Classic rules, and some disagreements.

[CrazyIvan]

Ah! Maybe I’ve finally mastered the arcane workings of the quote button at last!

@AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

@CrazyIvan

I made the comment about spare parts. I’m pretty sure its only you and I in here. Virtually any game that is/was in production at that time would offer players spare parts. I don’t know why this is the hill you want to die on. I will make no comment other than to quote Larry Harris from his FAQ (in addition to pointing out the reference to piece count limits on page 7 of the 2nd Edition manual) to allow anyone actually following this to make up their own mind:

**Q: Can I have more stacks of bombers (or battleships, or whatever) than there are bomber pieces? If so, how would I mark them?
A: Marking them isn’t a problem because you can’t have them in the first place. The number of playing pieces is a limit on how many forces can be in play. No one, for example, can have more than three bomber forces or more than two carrier groups. The only exception to this absolute limit is chips; if you run out of chips you can use anything else as a substitute: pennies, beads, slips of paper, or whatever works for your game.

Note that this applies throughout the entire turn. A stack of six bombers can’t split up into more than three groups when they fly out to attack.

Q: After everything is set up at the game’s start, there are only four additional complexes left over. Can more than that be built?
A: No. Once four new industrial complexes are brought into play, no more can be built.**

Right, so I took the liberty of bolding the questions that Larry was answering, all those years ago, and from which came forth the FAQ PDF.

Larry’s answers are right and correct, if, and only if, we assume that this conversation is about an OOB setup. In both the rules & the FAQ, nowhere is there any mention of the extra playing pieces that one could buy.

The problem with both the PDF of the FAQ, and the rules, is that they do not address when extra playing pieces are on hand! The thing that I object to is the assumption, based upon no evidence I see in either location, that this answer is definitive even when the extra playing pieces have been duly purchased. The limit is on the actual playing pieces, not some preset number (unlike in Fortress America, where armies are of an exact composition), and in classic A&A, the RULES state that you can buy extra pieces. Folks misunderstanding what the FAQ is actually saying and then trying to make like there is some rule that is not in the actual rule book is clearly a mistake.

For instance, if in this conversation the question had arisen, “If I buy a second game, or just a second set of plastic playing pieces, and therefore have more than 2 carriers or 3 bombers or whatever, can I then go ahead and have more stacks than if I just had one set?” and then the answer was given as, nope, not even then could you do that, this wouldn’t be an issue. But the FAQ & the rules don’t include any mention of extra pieces at all, so the assumption being made here (mistakenly in my opinion), is that the question of extra playing pieces had come up, and these answers factored them in seems baseless and unsupported. My own belief is that the question of extra playing pieces was not considered, and that, had it been, the answers Larry provided would have included something like, “unless you buy additional playing pieces”. :)

Basically, I need to see something that establishes whether or not Larry was taking extra playing pieces into account when those questions were being asked and answered, as otherwise we are left with two camps, one that takes these answers as is, and tries to deny folks the use of their property based upon a potentially misunderstood belief, or the other camp, that bought the extra playing pieces in good faith, with the understanding that they would then have enough pieces to have even bigger armies on the board, then being told that all those extra playing pieces must be set aside, and NOT used.

[The_Good_Captain]

This, to me, seems to be an exercise in reaching for a desired conclusion. Your extrapolated argument is so tangential that if the folks at MB and LH himself had intended the exception of simply buying additional playing pieces to circumvent this rule, they would have said so. Instead, it is clearly stated three times with multiple supporting examples to the contrary.

What is more likely:

that there is a piece count limitation as stated…

or that on the three separate occasions where it is stated, the game designer and game company forgot to add in a game altering, critical exception that went against their own examples…

[CrazyIvan]

I want to say that I respect you, and am not wanting to anger/annoy, but you seem to be missing something. See the bolded part below.

@AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

This, to me, seems to be an exercise in reaching for a desired conclusion. Your extrapolated argument is so tangential that if the folks at MB and LH himself had intended the exception of simply buying additional playing pieces to circumvent this rule, they would have said so. Instead, it is clearly stated three times with multiple supporting examples to the contrary.

Firstly, it isn’t a rule and never was. please bear with me, while I explain why this is so. I promise, even though I have a very tough time explaining things, I am doing my best to shed light on an area where folks are making something out of nothing, and coming away with a misconception. I apologise if this takes more time and effort to straighten out than it should, but in the end, I’m 100% sure that everyone is going to see the mistaken beliefs as what they are. :)

Actually, let’s approach this from a different angle, and perhaps this will shed some light on the subject, and get my point across.

