Rules clarification

Unfortunately there are several errors/typos in the new cards.

It looks like the 7pt one has the ribbon?

@Motdc:

With these new rules, you cannot start the game with your 88 or Bofors loaded on a transport, move to a drop location on turn 1, and dismount it.

How is that not broken!?

Agreed, this needs to be fixed.

Only in the starters or here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/waratsea

Well at the bottom is a link to the pdfs.  :-)

Is it just me or does it bother anybody else that the Expanded Rules cover is not stapled to the actual book? And on the back cover they included Greece as an ally but not Hungary as an Axis. Also the sign for Poland is not the same as that of the one on the Stat Card. Its the little things that drive me nuts!

I have two starter packs of War at Sea and 4 or 5 boosters, so I have the rules.  I agree that they are fast-playing and pretty bare bones.  I have played most of the rule sets that I mentioned, and likely will use the War at Sea ships to play them as well.  I might also mount some of the ships from my various Axis and Allies game sets on strips of index card, and use them for additional ships.  I am working on a data card for a B-25 Strafer as used in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.  I picked up two sets of the Tamiya 1/700 scale Mitchells to use with them.  I will like add them to the Axis and Allies game as well, using them as the US bomber, and the B-17 as a heavy bomber per weapons research rules.

He means that the US Hero can keep using the destroyed tank’s attack values turn after turn, until he leaves the hex.

The tank is destroyed and can be removed from play (though I suppose you can get cute and lay it on it’s side with the US Hero on top just for the visual effect and as a reminder what vehicle stats to use :-D)

@dezrtfish:

As far as air goes, I don’t like the idea of a sniper taking out a P51, that just seems quite improbable.  An MG42 I can see.  I also can’t imagine an M1 Garand nailing an ME109.  Could it happen? maybe, but probably not.

Again I see it as more of a playability issue. Is it realistic? No, not even close. Heck really planes shouldn’t be in the game at a such a small level. However, I shouldn’t be completely screwed over just because I’m not using dedicated AA, which is otherwise a bit of a waste if my opponent doesn’t use aircraft (perhaps this is where a sideboard comes in… :).
It seems to me that these rules are encouraging a more defencive game and creating an environment where you want your infantry spread out - that way they’re less prone to enfilade/grazing shot, and can also perhaps get in line with a plane to help bring it down.

I didn’t get to play a game sunday with the rules, but I hope to some time this week to try them out.