Best posts made by Krieghund

You can have multiple AA guns in the same territory, but only one may fire at a time. See page 25 of the Rulebook.

@cernel said in Submarine withdrawal question:

I’m not surprised of this clarification, as I’ve always been under the impression that the standard Classic II Edition rules-set was meant to assure enemy units would never share the same zone at the end of any turn. Correct?

Yes.

Nit-picking question: is a sea zone with no units in it a friendly sea zone? The fact that, in other passages, the rules state “friendly or unoccupied” makes me think that a “friendly” sea zone is only a sea zone with one or more own or allied units in it, whereas an “unoccupied” sea zone is only a sea zone with no units in it. Otherwise, if “friendly” means having no enemy units in it, then saying “friendly or unoccupied” is exactly the same as saying just “friendly” (as all “unoccupied” zones would be “friendly”).

“Friendly” is defined on page 12 of the Rulebook as “controlled or occupied by you or a member of your alliance.” This doesn’t include unoccupied sea zones.

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that being able to resolve the regular battle first and then conduct SBR only in case the territory was not overtaken is merely another oversight in these old rules, especially considering that the most recent ones force making the SBR first, so the two battles never actually influence each other?

Actually, per the 1991 Rules Clarifications, the SBR must be resolved first.

Is it correct to say that in the most recent rules-sets two battles never influence what may be done in each other beside the case of naval battles before sea-borne assaults?

The case of both attack and SBR against the same territory remains.

It is as @panther said. The only changes in the latest round of revisions (for Renegade Games) are the inclusion of FAQ and errata material. There were no actual rules changes.

@the_good_captain All of those things may be done. Central Powers units may move into and out of shared territories freely, with the only restriction being that they must maintain at least one infantry unit there.

The easiest way to tell is to look at the Avalon Hill logo in the lower right corner of the box top. If it has a “50” on it, it’s the original; otherwise, it’s the reprint.

@cernel OK, I see what you’re saying. However, I don’t think the statement, “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first…” means that subs cannot retreat with other units. Since this is under the heading of “Submarine Withdrawing”, I believe it applies only when subs exercise that option. In other words, if a sub (or subs) opts to withdraw on the same round that the attacker retreats, it must do so before the other units retreat, and any subs that do not opt to withdraw separately (as is stated earlier that they may) retreat with the other units to the same sea zone.

Thus, in the round that the attacker retreats, any or all subs may opt to withdraw separately (to one sea zone), and the remaining subs may retreat with the main force (to one sea zone). There is also nothing stopping both of these movements from being to the same sea zone.

@Hakuin Yes, you understand correctly.

@the_good_captain They can. Also from page 22, under “Land Combat - Reinforcement”:

If you offloaded units from transports into a contested territory (an amphibious reinforcement), you may conduct combat there, but it is not required that you do so. If you do, it is the same as any other land combat (see “Land Combat”, page 18).

All of the material from the FAQ and errata were incorporated into the reprint, except for the optional rules. If you want to use those, you will still need to get them from the FAQ document.

@the_good_captain This is not legal. Page 12 of the Rulebook states that combat moves are for moving units “into land territories or sea zones occupied by enemy units to engage in combat”. There are stated exceptions to this for moving into unoccupied enemy-controlled territories and for transports and battleships conducting and supporting amphibious assaults from friendly sea zones (and also for leaving an enemy-occupied sea zone to escape combat in the optional rules on page 31), but no other exceptions are mentioned. Other than these exceptions, all combat movement must result in combat.

UK Europe can never control territories on the Pacific board, and UK Pacific can never control territories on the Europe board.  Think of it as an administrative issue.  The territories are too far away from the opposite regional capitals to be managed and controlled properly.

@the_good_captain It is only during the pre-emptive artillery strike that tanks don’t cancel hits. Per the following paragraph, the land combat is conducted normally, except for battleship bombardment.

@cernel Since my name was “dropped”, I’ll respond to this.

You are correct. The original question (which @Panther answered correctly) only asked whether or not escort fighters were included in AA fire. Apparently @The_Good_Captain extended that answer to cover how AA fire is conducted incorrectly. Per the rules on page 25 of the Rulebook, when there’s a mix of fighters and bombers involved, each group is rolled for separately.