Once upon a time, a really great game designer Larry is working with MB, back when A&A was young, and they made massive numbers of extra playing pieces, which cost them a lot of money, and if folks can use whatever they like to designate a particular piece, rather than, say, buy the actual pieces that are being offered for sale in the official rules {and, to reiterate a point I have already made, that have already been paid for by MB}, then they are going to be taking a financial loss for any of these additional plastic playing pieces, that they have made and are offering for sale.

Along comes a question and answer session, where Larry Harris does indeed make clear, “You cannot use anything else to substitute for an actual plastic playing piece!” And, as noted, this is indeed done several times, in various places, both in the rules and in the FAQ.

Now, let’s look at this from the perspective of a toy company. The facts:
#1 You cannot use substitute for the real thing, you must cap every stack with a plastic playing piece.
#2 We are offering additional playing pieces right in the rules.
#3 We already paid for these, and need to sell them or suffer a loss.

So, my contention is that, they want folks to buy their pieces, not limit the ‘stacks’ within their game, and this is probably a very good example of how they went about it wrong!

MB wants to sell these pieces, rather than waste the money on their production, so the whole thing with the FAQ/rules is NOT about making folks be limited in their gameplay, but rather, to get them to buy the pieces! :)

Hopefully, this attempt clears away all the misunderstandings and misconceptions about what Larry Harris was really saying way back when, and everyone can now put the flawed concept of there being a rule against buying and using the extra pieces to rest.

It isn’t in MB interest to make the pieces, and try to sell them, only to make a rule against their use, for then no one is going to buy them.

Like the kid in the Matrix said: “There is no spoon” === “There is no rule”.
:)

[CrazyIvan]

I missed this the first time round…

@AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

What is more likely:

that there is a piece count limitation?

or that on three separate occasions the game designer and game company forgot to add in a game altering, critical exception that went against their own examples…

The answer is, there was a miscommunication, somewhere along the way, and folks came away with the misunderstanding that one couldn’t have more stacks than they had playing pieces to top them with, based upon what came in the box, rather than, say, that they simply could increase their maximum potential stacks by just buying the extra playing pieces offered on page one!

Instead, what was supposed to have happened, was that folks would shell out the extra bucks, and use the parts being offered, rather than using proxies.

So, it isn’t that MB wanted some weird “Piece count Limitation” in the game, but rather, that they wanted to sell extra playing pieces, that they had already made at their expense, but they did it so badly that… :)

What is more likely, that a toy company made massive numbers or extra playing pieces, at a significant cost that they intended to offset by offering them for sale, despite some ‘rule’ that forbid this…

Or somebody goofed, and there is no such rule, only a misunderstanding?

[The_Good_Captain]

Well, I think Larry Harris wanted us all to have Heavy Bombers by world turn 10 if nobody had them. I think there was an oversight when the manual was printed. In fact, I’m 100% sure of it. He just forgot to say it despite the rules about technology dice.

^ That is a joke.

Your anecdote is purely conjecture. There is no mystery here. It’s stated with perfect clarity supported by specific examples esp in regards to the restriction of building no more than four industries after the initial setup. Anything else is a house rule.

[CrazyIvan]

Well, you are certainly making me work hard to convert you from the true believer, into a radical non-believer!

@AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

Your anecdote is purely conjecture.

Actually, my belief is the one that will prove true.

There is no mystery here.

Indeed, I agree with you on that, there is no mystery. :)

It’s stated with perfect clarity supported by specific examples esp in regards to the restriction of building no more than four industries after the initial setup.

And of course, this doesn’t answer the real question, if one buys the extra playing pieces, and thus has 16 industrial complexes remaining, rather than just four, what then?

Anything else is a house rule.

I’ll give you this, you are putting up a stubborn defense of the faith, against my heathen army of despots!

In all seriousness though, I think that we have the truth now, it just needs time to sink in.

We both know that the official rules have lots of issues, and the same can be said for the FAQ. My position is not based upon a cherished, and long held belief, that I knew something that few others knew, but rather on the realities of business and common sense.

Lets try it this way:

#1 In the official rules, on page 2 (upthread, I mistakenly wrote page one), in the lower right hand paragraph, extra sets of playing pieces are offered for sale. We can agree on this?

#2 A business doesn’t spend money on a product they don’t believe is going to sell. We can agree on this?

#3 Both the FAQ and the Rules state that you can have more of a unit type than you have playing pieces for, and using chips or coins or whatever is ok, as long as the stack has the proper playing piece on top. We can agree on this?

#4 Other Gamemaster series games come with spare parts, but these are usually limited to 1-2 pieces of a given type, but the extra sets of playing pieces offered here are a full 299 pieces! A bit much, and more than a little overkill for just spare parts, is it not? We can agree on this?

