Classic rules, and some disagreements.

[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? ;)

[Cernel]

@taamvan We were just talking about TripleA and nobody said dead (I just said almost so, meaning rarely played).

[taamvan]

@Cernel Right–I just meant that this version is avidly played by persons other than myself.

[General 6 Stars]

A guy named Jason from my group still plays Classic with his brother since 2003. I even got them a 3 x 6 classic map printed for them a few months ago. And also Jason was at Gen Con to play classic. Just saying.

[The_Good_Captain]

@SS-GEN

@taamvan ”Right–I just meant that this version is avidly played by persons other than myself.”

Awesome! so would either of you or your friends like to play a game by forum? Oob rules, no bid, RR, you pick side?

[General 6 Stars]

I’ll see if I can get Jason to play. I don’t think he’s on Triple A.

[Cernel]

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

@AcesWild5049 Well you are always welcome to make a feature request for it. Here is the feature request subforum for TripleA: https://forums.triplea-game.org/category/42/feature-requests-ideas

Here is a list of the existing feature requests: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/182/guidelines-and-feature-request-list

Myself and a few others are the TripleA developers but only do this in our free time so prioritize what we think impacts the most users and what we are passionate about. If you know a bit of Java coding then you are always welcome to contribute yourself :)

Not trying to push about this or anything, but why feature request? Classic 2nd not following column (same strength) rolling is surely a bug, isn’t it? Also it impacts on defending submarines pretty badly, significantly lowering the average results for Russians in the typical round 1 attack on the Baltic Sea (without restricted), and that cannot be really fixed by moving the submarines shoots after the other units, as that would fix the case of submarines with transports, but move the problem to a number of other cases.

[The_Good_Captain]

@Cernel

It should be “feature requested” as it is a clearly defined out-of-box rule. AAA is perpetually running on a “house-rules” variant of Classic without it.

Here is my rationale and an example of when and where it can matter on turn 1 (starts at 8:14): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_u_mOFTcQA&t=511s

I don’t understand your comment about defending submarines.

-Aces