@the-janus First, let me say that if there are awards for rules lawyering, you should be nominated. :grin:

I’m not going to go through this point by point, as I don’t feel it’s necessary. Instead, I’ll reply in general terms.

First, while the terms “choose a casualty” and “lose a unit” are admittedly not consistently applied, there is a definite difference in their meaning as applied to the defender (they are functionally the same for the attacker) implicit in the rules: choosing a casualty is the act of choosing a unit to be lost and moving it behind the casualty line, while actually losing the unit occurs in step 6 of combat when the units behind the casualty line are cleared. This difference exists only so that chosen units (behind the casualty line) are allowed to return fire before being eliminated.

Second, the idea that units behind the casualty line may be switched out after all dice are rolled is refuted by the statement on page 19: “After the defender’s counterattack, the defender removes all of his or her casualties that were behind the casualty line of the battle board and places them back in the tray.” There is no mention of exchanging these units for others. The idea that something is allowed because the rules don’t expressly forbid it is flawed. The rules don’t expressly forbid a lot of things, but they’re obviously not allowed (rulebooks at least provide parameters for things that are allowed unless expressly forbidden). If something as big as switching casualties were allowed, the rules would say so.

In fact, if it were the intent that casualties be finalized after all of the attacker’s dice are rolled, it would be much simpler for the rules to instruct you to keep track of all hits and choose casualties after all dice are rolled. Why specify choosing them column by column only to change them later? It just doesn’t make sense.

Finally, allowing the defender to switch out casualties before removing them would give him/her a significant advantage over the attacker, who must remove their casualties as they are chosen. If the defender were afforded such an advantage, it seems the rules would at least mention this.

@shadowhawk said in Submerging before battle?:

I doubt that many of the rules where actually designed in a way to create these kinda loopholes. They are more build this way to make the game easier to play and more structured for beginners. The loopholes are just side effects that the designers either didnt think of or didnt think people would abuse as they are kinda illogical.

This is very true. There are a few “loopholes” that were created by attempting to keep the rules simple. However, there are also some complex interactions, such as those between submarines and other sea units, that are intended to make the strategy richer.

@the_good_captain They are inactive, since, per the FAQ, original Russian territories that are controlled by the Central Powers at the time of the armistice are considered to have no original controller for the remainder of the game.

@Derek said in Rules Q&A for North Africa:

“Attacking across or moving across an enemy-mined
border allows the controller to detonate them, as
long as the territory is Controlled or has enemy
units present…” -From the cheat sheet under Phase 3

I cannot find this rule in the rulebook. Can someone help? Where does it state that mines cannot detonate if it does not have ‘enemy units’ present?
There is actually an example in the rulebook of Italy detonating a mine against an attacking UK dd where no other axis unit (enemy to the UK dd) is present.

Unless I am understanding this wrong.
When you are the attacker, moving units into zones with enemy mines, enemy units would be units of the other side?

Land mines are active only in territories that contain a control marker and/or units of the owning power. Thus, a control marker and/or units of a power that is an enemy of the moving/attacking power must be present in order for detonation to occur. This is true only of land mines, as sea mines are always active. See pages 26 and 27 of the Rulebook.

ALSO:
Are German supply tokens only useable for German units? Or can any nation use any other (friendly) nation’s supply tokens for combat purposes?

Supply tokens are not owned by any power, so any power may use them, provided they are not in a territory that is controlled by and/or contains combat units of an enemy power. See page 18 of the Rulebook.

Welcome, yeomans!

Submarines can be attacked by air units in this game.  Of course, they will only get one shot before the sub(s) can withdraw.

You may be thinking of the rule that says subs can’t hit air units, or you may have read something concerning later versions of A&A in which air units are unable to hit subs without a friendly destroyer present.

It’s OK for Japan to move ships into sea zone 26 while not at war with the United States, but it may not move them any closer to the US mainland than that.  Start in Western United States or Alaska and move out two sea zones - Japan may not enter those sea zones.

@the_good_captain Yes. In fact, if the transport remains it cannot attack, as a warship is required in order to do so.