#5 Other games in the Gamemaster series, contemporarys to A&A classic, expressly forbid using any ‘extra’ or ‘surplus’ pieces, because those games have exact army sizes and compositions. A&A classic does NOT forbid using ‘extra’ pieces, because it’s army sizes are not fixed with respect to size or composition, but rather can grow during the course of a game. We can agree on this?

I can go on and on, but the gist of it is that, if you want to cling to your (mistaken) belief in a “Piece Count Limitation Rule”, based upon the very flimsy foundation of a badly worded FAQ, that clearly isn’t including the possibility of having extra pieces, as ‘proof’ that they are not allowed, well, who am I to try to dissuade you? I just hope, that once you do realise that the FAQ is not forbidding folks from buying and using the extra playing pieces, but rather overlooks the issue entirely, because it was badly done, you don’t have any bad feelings about it. :)

[The_Good_Captain]

I read about half of this and now I’m pretty sure you’re trolling me. Well done, but I’m finished now. I have nothing else to say about this “topic”.

Except that I should ask if we are playing by your rules in our game?

[CrazyIvan]

@AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

I read about half of this and now I’m pretty sure you’re trolling me. Well done, but I’m finished now. I have nothing else to say about this “topic”.

Except that I should ask if we are playing by your rules in our game?

Not trying to troll you. I thought at first that you were having a bit of fun at my expense, and were in fact pretending that you really thought that the FAQ was spelling out that folks couldn’t use the extra playing pieces, even if they bought them, but I think now that you are seriously saying that is how you interpret it.

House rule?

If by that, you mean, am I going to insist on being able to buy virtual pieces, that my budget can afford, rather than, say, being limited to some mistaken misinterpretation of the FAQ, which is after all specific to use of actual, physical playing pieces, on a physical board, and then being carried over to the virtual game, then I’m not sure.

I’ve remembered once upon a time, I ran across a guy that I was playing with at my last duty station, and he said something about not being able to split my bombers up and send them out individually after his scattered transports, and so I went into my parts boxes and pulled out an actual bomber playing piece, and poor alaska was just a mess! Apparently, he had heard about the Piece count limit as well, but when I pulled out 15 actual bombers and set them in alaska, that ended the objection to me using chips.

I have to ask for clarification on this point:

You and I believe differently on just what the FAQ is, and this basically comes down to the question of, does the conversation that larry harris had, way back when, that served as the basis for what became the FAQ, include the whole extra playing pieces question, or does it ignore it? If the conversation that later became the FAQ overlooked (or perhaps, predated) the printing of the 2nd edition manual, then that would mean that the issue was not ‘carved in stone’, but yet another example of what can go wrong when writing a game. :)

To answer your question, then, I first have to ask you not to call it a house rule (of mine), because to me, it is more like a house rule (of yours), based upon actual playing pieces, and then being (wrongly) imposed upon an electronic playing field, where there are no actual pieces.

All that being said, I’m just wanting to have a good game, and a good time with a fellow Classic A&A player, and so if your really want to play that way, I’m ok with it. Besides, I’ll not likely survive long enough to get to the point where limited AA guns/IC will be an issue, lol.

[The_Good_Captain]

At this point, I don’t believe our game will be constructive. I don’t play with “gotchas” and I don’t want anyone to feel that a win or loss was due to someone “allowing” a “house rule”. Until this is resolved I will refrain from playing our game.

The conditions under which I will concede the point are if you come up with evidence as opposed to conjecture, i.e. an FAQ or some other rule that we’ve missed that clearly states your exception to the stated rule. Barring that, if Avin or DizzKneeLand or a large amount of reputable community members jump in and tell me your interpretation is the correct one and mine is wrong, that would go a long way to changing my mind as well.

Best of luck, hope to play you soon.

[Krieghund]

For the record, @CrazyIvan asked me the extra pieces question privately, and I gave him the same answer that @AcesWild5049 did: extra pieces don’t allow you to have extra stacks. The rules and FAQ are clear on this.

As to the question of why MB would sell extra pieces if they can’t be used for extra stacks, the reason is simple. After the publication of the first edition, many players wrote to MB asking if they could buy extra pieces, so MB made them available (to make money, of course). Rather than sell them piecemeal, they sold them in complete sets, as that was the easiest to deal with both in terms of manufacturing and order fulfillment.

As to the question of why someone would buy extra pieces if not to allow extra stacks, there are a few reasons:

1. Many people don’t like to use chips.
2. They could be used for house rules, including lifting the stack restriction.
3. People need replacement parts.
4. The pieces are cool. You have to remember, this was 1984, and there was nothing else like this game on the market. The pieces were an even bigger deal then than they are today.

Hope this helps!

[CrazyIvan]

First, let me apologise.
Second, let me apologise again.

In homage to a movie scene I love:
“It looks like {CROW} is back on the menu, boys!”

