Thx! Enjoyed the game, well played. Dice were unkind to you, especially the AA hits.
2013 - AAG 40 League
-
Hey all - I am starting up a couple of games and there are some questions on what is legal and what is not for using the bid.
I know that this thread - at the top - had some information about it, but I also have seen posts that seem to add or change some of that information.
Can someone post where a nice, concise set of current rules for bid placement exists for G40.2 in League play?
Thanks!
MM
-
Can someone post where a nice, concise set of current rules for bid placement exists for G40.2 in League play?
The closest you’re going to get to that is the original league rules, which are the oldest posts on this same thread, so check those out.
However, there have been some clarifications/interpretations since then.
It is allowed to put a unit on a territory (but not sea zone) that you own but do not have any units there (New Guinea, for ANZ).
Some players, on MUTUAL agreement, are agreeing to limit placement to 1 unit per TT/SZ, but this is not required by the official league rules - that is, you can deny it.If you have a question that I haven’t addressed, just ask your specific question here and it will get answered. If I don’t know for sure, Jenn is the rule-maker/interpreter and she can tell you. I’m just telling you what I know from seeing every single post about league rules throughout the year.
-
I guess the other big change from original was that you cannot bid units for China or France - correct?
-
I guess the other big change from original was that you cannot bid units for China or France - correct?
Forgot about that. Now that you mention it, Jenn made it clear that you can bid any non-naval unit to China that you want. AA, Bomber, tank, Tac, fighter, truck….
There is no prohibition against bidding for France.
-
Jenn made it clear that you can bid any non-naval unit to China that you want.
UnitS
There’s no limit, and no limit per territory unless players mutually agree in advance -
Whoa boy. OK - that is in direct opposite direction to what I am hearing from my 2 soon-to-be opponents - I am told a) no land units in a territory that doesn’t already have one b) no units for France or China and c) max of 1 unit per territory….
Help!
-
Whoa boy. OK - that is in direct opposite direction to what I am hearing from my 2 soon-to-be opponents - I am told a) no land units in a territory that doesn’t already have one b) no units for France or China and c) max of 1 unit per territory….
Help!
Like I said,
They’re dead wrong about a and b, and c is optional. You can refuse to abide by 1 unit per territory - just be clear about that before bidding
-
Whoa boy. OK - that is in direct opposite direction to what I am hearing from my 2 soon-to-be opponents - I am told a) no land units in a territory that doesn’t already have one b) no units for France or China and c) max of 1 unit per territory….
Help!
Like I said,
They’re dead wrong about a and b, and c is optional. You can refuse to abide by 1 unit per territory - just be clear about that before bidding
Yeah, there is a lot of such nonsense coming from the people who only played on the triplea lobby, before they migrated to the forum.
-
Whoa boy. OK - that is in direct opposite direction to what I am hearing from my 2 soon-to-be opponents - I am told a) no land units in a territory that doesn’t already have one b) no units for France or China and c) max of 1 unit per territory….
Help!
You do not need to have land units in a territory to bid land or air units there. The requirement that you already have a unit in a sea zone is only for naval units. The rule prevents certain exploits that might occur if nations were allowed to drop naval units in any sea zone. (Russian or Australian loaded transports could be especially deadly if you allow them to be placed in any sea zone.)
As for bidding units for France, I see no reason you could not bid units for France. I believe some players are overly concerned that if they give the Allies 18 or more IPC for a bid then players could stack 6 or more infantry in Paris, France and cost the Germans quite a lot of lost revenue or lost units or both. Perhaps next year the rule should be no bid units on capitols to resolve this specific issue - which I admit is an issue. However for now, there is no limit on what you can bid for France and in fact, I can see a couple of instances where a French unit may be exceptionally helpful later in the game as France is the only nation that can stop an Italian can opener.
As for bidding units for China. THIS YEAR ONLY you can bid any ground or air unit for China, since the rules do say that China can start with American units other than what they can build and use them as if they were Chinese units. (Flying Tigers.) It does not say you cannot also have armor and jeeps (Dancing Bears?) However, by consensus of this year’s players, it was decided that the rules will be amended next year to stipulate that China may only receive infantry, artillery and fighters as bid units.
