Both the manual and the FAQ are correct. The key concept is that subs can be ignored during movement. From the FAQ:
Q. Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships. If at some point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I ignore the subs and end the battle?
A. No. Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them. When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the enemy units in that sea zone.
So if there are only enemy subs and/or transports blocking your amphibious assault, you can choose to ignore them and they won’t block it. However, if you choose to attack them (or if there are also surface warships there and you are forced to attack them), you must defeat all of the defending units before your amphibious assault can proceed.
In a nutshell, subs will only fail to block your assault if you never attack them in the first place or if they submerged after you attack them. Once you attack them, they will block it until they are destroyed or they submerge. Does that make sense?
As a side note, there is a pending erratum to change the wording of the passage you quoted from the manual to make it a little more clear. The corrected wording will be “If there was no sea battle or the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy units except transports and submerged submarines,”. I don’t yet know when this will be published.
Both the manual and the FAQ are correct. The key concept is that subs can be ignored during movement. From the FAQ:
Q. Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships. If at some point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I ignore the subs and end the battle?
A. No. Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them. When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the enemy units in that sea zone.So if there are only enemy subs and/or transports blocking your amphibious assault, you can choose to ignore them and they won’t block it. However, if you choose to attack them (or if there are also surface warships there and you are forced to attack them), you must defeat all of the defending units before your amphibious assault can proceed.
In a nutshell, subs will only fail to block your assault if you never attack them in the first place or if they submerged after you attack them. Once you attack them, they will block it until they are destroyed or they submerge. Does that make sense?
As a side note, there is a pending erratum to change the wording of the passage you quoted from the manual to make it a little more clear. The corrected wording will be “If there was no sea battle or the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy units except transports and submerged submarines,”. I don’t yet know when this will be published.
Thanks for the reply. That’s exactly how I interpreted it, except that I think the FAQ is correct and the manual is wrong since it says that an amphibious attack takes place in the step after a sea battle “If the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy warships except submarines and transports”.
Had that wording been “is clear of” instead of “has been cleared of”, it wouldn’t seem like they meant that subs could be there after a sea battle took place. Good to know there’s updated errata on the way.
if 2 bombers and a cruiser attack a cruiser and 2 subs, and all attacking units hit in the first round, can the defender choose to take a casualty only on the cruiser or must he/she take one on a sub as well?
You must assign all of the hits that it’s possible to assign. In your example, the cruiser hit must be assigned to a sub, and a bomber hit must be assigned to the cruiser. This is the only way to assign the maximum possible number of hits. The second bomber hit has no legal target, so it is wasted.
Question:
US has a fleet w\TP in SZ62 and ground forces in Manchuria. Japan buys a DD and places it in SZ62. Can US destroy the TP and then pick up forces from Manchuria with the TP in sz62 and move them during Non combat move? I say no. They either leave the combat zone (move over) or they fight with the rest of the fleet (move over).
You’re right. If there’s a battle in the sea zone, all units there belonging to the attacker and defender(s) will participate, so they may not move in noncombat movement.
i have a question about the suez canal
in previous versions you had to hold both sides of your canal at the start of your turn.
in this version can i capture both side of the canal then non combat through the canal ?
In the rule book for AA50, page 4 under canals it states that you cannot use a cannal on the turn you captured it. Also it does state that you must control both sides in oreder to contorl the Suez.
Hope this helps. 8-)
@Emperor:
Question:
US has a fleet w\TP in SZ62 and ground forces in Manchuria. Japan buys a DD and places it in SZ62. Can US destroy the TP and then pick up forces from Manchuria with the TP in sz62 and move them during Non combat move? I say no. They either leave the combat zone (move over) or they fight with the rest of the fleet (move over).
Yes you are correct. The thing to remember is transports can only load in friendly sea zones and if they were part of a sea battle or were forced to retreat in the combat movement phase, then their turn is done, they cannot come back and load once the battle is over. 8-)
What’s the ruling on AA-guns,
Scenerio -
Japan takes control of Persia and gains control of an AA-gun.
Russia liberates Persia.
Is the AA-gun now Russian or UK?