I had more images, and a large amount of text that was going to be my reply, but then I noticed something else that I cannot explain.

I’ve been going on and on about the “Extra Playing Pieces” offered in the manual, but going back to the photo I just took in the wee hours of the morning, I just now noticed that it doesn’t actually say that!:upside_down_face:

In homage to a song I love:
"My eyes saw {Extra Playing Pieces} but the {book} still said {Additional Game Parts}.

I think I’ll shut up now, and wait for confirmation of what the official answer guy is saying just above.

Appropriately named 'Crazy’Ivan sits down at a very large dinner table, covered with a vast variety of dishes, all of which contain CROW!

@AcesWild5049 @Krieghund My sincere apologies, gentlemen, and maybe I should see the doctor.:face_with_head_bandage:

[The_Good_Captain]

no worries, this is what the forum is for anyway.

[Midnight_Reaper]

@CrazyIvan
My personal take on this issue has always been: “The rules as written say that you can only have x number of stacks, limited by the amount of pieces in one standard box. That said, we are going to ignore that particular rule, here’s a boat-load more pieces, dig in!”

It’s good to be able to hold on to what you understand, and it’s also good to admit when you’ve been mistaken.

Take care, and game on!

-Midnight_Reaper

[Cernel]

@redrum said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

@AcesWild5049 Interesting. Never knew that though not a classic expert. I believe that is a classic only rule so given that few people play it at this point, its fairly unlikely TripleA will ever support that.

@AcesWild5049 or @Krieghund please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is not a “Classic” rule, but a 1st and 2nd edition only rule, while the two 3rd editions roll all at once (really unsure here).

Also @DizzKneeLand33 traditional Low Luck gameplay on the 2nd edition ignores this rule, as well, right? If so, TripleA would probably have this behaviour not applying if Low Luck is selected, which would reduce even more the pool of users, as I believe most of the few remaining Classic players play Low Luck.

[Krieghund]

@AcesWild5049 or @Krieghund please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is not a “Classic” rule, but a 1st and 2nd edition only rule, while the two 3rd editions roll all at once (really unsure here).

Yes, that’s true. It disappeared in the 3rd edition, which was computer-based.

[The_Good_Captain]

@Cernel

To the first point, OOB rules of MB edition Axis and Allies comes with a 2nd edition rulebook. In point of fact, this IS the classic.

To the second point, who and where are the “few remaining Classic” players and how do you know they use Low Luck? I’m asking out of curiosity given that I have a YouTube channel dedicated to OoB classic play.

Thanks!

[Cernel]

@AcesWild5049 Well, no. Classic is an official (or semi-official?) retroactively applied definition for anything until and comprising Iron Blitz (@Krieghund will correct me if I’m wrong); so, if you think that is not Classic (?), you would need such definition to be changed (if I’m correct).

I was thinking at the TripleA lobby. Classic has almost completely died out, but I recall there were around some die-hard fanatics, and Low Luck was a popular setting. Aside from TripleA, I can think about the DAAK (no idea if still alive), that it is strongly Low Luck oriented. However, I’ve no actual statistics about how many Regular Luck vs Low Luck games of Classic are played, and I’m not seeing Classic being played by forum (where you could check this out).

However, talking about things that it is obvious exist just to make the game somewhat easier to play for real, the fact that TripleA doesn’t support multiple stacks limits is probably the biggest issue here.

Also, you could fix the rolling inconsistency by just moving over to the 3rd edition rules, as you can use those for the boardgame too. You just have to remember not to move from Western Canada to the Atlantic Ocean.

[Cernel]

Also talking from a TripleA coding standpoint, if a developer would just implement that feature generally for Classic, he would bug off all the 3rd edition ones, as well as all custom maps that are supposed to be Classic 3rd edition based.

[The_Good_Captain]

@Cernel

I can write off the first bit to semantics. I didn’t know the community definition bundled all of that together. The MB box has this rule.

I can’t tell if you’re saying that 3rd edition TripleA has column rolling or not.

As to the forums, I’ve played a number of 2nd edition classic very recently with more scheduled. Doesn’t seem to be a terrible shortage of opponents atm.

I’m aware of Daak which is dead as far as I can tell. Thanks for the response 👍👍

[taamvan]

You guys are completely wrong about the game being dead; Champion Steve runs an early-bird Classic Only tournament, it is avidly played at Gencon–and Steve being its biggest proponent (and best player, nationally) still plays other versions. Sometimes at the same time as a good game of Classic (like speed chess).

So this does have some relevance, I wonder if the tournament play limits you to 2 locations for each piece.

And, to be a real rules lawyer, what if your edition came with more pieces, by mistake–could you sell that edition for $300 because in that one copy, 3 carriers are allowed for Japan? ;)