AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

Looks like 2-choose-1 was an official rule for tech in Global, but not in AA50.

I think I remembered there not being R&D in Global because it was so weak as to never be a good move. :-(

@SS:

Axis roll will chime in here and give you the best option. He plays all the time AA50.

I’ve found a lot of A&A players don’t like Weapons Development. Not because it’s OP or unbalanced, but simply because it’s swingier than most other game mechanics.

It was my suspicion that technology was nerfed because of a lobby by noisy tech-haters. Some people want R&D to be so weak that it rarely or never is a part of optimal play. So I’m pretty skeptical about anyone who says R&D needs to be powered down.

I don’t really like house rules anyway, so it’s going to be virtually impossible to convince me on this!

@Gamerman01:

Congratulations on the 4-5 year old! Only a few more years and maybe you can have a new gaming partner. Mine’s 16 and still not smart enough to play :-(

My older daughter is 18. She is very smart and used to play Star Wars: The Queen’s Gambit with me at age 3 or 4.
Sadly she isn’t really into war games anymore, but she still loves QG!

CAN kill two units.

Still nerfed from Classic’s 3 dice.  :-o

@Mill:

Anniversary Edition heavy bombers simply attack with two dice.

Thats why they housed rule for this SBR plus In one of my 39 games the 2 D6 die roll per H Bomber is way to strong even for up to double the territory value. Ain’t right just having 1 H Bomber cripple a capital IC.
Also had it where a H Bomber 2 die attacks at A4 A1 on the other die only.

If you keep the 2 die per H Bomber then make the cost 20 icp’s.

@SS:

Thats why they housed rule for this SBR plus In one of my 39 games the 2 D6 die roll per H Bomber is way to strong even for up to double the territory value. Ain’t right just having 1 H Bomber cripple a capital IC.

R&D is a big investment - the prize needs to reflect that.  
eg, if you spend 36 IPCs on 6 research tokens, that could have been three extra bombers instead.  And 6 tokens is a long shot for HBs!

Regular Bomber:
Average hits in combat -  .67
Average damage vs IC (ignoring AA) -  3.5

“Nerfed” HBs:
Average hits in combat - .89
Average damage to IC (ignoring AA) -  4.47

Would you spend good money on R&D for that kind of increase?  I know I wouldn’t!  This is a garbage upgrade IMO.
I can only assume whoever came up with this house rule didn’t want R&D to actually be good.

2 Die HBs:
Average hits in combat -  1.33
Average damage to IC (ignoring AA) - 7

If you factor in AAs, the increase is even less significant (Bombers are all equal when they’re hit by flak)!

If you think the HB SBRs are too much, AA50 includes an optional rule for Fighter defense here.  Should solve any issues.
And of course you can also develop Radar!   :evil:

Just saying what I saw. Whether they made 20 H bomber costs we will know soon from other members.
In my 40 game using D12 and 50 rules H. Bombers A8 D2 M7 C12 SBR 1 D6 +2 damage DF 2

And yes do have Radar where AA gets +1 NA.

@SS:

Just saying what I saw. Whether they made 20 H bomber costs we will know soon from other members.
In my 40 game using D12 and 50 rules H. Bombers A8 D2 M7 C12 SBR 1 D6 +2 damage DF 2

And yes do have Radar where AA gets +1 NA.

I’m sorry, but I haven’t cracked this code yet!

I get on a bomber attacking D6 at 4 aves 3.35 per roll.

A= attack D= defend M= move C= cost DF= dog fight

I do have NA’s and Tech in my 40 game. The charts I made are posted in the Global War thread.  The Tech is not over powering and I don’t have Heavy Bombers for Tech.

@SS:

I get on a bomber attacking D6 at 4 aves 3.35 per roll.

It hits 4 times and misses twice.  Average hits = (1+1+1+1+0+0) / 6 = .67 hits.

How can you average more than 1 hit on a single die?

Sorry thought you meant ave die roll.  Ave hit still higher for me.

@SS:

Sorry thought you meant ave die roll.  Ave hit still higher for me.

Average die roll is 3.5
(1+2+3+4+5+6) / 6 = 3.5

How are you calculated averages?

@SS:

Based off half a 6 is ave is 3.0 but its a bit higher than that.

If there were a ‘0’ on the die (7 sides) it would average 3 - the midpoint between 0 and 6

There is no zero (which is why it’s a bit higher), and the midpoint between 1 and 6 is 3.5

@SS:

If you roll 2D6’s 10 times on dice tester comes out to ave 20 die = 11 hits.

20 die rolls is statistically insignificant.  My math on the other hand is air tight.

:-D

To make it very simple, a Bomber hits 2/3 times.  So with 20 Bombers (or 10 AA50 HBs), 2/3 of those 20 dice will hit (on average).

20 dice @4 will hit 13.333 times, on average.

Incidentally, if you think 10 HBs average 11 hits, thats only 1.1 hits each - less than the average I calculated at 1.33 hit each.

I agree with ya. Yes some 20 die rolls I got with tester did give me 14 hits and 13 hits. I just went a bit lower in case there were 9 hits and 8 hits on tester.

But we all know ave die rolls don’t happen in our games.  :evil: :evil: :evil:

I go to bed many nights dreaming of ave die rolls in my games.  :-D

@SS:

I go to bed many nights dreaming of ave die rolls in my games.  :-D

Ahh, I’ve heard this before…. my lifelong A&A buddy says this a lot  :lol:

From the FAQ:

Page 12, Breakthrough Chart 2 – Heavy Bombers: The second sentence should replaced with: “You roll two dice for each bomber and select the best result when you attack or make a strategic bombing raid.”

I’ve done a little digging since I posed the question…

It turns out that “rule” was in a PDF at HGD; but it doesn’t seem to have ever made it into an official AH document:
http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

The Avalon Hill website no longer supports AA50, so it’s very unlikely this will ever become official.

I can assure you that it’s official, as all material posted by Larry or myself on the HGD site is official (in fact, it’s the only source for official information on out of print games, as the AH site no longer supports them).  While the link to the FAQ no longer exists on the AH site, the page is actually still there.  As you can see, the erratum in question is in there, so it was also official published by AH.