In regards to how many units you can place in a territory or sea zone, there is no limit. Many players are requesting that you only place one unit per territory or sea zone, and of course, if both players agree then I have no problem with that restriction - but there is no official restriction that says that. My personal opinion is, if you are worried your opponent is going to drop 48 armored units in Bessarabia and drive to Rome in a day (all roads lead to Rome!) then bid LOWER. However, keep in mind that those restricting you to bidding one unit per territory also usually (in my experience) give you almost twice as much to spend on bids.
Lastly, the current bid rules do not prevent you from bidding to start with a technology either. (Precedent: Axis and Allies had optional rules allowing the Axis to start with specific technologies at the start of the game. Talking the classic game here, Germany had like Jet Power and Japan Super Submarines I believe.) You would have to discuss what said technology should “cost” but I would say 18 IPC worth of bid would be a good starting point. (average 6 dice * average die result of 3.5 rounded down since you are trying to get the most for your money. Your opponent might counter with 24 IPC depending on what technology you ask for. Etc.) Or, you could even negotiate to allow Russia or America to start the war earlier (good freaking luck getting your opponent to agree to that without giving HIM a bid for his side too, however!) For instance, you might say that America is allowed to declare war on the European powers if Germany invades any Russian territory, Sea Zone 125 or Sea Zone 127 (that is has a naval unit in either of those sea zones.) Precedent is set that “neutral” powers can be at war on one map only. Lastly you could even negotiate for the number of Victory Cities needed to win the game. While Germany/Italy may find it “easy” to get 8 on the European map, that Ninth might be a real b!tch or maybe you want to ask for victory conditions on one map but the other map also has to have 5 VCs Pacific or 6 VCs Europe (depending on which is the other map.)
Just because we find it easier to bid for IPC does not mean that is the only currency in the game to place bids with.
Final note: you may only keep 0, 1 or 2 IPC from your bid for your treasury. So if you bid for starting units you have to use all the materials possible for units. This gives the Axis at least a chance to see how you have laid out the board so they can make an informed decision of how they want to prosecute the war on their first turn.
-
jenn, your move in our game i think.
-
Anzacs are also a nation that could stop Italian can openers.
Also, I think a better rule than limiting placements in capitals would be to limit how many units can be placed in each terr. A limit of 1 per terr would ‘solve’ this issue about stacking France. It also negates the KJF stack Yunnan bid which imho runs contrary to the game’s intentions (ie allies have to juggle priorities in both or risk losing the game on one side)
-
It is outrageous that you would throw these bid rules out there late in the year. If these were the rules, then why weren’t they clearly stated at the beginning?
Negotiating number of victory cities? Bad idea
Can only keep 2 IPC’s in treasury? Why would you want to keep more? It’s always better to get stuff on the board immediately.You are running this league like Gargantua runs his tournaments, and that is not cool. Seriously, who put you in charge? Because I need to talk to them.
-
However, there have been some clarifications/interpretations since then.
It is allowed to put a unit on a territory (but not sea zone) that you own but do not have any units there (New Guinea, for ANZ).
Some players, on MUTUAL agreement, are agreeing to limit placement to 1 unit per TT/SZ, but this is not required by the official league rules - that is, you can deny it.This is how long it took to answer Miami’s question. I don’t know why you had to go and ramble, and then set up a bunch of new, arbitrary bidding rules. :roll: :-(
-
The moderator of the league should not be making up her own house rules unilaterally, and then foisting them on all of us.
League play should be according to official rules, except for the necessary bidding rules which help determine sides without argument.
There should be more than one moderator for a league that will have 500 games played in a year, to prevent the kind of arbitrary dictatorial rules and ideas that we have seen.
A moderator should have an active presence in the league, and be someone who can respond to issues and questions within 24 hours at the most, and often within 1-2 hours.
But Jenn is presuming that she will be the sole moderator for the foreseeable future, including next year, and as far as I know has never asked for help from anyone. Indeed, she ignores my efforts, assistance, maintenance of the standings, etc etc, answering questions that I’ve already satisfactorily answered, in her own way, as if I’m not even here.
