Topics created by Boyardee

(Alpha) 3.9 are outdated rules.

Latest ruleset is 1940 2nd. Edition with the addition of a FAQ.

Get the rules and setup from
http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/

and the FAQ from
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AAEurope1940_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf
and
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AAPacific1940_2nd Edition_FAQ.pdf

This is how I use paratroops in 1942

Just use a bomber (instead of a bombing raid or attack it can carry two paratroopers)
The paratroopers must be dropped off at the first enemy territory.
The bomber and the paratroopers must start in the same terrirtory.

Okay +3 more ipc to the usual 12 allies bid. Makes no difference to me. Kind of lame because that 3 more ipc would go to a more strategic spot like right below it to smack ethiopia with better odds.

mmm, that is fine. I might see more crazy korea attacks.

I wish the developers would post some of their games if they are doing it online. I really want to see the logic in -1 inf for egypt in an already axis stacked game. Too many people complained about Italy sucking I guess, but they never hear the tears of UK hitting the floor. London should start with more money to defend itself, 37 starting income seems more reasonable. 9 inf fighter.

Any clue when we’ll get to see the rules?
I have original copy of first ed and would wandt to print those rules.

I think a new set of rules in PDF format should have been online a while ago, in respect for the customer who bought not a game, but what i call a ‘‘play test’’.
We dont even have rules to play europe alone yet!

@Boyardee:

Is Mr Harris suppose to publish an up to date version on the rulebook in pdf?

WotC (Wizards of the Coast) generally publishes a pdf available to download some months after the release of the game.  I would look there, but not until the release of the 2nd addition.  Until then, you’ll have to use to the OOB rulebook in conjunction with official FAQ/Errata and the Alpha 3 rules.

@Frontovik:

the 2 anzac inf on egypt are supposed to be changed to 1 british inf i thought
i’ve read it somewhere.

I don’t recall that (but I could be wrong). I remember only the old ANZAC fighter in the UK being switched for French.  The Egyptian ANZAC infantry were simply omitted (similar to the original OOB Global Setup)

@Boyardee:

But what are the income of the US???

I covered that with as near a correct answer as you’re likely to see until Alpha3 is finalized but again:

In Europe starting territory @ 35 when at war:

10 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Eastern United States, Central United States, and Western United States. Theme: Basic national sovereignty.
5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, and Line Islands. Theme: National sovereignty issues
5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies. Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.
5 IPCs if the United States controls Philippines. Theme: Center of American influence in Asia.
5 IPCs for each turn that the US has at least one land unit in the territory “France”. Theme: Great Alliance collaboration

For an objective total of 20, down from 35 in OOB.  It’s possible that NO1 will be increased for Europe alone (combining 1 & 2, etc).

In Pacific:
Starting territory @ 17 and when at war:

10 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Eastern United States, Central United States, and Western United States. Theme: Basic national sovereignty.
5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, and Line Islands. Theme: National sovereignty issues
5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies. Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.
5 IPCs if the United States controls Philippines. Theme: Center of American influence in Asia.
5 IPCs for each turn that the US has at least one land unit in the territory “France”. Theme: Great Alliance collaboration

For an objective total of 25, down from 50.  It’s VERY LIKELY that NO1 will have to be increased for Pacific alone (somewhere in the realm of another 15 to 20, increasing NO1 to 25 and the possible total to 40 to 45)

However, this is probably the number 1 issue that has not been resolved between the theater games and the global games (and the US income swing is probably also the number 1 thing that determines balance).  Unfortunately, most playtest energy has been focused on the Global game and very few people playtest the theatre games, so it remains unresolved.

All submarines do Convoy Raid Damage, German Submarines do it more effectively.

Germany does 3 CRD
USA, Australia, England (And India), Italy, Japan and Russia do 2 CRD
China does 0 CRD (cannot buy submarines)

It would take 3 Japanese submarines to do 6 dmg to England, but it only takes 2 Germany submarines to do 6 dmg to England.

This makes no sense at all.

The alleged rationale for all these endless mindless Alpha changes were to help the Axis to win.

So the answer is to bulk up the starting IPC’s for the UK and the USSR?

Yeah right!

Soon all this Alpha nonsense will be revealed as a joke right?

We were strictly following the setup, rules and NOs from Larry’s thread on A2:
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167

We didn’t want to make stuff up since the stuff we’d make up would naturally benefit the person coming up with it!

Too many rule differences are confusing and has caused many arguments while playing.  That’s why we decided to stick to rules Larry came up with - OOB, A1 or A2.

it is better.

ANZAC and UK should be allowed to fight together anyways.

No, it may not.

yo fmg,  i had an idea. what if you made a flat/creamy white w/ the FMG logo for neutrels( just because it looks cool thats why)

Not automatically, but it allows Russia to declare war on Germany. Germany may decide not to declare war on its immediate next turn to collect its NO again.

@Clyde85:

An addational 6 inf anywhere in China would be awesomeness! it would do very little to save the rest of the allies but boy would it drive Japan nuts for a few turns.  Maybe 6 artillery would be even better!!  :lol:

Thanks for explaining because I didnt really understand the concept either (I still wont use it though)

What would drive Japan even more nuts: 6 inf in Philippines, Borneo, or Shan State

J1 will be foolish in AA40 Combined
A G2 attack on russia would co-ordinate with a J2 attack on the US in the Pacific.

The transport must be accompanied by a surface warship for its entire move.

When you conduct a combat, there’s a sequence you follow. The decision to retreat comes after both sides fire, so you have to conduct at least one round of shots before you can retreat.

Yes, you can end up moving farther than you would normally be allowed to.

I still think that something using toilet paper tubes as the fuselage and cereal box lids as wings would be more in spirit with all the cardboard WOTC gave us in this release.  That and the size would be appropriate for the board.

@Stoney229:

So I guess when you say the the rules are the same as for Japan, you’re saying they can move into French territs in noncombat?  That seems strange, since they are allied territories (territs belonging to an enemy power without control of it’s capital can’t be invaded in noncombat, can they?)

No, I’m saying that Japan treats the French territories in the same way that it treats the Dutch ones.  It may only move in as an attack.  The only difference is that it can attack French ones without provoking the other Allies.