Best posts made by Krieghund

@cond1024 It is the same situation that would exist if Leningrad were recaptured by the Allies while Moscow is in Axis hands. If USSR does the recapturing, it cannot collect the income, but if another Allied power does the recapturing that power can collect the income. The only difference is that UK’s territories’ administration is divided between two regional capitals.

@Karl7 Yes. However, they cannot take control of it with only air units.

@Imperious-Leader said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

If you invade a true neutral, it and everyone else is now at war with you.

When you attack a strict neutral, only that territory joins the other side (with the exception of Mongolia being attacked by Japan). The rest of the strict neutrals become pro- the other side.

I’m not aware of any of the rules being officially translated into either Mandarin or Cantonese. Revised was the most widely-translated version, but that page is long gone from the AH website. As Panther said, BGG is your best bet for a fan-made translation.

Yes, it should, but since the game has been obsoleted by a 2nd edition, it probably will not be. However, in cases like this where a rule is clarified in the 2nd edition which also exists in the 1st edition, it’s safe to apply the clarification retroactively to the 1st edition as well.

@the_good_captain said in Submarine and submerge question:

Can you confirm that the case in Pacific is true for Europe as well? Thank you! (I will use this thread as a reference for the developers if needs be)

Yes. The “missing” Europe text corresponding to the text in Pacific is on page 26 of the Europe Rulebook.

There is no cap on income (other than owning the whole board).  Simply place your NCM on the maximum value, then place another one on the chart to track the excess.  Sounds like you’re having fun…

@taamvan said in Can Germany have more than 2 aircraft carriers in play:

Of course. In some early editions pieces were limited to what was in the box. NO MORE. If you add extra pieces or custom ones, you can have TEN (10) German ACs.

Except in Classic. Or maybe thats wrong.

That’s correct. In Classic, the number of unit stacks was limited to the number of pieces available. In every game since then, it’s been legal to use a proxy if you run out of pieces.

The reason that it can’t offload more than once is that if it did so during combat movement it would be involved, though indirectly, in multiple combats. This would require complicated rules, as there would be cases where it could be done and cases where it could not be done. Transport movement is already complicated enough without adding more exceptions, so it was decided that a transport’s movement would end once it offloads, period, no exceptions. It was felt that any flexibility added by allowing multiple offloads wasn’t worth adding more complication to transport rules.

@Du-Bist-Toten said in General Questions:

FURTHERMORE, the rules introduce another VERY interesting concept. They actually say that a sub can be held hostage in a zone, unable to go anywhere unless 1) the enemy destroyer above it leaves or 2) the sub fights its way out. In other words, a sub, when under an enemy destroyer, must either fight or “be frozen”. So it’s kinda trapped! Just move your destroyer to the same zone as a sub and then choose not to fight it; then the sub will be frozen until you move! The sub won’t attack you on the sub’s “turn” (even though the option is there) if the firepower of your fleet above it is too powerful! This “freezing of the sub” occurs because the rules say “If a submarine enters a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer, it MUST end its movement there.”

I’m afraid you’ve got this wrong. The rule you quoted means that a sub must stop if it encounters an enemy destroyer after it starts moving. If it begins its movement in such a zone, it may leave, as it did not enter the zone during its movement. Moving into a zone with an enemy destroyer merely stops a sub’s current movement - it does not pin the sub indefinitely.

So my question here is as follows: If a sub decides to fight it’s way out, and after one round of combat an enemy destroyer is still above it, can the sub just “chill out” and “just be frozen under the water” again AFTER the enemy retaliates for that round? OR does the sub have to fight to the death?

In this situation, if a sub were to attack rather than move away, it would have to fight to the death, as it could not submerge and would have no legal way to retreat. However, as I mentioned above, it may leave the zone, so it could move to an adjacent friendly zone and come back in combat movement before attacking, thus establishing a retreat route.

BUT, if NO DESTROYER is present, can the sub attack the fleet above for just one round, and then move two spaces away during non-combat movement IF the counter fire didn’t kill the sub? If a destroyer IS present above and the sub DOES kill it, can the sub move two spaces away during non-combat movement?

