Difference between AA50 and AAR?

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.

I told you people to buy 6 copies like 9 months ago!

See you could have created a new commodity with more value than gold.

I like AA50 better.  We actually succeeded with a Kill Japan First strategy in the 1941 scenario, which I didn’t initially think was possible, which made for an exciting pacific game, for once.  I love the inclusion of Italy, and the way research is conducted means that people buy it and inevitably a couple players will get technologies, which makes every game different.

AA50 is a sight better than Revised in my opinion, and is worth the money.  I can’t think of any changes from Revised to AA50 that I wouldn’t consider an improvement.

Flying Tiger is correct.  Sorry if my original post was unclear.  :oops: I’ll try again.

You place an existing fighter on a new carrier by moving the fighter in either combat or noncombat movement, whichever applies, into the sea zone where the new carrier will be mobilized.  Air units don’t actually “land” until the end of the Mobilize New Units phase, though they must be in the space in which they will land by the end of noncombat movement.  The active player may only move pieces from one space to another during the combat movement and noncombat movement phases.

In Classic A&A, you can’t place fighters (new or existing) on new carriers at all.  In Revised, you can place existing fighters on a new carrier in the way you described in your original post.  In LHTR, it works the same way as it does in AA50.

i agree the game is great. i’m not looking for a glorified micro-machines set. but when i bought AAR a couple yrs ago. I had to take some of my acs and hold them over a burner to soften the plastic enough to bend it straight……NO B*ST!!!

there are all kinds of deformed parts in there that I had to fix. AA50 hasn’t been that bad. but pretty close. i’ve had to pull my hobby knife far more than i’d like.

do you want to play with a b-17 that came out of the box…out of the plastic bag…with wings that were f*****g bent in neary half.

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?

Nice work, thanks.

I like the icons you used in this one.