Since Persia is liberated, the UK gets the AA gun along with the territory.
page 12 allows a player to not place units that were build this round, but delay the placement to one of the following rounds.
Ok let’s try that: UK builds an IC + 2 destroyers + cruiser (43 IPC) in round 1, but places only the IC in India.
now round 2 rule questions:
a) placing the three navel units from round 1 that haven’t placed yet:
can they be placed only in a sea zone next to UK or also to sz 35 because in round 2 there is a new IC in India that can also be used ?
b) if placing that units in another factory is allowed in general, does this “old units” count for the IC limit, or does an Indian IC (as an example) build 3 units + place all units from previous rounds ?
page 12 allows a player to not place units that were build this round, but delay the placement to one of the following rounds.
This is not a general allowance. The official faq (to be found here: http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf )
clarifies (see page 5):
Q. On page 22 it says that any new units that you don’t place in the Mobilize Units phase aren’t
lost, but can be placed on a future turn. Does this mean that I don’t have to mobilize my units
if I don’t want to?
A. You must mobilize all of your purchased units that you are able to. You may only hold back units that
you can’t mobilize because you don’t have sufficient production capacity. These units remain in the
mobilization zone until they are mobilized by you.
Ok let’s try that: UK builds an IC + 2 destroyers + cruiser (43 IPC) in round 1, but places only the IC in India.
now round 2 rule questions:
a) placing the three navel units from round 1 that haven’t placed yet:
can they be placed only in a sea zone next to UK or also to sz 35 because in round 2 there is a new IC in India that can also be used ?
b) if placing that units in another factory is allowed in general, does this “old units” count for the IC limit, or does an Indian IC (as an example) build 3 units + place all units from previous rounds ?
Considering the above quotation from the FAQ the naval units can be only held back if there is not enough production capacity left to place them - and in round one that is not likely.
If you run into a situation where you cannot place your units except an IC you will be allowed to place those units to any of your existing ICs in later rounds - without differing “older units” from “newer units”.
Thanks, P@nther!
AA guns again
pg. 20 “Liberating a Territory”
“…AA or IC in that (liberated for ally) revert to the original controller of the territory.”
Does this mean that if an WUS AA gun is in WCA, japan does a walk in from alaska, then next turn if USA takes WCA the AA gun gets british, because it was in their territroy ?
Yup.
Based on the rules when mixed planes attack a territory with an AA gun, the shots against different aircraft (i.e., against figs and against bombers) are rolled as separate groups, then casualties are chosen from among those groups.
Here’s my question: If some, but not all, of the bombers are carrying paratroopers, do all bombers still roll as a single group and then casualties are chosen? I can’t find any rule citation in the OOB book or the FAQ that would seem to clarify this.
The intent is that each air unit is fired upon individually. However, the rules allow for all fighters to be rolled for together and all bombers to be rolled for together, rather than rolling for each unit separately. This brings the precision to the level of unit types, if not individual units. The only material difference between one fighter and another would be how far it has travelled to get to the battle, so that’s all that’s given up by rolling them all together.
However, if some bombers are carrying paratroopers and some are not, there is as significant a difference between them as there is between a fighter and a bomber. They must be rolled for separately.
Here’s an interesting Rules question. The US\UK have a combined fleet in SZ13, the US CV has 2 UK fighters on board. It’s Germany’s turn, they have an IC in France and place a DD in SZ13. On UK’s turn can the UK fighters stay put or do they have to be involved in Combat or leave the seazone if UK does not attack?
My interpretation is that the fight or clear rule applies to warships only so the fighters would have the option to do either as they can be considered cargo. Lets consider the case of 2 brit infantry on a us transport……they can do neither as they cannot move on their own or offload as the seazone is hostile.
It is a grey area, but the UK inf would be allowed to conduct an assault on any of the land terrritories bordering sz13 since that is a legal combat move. But they have no way of leaving the seazone or particpating in a sea battle, so they really don’t have an option. The fighters are more tricky, they are only considered “cargo” when the carrier is attacked. My guess is that the fighters will have to battle or leave, but I can’t point to any specific rule to support that, only an extrapolation of existing rules and precedents, this is definitely one for the AA Supreme Court to decide. :-D
