Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Axis & Allies» Forums » Rules

Subject: Axis & Allies air unit movement questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
geek mouth
Australia
flag msg tools
Hi everybody, I am an A&A newb trying to get my head around the rules. Last week I was reading up on subs, this week it's planes. I'm currently using a Classic 2nd Ed. rulebook as a base, but I'm assuming the following questions are so simple that they likely apply to most of the editions.

1. Can an air unit move over enemy occupied (vs. owned) territory?

I am almost too embarrassed to ask this question but I need the clarification. Air units can fly over enemy owned territory, neutral territory (in this edition), and presumably through enemy territory with just an AA gun, or an AA gun and an industrial complex. If it flies into a territory with ground and/or air units, must combat ensue? Or similar to a submarine can it "ignore" those units?

2. Flying over territory that has an AA gun

The Classic 2nd Ed. rulebook states that AA gun use is specific to the attack phase. Let's say I have a fighter in one territory, an enemy AA gun in the adjacent enemy-controlled territory, and then an enemy-occupied territory one move over (2 moves from where the fighter is).

During my combat phase I move my fighter two spaces into that enemy-occupied territory for battle, first flying through the adjacent territory with the AA gun. Let's say the AA gun misses my fighter on the fly-over, and my fighter survives the battle in the adjoining territory with two moves left over for the non-combat phase.

I plan to return my fighter to the space on which it started, so...
- Am I right to assume that I can do that? I.e. Move back one space through the territory with the AA gun and one space more to the friendly territory it started from.
- If it is right to assume that, is it then, as the rules state, the case that the fighter needn't worry about the AA gun on its return flight?

Apologies again for how simple these questions are. I'm otherwise really enjoying getting into this game!

-gm
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
geek mouth
Australia
flag msg tools
Another couple of questions...

3. Fighter/carrier relationship during combat move

Again, I feel like I'm going to send palms to faces with this one, but here goes.

- A fighter takes off from a carrier to attack an adjacent sea zone.
- Can the carrier participate in that same battle in the same sea zone?

RULE: Fighters cannot land in territories just captured on that turn.
ASSUMPTION: The player should aim to have its fighter return to the carrier from which it left, regardless of other places it might be able to land.
POSSIBLE PROBLEM: I need to do my best to get my fighter back to its carrier. If the carrier participates in the battle, it will end its turn in the sea zone in which the battle took place. Fighters cannot land in territories just captured on that turn. The fighter can't land on the carrier.

Is the answer one of the following:
- A sea zone doesn't count as a territory and as such isn't "captured." Your plane CAN end its turn on the carrier, even if the carrier is now in the sea zone in which the battle took place.
- In such a scenario, it's not that the fighter takes off first and the carrier follows, but that the carrier and fighter move as one (fighter stays on the carrier while it moves in for combat), and then they both participate in the battle.
- If I want to use the fighter in the battle, I can't use the carrier in the same battle. It has to stay outside that sea zone to provide a place for the fighter to land after the combat.


4. Carrier/fighter prioritization

Except when a submarine is involved and my carrier must be selected over a fighter as a casualty, do I have to endeavor to keep my carrier for as long as possible and not select it over my fighters as a casualty in order to provide any remaining fighters a place to land after the battle?

Is this still the case when I'm down to one carrier and one fighter, and I need to select one casualty between them? That would seem a Catch 22 for the fighter.

Is this still the case even if there are other places where the fighters can land should the carrier be destroyed? The overarching question is how important is it for fighters to be able to return to the carrier from which they departed.

With thanks...

gm
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Welcome to BGG and to A&A.

1. Yes, regardless of what occupies the territory.
2. An AA gun may fire once at each plane that flies into or over its territory during the combat movement phase only. It may not fire at units returning to land after combat.
3. The carrier may participate in the same battle, and a fighter may always land on a carrier regardless of where it may be (within range of course).

This
geekmouth wrote:

- A sea zone doesn't count as a territory and as such isn't "captured." Your plane CAN end its turn on the carrier, even if the carrier is now in the sea zone in which the battle took place.