The league rules themselves were largely copy/pasted from Darth Maximus’ AA50 league rules the year before. Very little effort or time has been sacrificed, yet she clearly likes the power and dictatorship. Most of the year, the league has gone on like a ship adrift at sea. Without anyone posting standings, helping with disputes, or answering game or league rule questions fo rmonths at a time, I wonder what would have happened.Who knows what I’m talking about?
We have got to have a different moderator or multiple moderators for next year’s league.A couple more points to consider:
Jenn has played precious little Alpha3 or 2nd edition G40, yet she decides that we’re going to add a house rule next year that the Allies can all attack together in Europe. Was this decided after several players talked about it and asked for it? No, it just came out of the blue. And now she’s making up rules in August about bidding that wasn’t set out in the league rules at the beginning of the year. I trust if there was another moderator or two, they would have stopped this. But there’s not.Apparently whoever is running this site (Dave?) is AWOL, just like Jenn was AWOL for about 3 months early in the league year. We can bump along with Jenn calling the shots <shudder>for the rest of the league year, but I’m saying she’d better not be in charge for a second year.</shudder>
-
Jenn, please don’t consider this as a “mutiny”. I appreciate the efforts you have put forth as moderator of the G40 league.
That being said, no one person could ever be expected to moderate such an active league on their own. I have long been advocating for another moderator and have several times put forth Gamerman as the logical choice. I know of no one else who has contributed even a fraction as much as he has to the league.
I wrote Dave Jensen suggesting that Gamer be instated as a moderator and he replied “sounds great”. since then i have not heard another peep from him. in that spirit, i move that gamer is immediately installed as the primary moderator for G40 league and that Jenn be his co-moderator. Gamer takes the league and when he is unavailable, Jenn fills the gaps. I know of no one who combines these two factors at such a high level: 1. passionate about A&A (he’s on multiple times a day for crying out loud) and 2. sky-high sense of fairness. He’s contributed immensely to the league with an extremely useful rankings system…… i could go on and on.
So, calling all participants in the league to speak now or forever hold your peace about gamer’s instatement to moderator status. Would like to get him a moderator badge (seems chances are low of ever getting “someone” at the site to help with this) asap but even without it, he should be the primary moderator active immediately.
FYI I say everything for the good of the league. We were all learning the game this year - I predict that NEXT YEAR is going to be an incredible year for the league and we owe it to ourselves to have a first class effort in place to direct the league from start to finish (ie, develop an appropriate updated playoff schedule, etc).
Who’s with me?
-
I’m all in favour of Gamerman being named main moderator with Jenn as his assistant
Jenn doesn’t have the time or capacity to maintain this on her own, and has not been consistent in communicating a clear message or guideline.
I vote for Gamerman
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30762.0
Actually, several others have already given their opinions as well, in the above thread from April.
Karl, Seth, tcnance, variance, WheatbeerNo need for those gentlemen to repeat themselves again.
-
It is outrageous that you would throw these bid rules out there late in the year.Â
Negotiating number of victory cities? Bad idea
Can only keep 2 IPC’s in treasury? Why would you want to keep more? It’s always better to get stuff on the board immediately.I did not say negotiating number of victory cities was a good idea, I just said it did not violate the rules of bidding.
As for 2 IPCs max in treasury, that rule has been codified since day 1. It’s listed on page 1.
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30762.0
Actually, several others have already given their opinions as well, in the above thread from April.
Karl, Seth, tcnance, variance, WheatbeerNo need for those gentlemen to repeat themselves again.
posting there
-
Excuse me for being a little frustrated -
You just kind of freaked me out about the haggling for victory conditions idea, and yes that does seem both arbitrary and unilateral. Also, it came out of the blue (was very unexpected).I am also just concerned about adding major house rules to the game, because only by playing by the uniform rule book can you count on what the rules will be, and your game is transferable to other venues, face to face, etc.
The fact that you consider me an unofficial league moderator assistant is news to me, and will help quell the angst, I think. I would just advise you not to change the rules of the actual game and there will be no revolts.
Oh, and yes you were gone for 4 months with no explanation and the league went on, but what you don’t recognize is that was in no small part due to my efforts.
Suggested Topics
