Posts made by Longwaysouth

Since receiving my copy of A&A 1942 2nd Edition on Thursday I’ve found an inconsistency in the rulebook, specifically on page 26 in the description and the diagram in the bottom right corner relating to aircraft movement, this may be confusing for brand new players (having only played 6 games of Spring '42, I was a bit confused at first):

In the 2nd paragraph of the main text it states “To determine range, count each space your air unit enters “after takeoff.” When moving over water from a coastal territory or an island group, count the first sea zone as one space. When flying to a island group, count the surrounding sea zone and the island group itself as one space each.”

However, in the diagram textbox it states “The U.S. fighter leaves Hawaii and enters sea zone 52. From there it enters sea zone 44, then on into sea zone 45. The U.S. fighter then enters Eastern Australia to land. It has used its full movement.”

The diagram shows the fighter moving from Hawaiian Islands and its surrounding sea zone (SZ 53, not specified in the diagram) straight to SZ 52 as its first move, not actually counting the movement from Hawaii itself to the immediate surrounding sea zone (SZ 53) first. If you compare this with the description and similar diagram on page 26 of the A&A Spring '42 (first ed.) rulebook: http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/AVL1942_RuleBook.pdf you can see that that diagram is correct as it shows the U.S. fighter moving from Hawaii to SZ 52 (the immediate surrounding sea zone on that map) first, then on to SZ 45 as the second step and onwards to SZ 46 and then Australia.

On the new map, Hawaii is in SZ 53, whereas on the old Spring '42 map Hawaii was in SZ 52. As they’ve used almost the same text (but not changed 52 to 53) and used an almost identical graphic for the flightpath, it makes it look as though aircraft can take off from an island, ignore the immediate surrounding sea zone as the first space of movement and have the next sea zone as the first space instead, which is incorrect.

As it happens, using the same example and the new map, the U.S. fighter on Hawaii can still reach Eastern Australia as it has moved into SZ 52 unneccessarily during its movement. The text should be: “The U.S. fighter leaves Hawaii and enters sea zone 53. From there it enters sea zone 44, then on into sea zone 45. The U.S. fighter then enters Eastern Australia to land. It has used its full movement.”

The diagram should firstly have SZ 53 marked on the map and show the first arrow moving from the fighter (on Hawaii) into SZ 53 (step 1 - i.e. taking off from Hawaii into the immediate surrounding sea zone). Then it should show the second arrow moving from SZ 53 down to SZ 44 (step 2) and the 3rd and 4th arrows the same.

I just thought this was worth mentioning as it’s an important rule and could be very confusing for new or less experienced players.

Thanks for the quick response and clarification. That certainly makes things a bit more interesting when choosing where to attack Germany.

Well spotted! Personally, considering the gap is so small, I think it’s a mistake and the border between SZ 8 and SZ 6 should meet exactly with the border of France and Northwestern Europe (so troops from Eastern Canada can only amphibious assault France and not WE). It’s something that certainly needs to be clarified officially though and in the meantime it’s worth mentioning to anyone you play with to confirm a ruling one way or the other before choosing sides. If you compare this with similar spots on the board, in the majority of cases the SZ borders meet exactly with the territory borders on the coast e.g. the border between SZ 14 and 15 meets both the borders between France & Italy, and Algeria & Libya. However, there are certain areas on the board where a sea zone border hits land part-way along a territory’s coastline, but it’s much more clear that that is how it’s supposed to be e.g. the border between SZ 11 and SZ 18 meeting the coast of East Mexico, or the border between SZ 33 and SZ 34 meeting the coast of Italian East Africa.

Of course if we get official confirmation that SZ8 is meant to be adjactent to Northwestern Europe then that’s fine but it just doesn’t seem quite right to me.

My copy of A&A1942 2nd edition arrived today!  :-D

It’s a shame I’m at work right now, lol. I don’t think I’ll have time to play it this weekend and next weekend I’m away with my wife in Barcelona so the first chance that I’ll get to play it won’t be until the weekend after that  :-(

@smo63:

@squirecam:

@maxx001:

Where did you hear this?

We had our first game last night and assumed that Honolulu was an error and therefore ignored it as a Victory City.

