next turn to avoid combat (assuming 1 or more destroyers there). And wherever it moves to, it is in range of the enemy fleet.
The sub can’t just sit there turn after turn if there is an enemy destroyer there - it only works once. Kind of blunts the effect.
Hi guys.
According to the current/latest ruleset, does Germany get the +5 if Italy controls Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad? Or does Germany need to be the occupying power?
Hi guys.
According to the current/latest ruleset, does Germany get the +5 if Italy controls Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad? Or does Germany need to be the occupying power?
Germany must be the occupying power (ie, the territory must be dark gray).
Can you land aircraft in a friendly neutral that you activate that turn with land units?
No. The territory (friendly neutral) was not controlled by your alliance at the beginning of your turn.
Page 22 about air doing non-com movements says they must land in a territory that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the beginning of your turn.
The rulebook includes the specification “but not friendly neutral” on page 22
Krieghund, there was a question posted recently about Japan restrictions when not at war with USA - how do you count 2 sea zones from WUS and Alaska?
For example, Japan is not allowed to end movement of boats in Z3 when not at war with USA?
How about 4 or 26, for example?
Not seeing the question, was either in a different thread or was removed by poster. But we still need to know. Someone else just asked me about it tonight.
Thanks!
Just start from Western United States or Alaska (not the Aleutian Islands) and move out two sea zones. The restricted zones are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
A convoy disruption question.
1 Russian sub is in SZ 99. Greece is Italian controlled. Syria is German controlled. End of Germany’s turn, the sub is still there and the Russian player rolls 2 dice and gets a 2. So 2 IPCs in damage to be assessed.
Do the Axis players then decide among themselves who takes the IPC hits? For example, 1 IPC from Germany, 1 IPC from Italy? Or can the disruption only occur against the country whose turn is ending because it is only that country who is about to collect income? So effectively just 1 IPC from Germany and the other IPC hit is ignored?
The disruption occurs against the country whose turn is ending…so Germany would lose 1.
It goes all the way back to AA50. It’s funny how a single word can have such impact and go undetected for so long.
I just realized that all official FAQ starting from at least AA50 have been updated to reflect this:
@FAQ:
Movement
Q. If some of my units begin my turn in a sea zone with enemy submarines and/or transports and
I decide to attack them, can I move some or all of my units out of the sea zone in combat
movement to avoid having them participate in the combat?
A. Yes. Even though the sea zone is not hostile (it contains no enemy surface warships), you can still
move units from the sea zone in combat movement to escape combat if you’re attacking there.
However, you must still respect the rules for moving units in the Combat Move phase to escape
combat.
@P@nther:
It goes all the way back to AA50. It’s funny how a single word can have such impact and go undetected for so long.
I just realized that all official FAQ starting from at least AA50 have been updated to reflect this:
@FAQ:
Movement
Q. If some of my units begin my turn in a sea zone with enemy submarines and/or transports and
I decide to attack them, can I move some or all of my units out of the sea zone in combat
movement to avoid having them participate in the combat?
A. Yes. Even though the sea zone is not hostile (it contains no enemy surface warships), you can still
move units from the sea zone in combat movement to escape combat if you’re attacking there.
However, you must still respect the rules for moving units in the Combat Move phase to escape
combat.
What is the last sentence referring to. Seems a contradiction.
The problem is the rulebook has not been corrected. That’s a FAQ that contradicts the rulebook. What was needed was ERRATA, which changes the rule as written in the rulebook.
@P@nther:
It goes all the way back to AA50. It’s funny how a single word can have such impact and go undetected for so long.
I just realized that all official FAQ starting from at least AA50 have been updated to reflect this:
@FAQ:
Movement
Q. If some of my units begin my turn in a sea zone with enemy submarines and/or transports and
I decide to attack them, can I move some or all of my units out of the sea zone in combat
movement to avoid having them participate in the combat?
A. Yes. Even though the sea zone is not hostile (it contains no enemy surface warships), you can still
move units from the sea zone in combat movement to escape combat if you’re attacking there.
However, you must still respect the rules for moving units in the Combat Move phase to escape
combat.
Nice one! P@nther.
What is the last sentence referring to. Seems a contradiction.
It refers to the rules on Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones. How is it contradictory?
The problem is the rulebook has not been corrected. That’s a FAQ that contradicts the rulebook.
I see it as an expansion rather than a contradiction. The Rulebook explains moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat, and this FAQ expands that rule to include friendly sea zones in which combat will occur.
I’m fuzzy on how this effects transports and non-combat moves. If there’s an enemy sub and I want to attack it, does that prevent me from loading a transport (starting in the same zone) for a non-combat move?
If so, imagine the units are already loaded onto the transport (from the turn before). Could I go ahead an execute my non-combat move as a movement away from the combat zone in combat-move mode?
I’m fuzzy on how this effects transports and non-combat moves. If there’s an enemy sub and I want to attack it, does that prevent me from loading a transport (starting in the same zone) for a non-combat move?
Absolutely. You’re moving the transports out of the zone in the combat movement phase to avoid combat.
If so, imagine the units are already loaded onto the transport (from the turn before). Could I go ahead an execute my non-combat move as a movement away from the combat zone in combat-move mode?
You can move the loaded transport away from the zone in the combat movement phase, but you can’t unload it in the non-combat movement phase. You could only unload them if doing an amphibious assault.
I posted discussion on this topic this afternoon on the 2014 and 2015 league rules stickied threads. You will want to read those (copy in both - so you only need to check one)
Sounds weird! Still problematic.
My instinct tells me the intention is to allow all units in that seazone to do non-combat move, whatever that might be (including upload and offload), in combat move phase.
