AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

@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! :-)

@squirecam said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:

@the_good_captain said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:

@cernel I played three games against forum members that made a point to do this as Germany while I was the allies. After the final repetition and significant impact from the aforementioned, I had to insist on Escorts and Interceptors.

I consider it less significant than the USA bomber strategy but I’m confident enough to make it an axiom of my own axis strategy …and share it in a video, obviously.

The escort and interceptor rule is required for a fair game IMHO. Moreover, no bombing strategy succeeded in eliminating a country’s ability to build tanks and weapons during ww2, and certainly not without getting through fighter screens first.

This answered my question krieghund.

Heading back up to your logic up above–its not “units that can (in some situations) retreat”. It is units in this situation that can retreat (attacking tts yes defending ones no). That rule is written as it is to cover the situations where submerged subs, unhittable units (subs vs planes) or amphibious assaults where some units can retreat and others cant.

As a lawyer–I get what you’re trying to do and say that the rule doesn’t say what its supposed to say. As Krieg points out, that’s up for debate. Many lawsuits are about this kind of thing.

But that’s not because its dogma Canon law its because the other outcome is insensible, contradictory, gamey, requires a tortured reading of the language devised over multiple editions and revisons of the game to try and cover so many different situations.

there is no such thing as a perfect document try to write one

@LincolnsTopHat:

Just curiously, how do you plan on getting it printed? I’ve been looking around, and so far most printing sites are almost as expensive as getting the game itself.

Oh, printing the map isn’t about saving money (unless it was 2016 and you were trying to “make” AA50 without spending $500+ on E-Bay for an out-of-print used copy of AA50).

TBH, I’d be surprised if you could print a map for under the price of the game… the purpose of printing the map is usually to make a BIGGER map that is a single piece without creases or separate board issues for a more enjoyable way to play the game (I have printed maps for all my versions of A&A… I like bigger maps without the creases).

If you’re looking to save money, by all means, buy the game and play on the board that comes with it… that’s the cheapest way to play AA50 (at least in 2017).

page 11:

"Step 2: Roll Research Dice
      For each research you have, roll one die.

Success:  If you roll at least one “6,” you have successfully made a technological breakthrough.  Discard all your researcher tokens and continue to step 3.

Failure:  if you do not roll a “6,” your research has failed.  Keep all your researcher tokens and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn."

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 am pleased to say, that today our beloved game is ranked # 2, with a 8,41 rating.

@Black_Elk:

It would make a lot more sense if you just put a “house rules” sub-forum in each category, instead of continually moving the threads around.
:-D

I can’t imagine a topic worth discussing, in any section, that isn’t going to verge on a house rule at some point. Besides the current House Rules is section is all over the place anyway, and rather hard to navigate, since stuff gets dumped their from all over the rest of the site.

I totally agree with you.