Has there been any official word on this???

link please…

Squirecam,

Yes, it is a misprint in the rules and show be a VC…

This makes sense to me because if Honolulu wasn’t meant to be a victory city then why was it even put on the map in the first place? It’s much more likely that the rulebook is incorrect (where the VC’s are listed and the standard & total victory conditions are shown) as they’ve taken a lot of the text from Spring 1942 (first edition) and just forgot to change it (under “How the war is won” on page 6 and “Winning the game” on page 23).

So I believe the victory conditions table should be:

Axis      Allies
Standard Victory:    9          10
Total Victory:          13        13

I ordered mine yesterday direct from IGUK’s site for £52.99 delivered with 2nd class postage and it was dispatched today!  :-D

I agree it’s tough decision on what to do for Russia’s opening moves in 2nd ed compared to 1st ed Spring 1942. They have 3 less Inf on the board at the start compared to 1st ed (21 compared to 24), but they do have 1 more artillery, 2 AAA’s and 1 extra IC (on Karelia), which I think should be defended if possible.

Mallery29 - I like your R1 buy of 6 infantry, 1 tank (8 infantry is also an option for me)
Imperious Leader - I like the idea of attacking West Russia and Finland, although I’d adjust the unit balances slightly. However, I’m not sure why you’d leave Karelia open as I think it’s worth defending it more compared to 1st ed (usually I’d leave just 1 infantry there in 1st ed).

Builds:
1 tank, 6 infantry

Attack:
West Russia with 3 tanks and 2 artillery (from Caucasus & Moscow), 7 infantry (Moscow & Cauc), 1 fighter
Finland with 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter (all from Karelia)

Non-combat:
Both fighters land and 1 infantry from Kazakh SSR to Caucasus
1 infantry from Novo to Moscow
2 infantry from Evenki to Archangel
1 infantry and 1 tank from Archangel to Karelia
AAA from Moscow to West Russia
Stack Buryatia with infantry from Yakut and SF
Sub from SZ4 to SZ7

Place 3 infantry & 1 tank on Caucasus, 1 infantry on Moscow and 2 infantry on Karelia

End R1 should leave:
4 infantry, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 1 AAA on Caucasus
3 infantry, 1 tank on Karelia
2 infantry on Moscow
2 infantry on Archangel
5 infantry on Buryatia
Surviving units on West Russia (estimate 3 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tanks, 1 AAA)
Surviving units on Finland (estimate 2 infantry, 1 artillery)

It’s a shame that there’s a discrepancy in IPC counts for the UK and Germany between the map and the rulebook/setup cards. I know errors can happen but I would’ve expected that something like that should have been checked. It’s a similar thing with Honolulu being a victory city on the map but not being mentioned in the book; I guess victory conditions in a shorter game would now be 9 VC’s for the Axis and 10 VC’s for the Allies (i.e. 3 more than what each side starts with), what does everyone else think? It doesn’t detract from this game being a “must buy” for me but it’s a bit surprising as these are fairly noticeable errors.

I love the new map & setup by the way, it looks like it will give players a bit more to think about for each power’s opening moves compared to A&A Spring 1942. One thing I’ve already noticed is that if Germany attacks Egypt on G1 (a fairly common move in A&A Spring 1942), then the UK player can’t include the bomber from London if they decide to counter as it can’t reach due to there now being 3 territories across the top of North Africa (Morocco, Algeria & Lybia). But there is that extra UK artillery on Egypt at the start so it makes it just that little bit more difficult for Germany to take it in the first place (probably still worth it though as it opens up the rest of the UK’s territories/IPC’s in Africa for Germany to take).

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster here. Thanks for posting the contents of the box, looking good so far. Really looking forward to seeing a better pic of the map and setup cards than what we’ve seen so far from the rulebook.

I noticed in the contents list that there’s two game board pieces, which is a bit surprising. Do they fit together well? I’ve only played A&A Spring 1942 but I know that the combined Global 1940 game uses two boards, I was just wondering if there can be any issues with that setup (i.e. using two boards)?

Also, are you able to comment on possible errata in the final printed version of the game? E.g. 1) UK’s & Germany’s setup cards shown in the rulebook quote starting IPC values of 30 and 40 respectively but on the game board itself someone mentioned that those two powers’ starting territories actually total up to IPC values of 31 and 41; 2) the map on page 8 of the rulebook appears to show Honolulu being a victory city (making 13 in total), although it’s not mentioned in ‘How the war is won’ on page 6 of the rulebook.