Scoresheet for AA50 for -Over the board- (OTB) Tournament play

@sensenschwarm thank you.Reprint.jpg

this rule was expanded in the reprint of anniversary edition - but not in the PDF Rulebook on axisandallies.com, and not in the FAQ/Errata, and in my physical copy of the original AA50, it is the version which I had quoted above.

The issue is resolved! Thanks alot! :-)

I have an AA50 for sale. It has been played a few times but is still in excellent condition. If anyone is interested send me a message with an offer and the highest offer by 02/05/10 will get it along with the full set of Combat Dice from FMG. I also have a copy of 2nd edition, Revised, Europe, the original Pacific game, and Battle of the Bulge available for sale. Message me on those as well. I am keeping AAP40 and AA42. Thanks.

The wood board are 40 x 96 ! I can move them by myself, but it’s pretty heavy.

Thanks guys

I’ll give AA 50 a second look.

It’s even worse: allies fall as a card castle after China fall J1: India, Australia and then or Soviet Union (KJF) or Alaska plus Canada and maybe Africa and finally Soviet Union anyway (KGF). As in Revised, ignore a theater and you lose the war. Opposite to Revised, you cannot choose as allies in 1941, it’s Japan who chooses ignore China or not, and if Japan is wise, it will not ignore China J1

Your point is valid: even if the game were balanced (and it’s not), it has no fun the way China is designed, even for Japan. When I play face to face, Japan is my last option, because it’s the more boring: just stomp all at your reach  :| I could even pick Italy (but not China) before than Japan

I was just looking over the new AA50 board image and it occured to me how arbitrary the geography is in this game.

Why is the Belgian Congo in this game at all?

Spain is off limits, even though certainly in the realm of possible history/gameplay Spain could have been a major player or battlefield of WWII; a lot more of a possibility than French Eq Africa or the Belgian Congo which are indeed in play.

Certainly Turkey could have been a significant factor in this alternative universe of a game we call Axis & Allies than ever could have would been French West Africa or Rhodesia.

Yet there they are: Belgian Congo, French West Africa, Rhodesia all open for invasion. Spain and Turkey and others are closed off.

This is so ahistorical, we disagree about countless other nuances and rules about being historically deficient. Yet without Spain and Turkey, we are are not even accorded the ability to play out WWII in ways which could have indeed happened a lot more probable than the invasion of the Belgian Congo and Rhodesia by the Nazi war machine.

Why of all the possibilities of the Axis and Allies timeline/universe are these 2 of the more likely ones that could have happend are indeed shut down?

@Imperious:

Larry has stated many times that the units don’t generally fit standard military models for classic formations (divisions, corps, army) and in some cases these are corps and others they are armies. They are not the same in every case, allowing for the corps in Africa to be symbolized as perhaps 2-3 units, while in the Soviet union one infantry may represent an army ( 3-5 corps).

Yes, IL thanks,
I have been reading those old posts.  I note he (Larry Harris) stated the Naval units abstraction was a greater dilution of unit strength, or a direct correlation to vessel numbers from standard representation of Classic fleet/squadron/Battle groups.  I am thinking more in chess terms, where tempo or position is sometimes of more value then individual pieces.