Best posts made by Krieghund

Regarding question 1, as Frimmel said, it’s important to not bring any baggage from other A&A games into the “battle” games, as their mechanics are very different. It would be inadvisable to point out those differences in the Rulebook, though, as that would simply confuse readers who have never played a strategic-level A&A game. It’s best for experienced A&A players to simply look at these games with a fresh eye, and it probably would have been good for the Rulebook’s author to note this in the introduction.

Regarding question 2, the reason why there is only one box on the Supplies combat strip is that, unlike with the combat units, there is no fixed stacking limit for Supplies. The combat units’ combat strips can have a fixed number of boxes due to their stacking limits, but the number of Supply tokens that can be in a hex is theoretically unlimited. Perhaps having an image of multiple tokens on the strip would reinforce the idea that multiple tokens may be hit, but the rules do clearly state so.

@cernel said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:

So, has the site been deliberately nuked?

Yes. It’s unfortunately not coming back.

If I want to read the latest errata and clarifications of Axis&Allies Revised (or such), where should I go if anywhere @Krieghund?

I believe the FAQs for the OOP games are all posted on this site under their respective games.

How about the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by you on the Harris’ forum? Have such things been reposted elsewhere?

That is posted in the Files section of that game’s entry on BGG.

@midnight_reaper said in Captured capitol player taking an enemy capitol:

In this case, Germany would take Russia’s money. This would enable Germany to produce units next turn if it controls a factory somewhere.

Germany cannot produce any units until it regains its capital, even though it now has IPCs. The captured IPCs would simply allow Germany to produce more units once its capital is recaptured.

Note that the reason that Germany can take the USSR’s IPCs under these circumstances is because these IPCs are captured, not earned as income.

There hasn’t been a change. In fact, the rule was mentioned in the 1991 rules clarification document. You must have been playing it wrong!

@skay85 The Rulebook can be found here.

It’s talking about the hexes around the edge of the board that are not full hexes. Those are “out of bounds”, and are not part of the playing area.

“Grayed out” usually refers to a gray or subdued color scheme relative to the main color scheme of the map, document, computer screen, etc. In this case, it refers to the blue-gray color of the partial hexes (in many cases, merely a triangle) around the edges of the map. Note that there are some hexes on the edges that are not complete (but are mostly complete) that are not grayed out, and these are treated as normal, in-play hexes.

Hope this helps.

Also, if you haven’t done so already, check out the FAQ for more important info about the game,

The earlier print runs of the game featured red pieces, while later runs had orange ones.  It will depend on which print run your copy came from as to which color you will get.

By the way, I’m not a big fan of slashes, so I’d go with dashes. In fact, if we want to get super-nerdy, we can save the decimals for print runs (starting with “.0”), as collectors keep track of those. So, the second print run of AA50 would be “AA50.1”, and the third print run of the 2nd edition of Europe 1940 would be “AA40-2.2”.

Regarding variants, I would simply denote a variant in the way that I denoted LHTR for Revised above. So, “AA42-2 Beamdog” works for me.

Also, the border between sea zones 5 and 6 was corrected to line up with the border between Amur and Korea (also in the 1st edition FAQ).

@mikemikemike
The bonus is still in effect. There is no “new” errata that removes it. Perhaps your friend is thinking of the fact that the bonus applies only to the Pacific game, and not the Global game?

There are no rules changes, but the rulebook has been updated with all of the material from the FAQ.

@cojoh said in Placing existing fighters on new bought aircraft carrier ?:

Page 25 of the rulebook says that you may not place newly purchased fighters directly on aircraft carriers. But can you place existing fighters located at an industrial complex on a newly bought aircraft carrier (like in other A&A games) ?

You may not.

@Cernel Cases 1 and 2 are legal in versions up to and including Revised OOB, but not legal in Revised LHTR or later. Cases 3 through 5 are not legal in any version.

@simon33 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Am I getting confused?

Maybe.

If there’s only a sub opposing you, the rules about starting in a hostile sea zone don’t apply.

Correct.

So the transport could only leave if it was conducting an amphibious assault somewhere. Assume you’re following black letter law.

Nope. The FAQ entry @Panther quoted above allows units in this situation to move away from the sea zone in combat movement even if they are moving to a friendly zone, just as if the original zone were hostile. The key is that the rules for moving in combat movement to escape combat apply. These are outlined at the top of page 13 in the Europe Rulebook, and state that units doing so may end their move in a friendly sea zone.

