These are situations that seem to be outside the official (second edition) rules. Unless I'm missing something.

Suppose Russia is allowed attack Norway on the first turn, and does so with two fighters, three tanks (five units that hit with 1-3), and three infantry via Karelia, against 1 fighter, 1 tank, and 3 infantry. The five heavy units roll 1,1,2,3,4, an above average roll that scores four hits. Can the attack tell the infantry NOT to fire?

If the fifth unit is eliminated by infantry, Russia has to occupy Norway, possibly fatally weakening Karelia. Russia has now achieved its "strafing" objective (the German fighter should retreat, and the UK can occupy Norway on its turn.) So Russia would like to cap the hits at four, if allowed.

In the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan sends a battle fleet against the Hawaiian sea zone, and scores two hits on the first round. The US elects to take the carrier and fighter as casualties (so that the sub can withdraw).

If the carrier had survived, Japan can retreat its fleet to Wake Island, out of the Hawaiian dead zone. Can it do the same with a withdrawing sub? (The rules say that the battle is over, and the attacker must stand put, when the defender is DESTROYED. But the sub wasn't "destroyed.")

My theory is that the attacker relinquished his prerogative of "hot pursuit" of the sub and chose to withdraw after a short, one-round battle.

2 Answers 2


In the case of Karelia versus Norway, the infantry must attack; all attacks other than sub sneak-attacks are considered simultaneous, and you've already declared your attackers, so you must go down the line and attack with everything.

If you didn't want to take Norway, you shouldn't have attacked with so many models. You can always place your reinforcements in Karelia at the end of the turn.

  • I was planning to use the infantry as cannon fodder. But Bobby has a point: IF I'm allowed to order the infantry not to fire, I must do so before seeing the results of the heavy weapons attack. Because all the action would in reality be simultaneous.
    – Tom Au
    Jun 8, 2011 at 19:17
  • Here's an example of this concept from another context: bleacherreport.com/articles/…
    – Tom Au
    Jun 8, 2011 at 19:29
  • 1
    Agree, attacks are simultaneous. Managing dead zones and attacking with only the bare minimum required to capture a territory, but not leaving much to be countered, or attacking with just enough to strafe and damage while retaining the ability to retreat, are key tactical skills fundamental to the game.
    – Adam Wuerl
    Jun 8, 2011 at 21:07
  • Is "models" the Norwegian word for "pieces?" Jeg snakke lite Norsk.
    – Tom Au
    Jun 9, 2011 at 19:55

Remember that in a strategy level game like A&A 'turns' equate to something along the lines of a month. The kind of actions you are wanting to control are more 'tactical'. At the command level troops are committed to an attack long before the offensive begins.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .