AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

@Panther
Thank you very much !

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

Thanks!…

As far as I can tell it’s difficult for them to get the rights to get the games. Only so many for extended periods of time. Thus I doubt G40 or 42.2 will be added for a while since they are still being sold OOB.

@Gamer:

I think he’s saying I’ve attached his list (which it is HIS list, by the way), but I managed to post it before he could.

Yes.  It’s hard to get news out before someone else does these days, with all the watchful eyes out there.  :wink:

@Gamer:

P.S. – Thanks, Krieghund, for your hard work.  I’m just making sure you get your props. :wink:

:-D

Except first rnd, Jap killed my BB, all US units went to Europe. The problem with the -41 scenario is that US must use much more ipc to build a sustainable fleet than in the 42 scenario. I did not play effective as allies though, with not killing German fleet UK1, I screwed US purchases etc. Maybe I played too aggressive with Russia, but I think Germany + Italy could take Caucasus anyway. Game wouldnt end if I didn’t take Berlin, unless the attempt was a failure :)
Axis player slowed Jap himself with not taking either Philly or Borneo and east Indies J1, but the Jap beachhead in Asia was as strong as the Normandy landings, so there is not really an opening to KJF, more than in AAR. SJF is important where it can be done. I killed a lone Jap trans with DD, these things are mistakes that will happen sometimes, until we get used to the new rules.

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?

I am beginning to wonder if the Heavy Bomber rule that has some people bent so out of shape is in there to compensate for the large boost that attaining National Objectives gives the Axis.  As a guess, it is going to be easier for the Axis to attain their objectives, and more productive to them than for the Allies to attain their objectives, which do not appear to give them anywhere the same boost.