The implication for transports is that they may move away without participating in an amphibious assault. However, they may not load, since a transport may load in combat movement only when participating in an amphibious assault.

@mikemikemike Yes, but bear in mind that unless ANZAC brings some sea and/or air units to the sea zone to support the assault, Japan can simply scramble and stop it in its tracks. If ANZAC brings nothing and Japan scrambles, there is no battle, as the ANZAC land units are cargo and the US units can’t attack on ANZAC’s turn. However, since ANZAC can’t clear the sea zone of defending units (scrambled fighters), the assault cannot proceed, and the ANZAC units must remain on the transports.

@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rule Question: getting the 1 infantry bonus:

A related question:

Desperate Measures Card: Hidden Supply Cache:

You get additional unit if you ‘liberate a Z controlled territory’.

Again: also here surviving one round of combat is enough? You still get this one infantry bonus + additional unit bonus even if there are still Zs in that territory?

Yes.

Also: just destroying all Zs in a territory you or your ally already control is not enough I guess? As the card specificly says: ‘liberate a Z controlled territory’?

Correct.

The only reorganization of Commands that’s permitted during Movement Operations is to split Commands due to pinning. As such, UK must split the Infantry off to a new Command and leave it behind in order to move the Armor, which will remain under the original Command. If UK is out of Command Tokens, the order must be cancelled.

@Cernel said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:

In particular, I got the doubts because the rules for Revised LHTR (2.0) do not clearly state (in my opinion) that a transport which took part in a battle cannot do anything else at all until the end of the turn.

They do. See below.

Regarding the cases 3, 4 and 5 (assuming that case 5 counts as bridging, thus as the transport moving albeit within the same sea zone), I understand that they are ruled out at least by the sentence

Once these sea units have moved and/or participated in combat they may not move or participate
in the noncombat move phase of the turn.

(obviously assuming that “they may not move” means “they cannot move” so not “they are allowed not to move”)

Moreover, am I right to understand that a transport which offloads one or more units without doing anything else is not moving, yet it is participating in the phase?

Yes.

If so, the aforementioned excerpt would also make case 2 illegal, because the transport participated in combat and would then also participate in the noncombat move phase of the turn. Right?

Yes, it would in Classic, but not in Europe, Pacific, or Revised, as there is an explicit exception for offloading transports after combat.

I’m just not sure that offloading one or more units during the noncombat move phase means participating in the noncombat move phase because the transport can be seen as being purely passive (as even an allied transport can do that outside of its turn).

Yes, it does mean that, though I agree it’s kind of a grey area because of using allied transports.

Similarly, if a transport participate in combat, does its cargo count as participating in combat too? For example, are units which were cargo of a transport which participated in combat during the current turn considered units which participated in combat? I’m quite certain they do not, but I somewhat see a similarity between their passivity and the passivity of the (possibly allied) transport which do nothing but offloading other units.

Yes, the cargo also participates, as it may be indirectly taken as a casualty.

I believe this makes the rest of your questions moot, does it not? As far as the intent of the sentence you quoted, we simply didn’t take into account starting in a hostile sea zone and add “participated in combat” (it was added in later versions).

(I actually do believe that the Revised LHTR rules are some of the best written Axis & Allies rules.)

Thanks. We put a lot of effort into them.

“And/or” means that the list may be interpreted either way, as either an “and” or an “or”. For instance, “A and/or B” means the same as “A, B, or both A and B”, whereas “A or B” strictly means one or the other, but not both, and “A and B” means only both. In the case in question, the objective is awarded as long as any combination of some or all of the three territories is controlled.

@surfer said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:

@krieghund Now I’m confused. How is this different from the transport rule we discussed earlier
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/18412/global-2nd-edition-q-a-aag40-2/2864

It is different because in that case the transports were moving to escape a battle. In this case, there is no battle to escape.

@surfer said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:

BTW, how is the scramble any different than kamikazi? Neither are in play at the time of combat movement. There is no combat in either case–only the defender’s option to combat.
I would think if you could avoid combat from scramble, then you should be able to avoid combat from kamikazi.

A scramble forces a sea battle, while a kamikaze strike does not. A kamikaze strike is a single attack against a single unit, not a full-blown battle.