4. You may choose to lose the carrier any time you wish. (If that means your planes dump in the ocean, it may just mean you have trouble recruiting new pilots in the future, once the word gets out--if it ever does. shake )

Rules are not always completely clear and everyone approaches them from a different angle.
Always ask the question. The only dumb one is the one not asked.
Have fun.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
geek mouth
Australia
flag msg tools
Thanks very much for the quick and kind reply to all the questions! That fills up some big gaps for sure.

tanik wrote:

Rules are not always completely clear and everyone approaches them from a different angle.
Always ask the question. The only dumb one is the one not asked.
Have fun.

So the idea that fighters should return to their carriers whenever possible, or even taking it one step further and making a point of preserving the carrier for them to land on during battle, would be a leaning toward a certain approach rather than a universally accepted approach to take when playing the game. Interesting...

Thanks again!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
geek mouth
Australia
flag msg tools
I've just been playing now and something else came up. I hope it's all right to throw one more question out there!

5. Carrier movement as safe landing space when all fighters are destroyed

I just had a round of combat where I moved my fighters into battle with some ground troops, attacking a coastal territory. Landing my fighters after the battle was not going to be possible unless I moved my carrier during the non-combat phase to the adjacent sea zone. I cited my ability to do this and combat was undertaken with the fighters.

I won the battle, but in order to secure the territory, I sacrificed my fighters during combat so that land units would remain on the ground. In other words, at the end of the battle I had nothing to land and therefore needed nothing to land on.

During my movement phase, I scrapped my plan to move my carrier to the adjacent sea zone, but my opponent cited that the movement of my carrier was locked in when I nominated it as a landing platform for my fighters. I disagreed, saying that the carrier was simply a device for making the fighters movement in the attack plausible. In other words, it would be a safe place to land --if they needed it--. They didn't (they were destroyed) so I thought it would be fine to move my carrier somewhere else if I wanted to. My opponent disagreed, saying I should move it where it would be for the (now non-existent) fighters to land.

I actually don't mind being wrong, but I'd like to know the correct interpretation. Or, are both valid as long as both parties can agree on which one to go with?

Thanks again!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Midnight Reaper
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Let Him Beware!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
geekmouth wrote:
I've just been playing now and something else came up. I hope it's all right to throw one more question out there!

5. Carrier movement as safe landing space when all fighters are destroyed

I just had a round of combat where I moved my fighters into battle with some ground troops, attacking a coastal territory. Landing my fighters after the battle was not going to be possible unless I moved my carrier during the non-combat phase to the adjacent sea zone. I cited my ability to do this and combat was undertaken with the fighters.

I won the battle, but in order to secure the territory, I sacrificed my fighters during combat so that land units would remain on the ground. In other words, at the end of the battle I had nothing to land and therefore needed nothing to land on.

During my movement phase, I scrapped my plan to move my carrier to the adjacent sea zone, but my opponent cited that the movement of my carrier was locked in when I nominated it as a landing platform for my fighters. I disagreed, saying that the carrier was simply a device for making the fighters movement in the attack plausible. In other words, it would be a safe place to land --if they needed it--. They didn't (they were destroyed) so I thought it would be fine to move my carrier somewhere else if I wanted to. My opponent disagreed, saying I should move it where it would be for the (now non-existent) fighters to land.

I actually don't mind being wrong, but I'd like to know the correct interpretation. Or, are both valid as long as both parties can agree on which one to go with?

Thanks again!

In this instance you are correct. You are not allowed to send planes off on suicide missions, they must have a place to return. That said, if you have no fighters left to land on your carrier you are not required to sail your carrier to where you would have landed your fighters if you still had them. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, but it is generally accepted practice in my experience.

If you have any fighters left, you are required to sail your carrier to pick them up. But if they are gone, you don't have to send your carrier after them.

-M_R
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Agreed.
I'll add that the necessity of retrieving the fighters is tantamount, but beyond that there is no future move requirement. For example, you don't need to declare which zone the carrier will move to in order to retrieve the planes. There is therefore no (declared) requirement to move the carrier until after the combat phase when it becomes apparent that it is needed (or not).
Essentially, each phase is conducted independently of each other.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
geek mouth
Australia
flag msg tools
Thanks very much for the replies! My opponent went hunting for the same information and came up with (more or less) the same answer, so we're good to go for next time.

Thanks again!

gm
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.