Neither of these is legal. Any land or sea unit that either made a combat movement or participated in combat may not move in noncombat movement.

I hope this helps.

@the_good_captain said in Submarine and submerge question:

@Krieghund additional question. Does the presence of an enemy industrial complex in a territory qualify as “occupied” in the context of blitzing with an armor.

Yes.

1. This is not legal, as any unit that loads onto a transport during combat movement must take part in an amphibious assault in the same turn. If one of the units on the transport had been loaded on a previous turn, it would be able to wait until noncombat movement to offload in that situation.
2. Yes, but simply being cargo on a transport during a naval battle doesn’t meet the requirement for loading in combat movement. The loaded unit(s) must actually participate in an amphibious assault (or at least attempt to).
3. Correct, except that both units must offload for the amphibious assault.

There hasn’t been a change. In fact, the rule was mentioned in the 1991 rules clarification document. You must have been playing it wrong!

@nerddog Unfortunately, WotC never updated the online versions of the Rulebooks with the latest changes, and Hasbro has placed those same versions on their website (Hasbro took control of Avalon Hill from WotC last year). Additionally, Hasbro has not placed the FAQs on their site, and I’m concerned that they never will. I have contacted them regarding the importance of providing the FAQs, but I have been met only with silence.

I have provided the most recent versions of all of the FAQs, including those for the out-of-print games, to this site for publication. As of now, they have not yet been posted, but I’ve been assured that they will be.

These FAQs should contain most, if not all, of the clarifications you mentioned (including the one about AAA). However, since they will not be on the Avalon Hill website, there will be individuals who will not consider them to be “official” (there were some who didn’t consider things on Larry Harris’ site to be official), even though they were previously published on the WotC site.

@skay85 The Rulebook can be found here.

@largowin Oh, yeah. I forgot this mystery is cleared up in the FAQ (it’s been quite a while for this one for me):

Q. When the defending player gets a hit with his AA gun against a Strategic Bombing Raid, are the lost units removed immediately or do they have a chance to return fire at defending fighters?
A. As the rule is written, if the hit is placed on an escorting fighter, the fighter gets to shoot at defending fighters before it’s removed. If the hit is placed on a bomber, the bomber is shot down before it gets to drop its bombs.

HOWEVER, this is an error in the sequence of play which contradicts the rules on anti-aircraft guns. The correct sequence was published in Axis & Allies: Pacific and it should be used in both games. In other words, any attacking planes that are shot down by AA get no opportunity to attack, regardless of whether they were lost during an SBR or a regular combat.

So, attacker casualties from AA fire are removed immediately, but attacker (fighter) casualties from fighters get to shoot back. Bomber casualties from either do not get to attack.

Yes, that’s correct.

Also, the border between sea zones 5 and 6 was corrected to line up with the border between Amur and Korea (also in the 1st edition FAQ).

@chaikov It appears you’ve found a minor mistake in the FAQ. Per page 18 of the Rulebook, “If a fighter has no carrier to land on at the end of the noncombat move phase, it is destroyed.” Therefore, it’s impossible for a fighter to exist in a sea zone without a carrier at the beginning of the Mobilize Units phase. There are also several other references in the Rulebook to fighters having to be on carriers by the end of the noncombat move phase, and none to “landing” in a sea zone where a carrier will be mobilized. It’s possible this particular entry was copied from LHTR and not properly “cleaned up” for OOB.

Regarding question 1, as Frimmel said, it’s important to not bring any baggage from other A&A games into the “battle” games, as their mechanics are very different. It would be inadvisable to point out those differences in the Rulebook, though, as that would simply confuse readers who have never played a strategic-level A&A game. It’s best for experienced A&A players to simply look at these games with a fresh eye, and it probably would have been good for the Rulebook’s author to note this in the introduction.

Regarding question 2, the reason why there is only one box on the Supplies combat strip is that, unlike with the combat units, there is no fixed stacking limit for Supplies. The combat units’ combat strips can have a fixed number of boxes due to their stacking limits, but the number of Supply tokens that can be in a hex is theoretically unlimited. Perhaps having an image of multiple tokens on the strip would reinforce the idea that multiple tokens may be hit, but the rules do clearly state so.