Posts made by thrasher1

@taamvan said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:

Many of the effects can be applied separately (move two half stacks of zombies), you could partially move the same stack twice, or move two stacks into the same zone, applying the card text by completely resolving 1 card, then the next.

Please mind that if you got two ‘Move half of the Zs present’ cards and you play them both on the same area then you still cannot move all Zs.
Example: area contains 7 Zs. Card one: you can move 4 Zs. So 3 left. Card two: you can move another 2 Zs.
Just my interpretation but I am pretty sure of this…

ADDITION:

OK, I thought about this. And this came into my mind. Back to the 1990s. Back to the famous Axis and Allies FAQ of Peter Goudswaard.

In a brief discussion of where a submarine may withdrawn to this statement is made:

"Note: I personally disagree with this statement from MB, as it
violates a principal that I have noted the spirit of throughout
the rules.  **The principal is that "the state of the board at the
beginning of the present turn defines what is legal."**  This idea
applies to legal landing spaces and use of canals, even to the point
that, for example, if during the first turn Egypt falls to Germany 
and *then* the UK sub south of Turkey is attacked and missed, it
can go through the canal even though Germany has already captured
Egypt.  However, I recognize MB as the experts and thus will accept 
it, pending further questions -- Dewey Barich."

(I added the **s here. Sorry, turned out BOLD did not work here.)

I always remembered this ‘principle’. So if we apply this to the great-grandchild of Axis and Allies Classic, AAZ, one can argue that the ‘half of the Zs’ part refers to the situation of an area AT THE BEGINNING of the turn. So then you can argue, OK first cards let you move half of the Zs that were in that area at the start of the turn (no difference with my interpretation above). But then the second card also allows you to move half of the Zs that were inh that area AT THE BEGINNING of the turn. So that would mean you could move all Zs by playing these two cards.

BTW: Does anyone remember these FAQs by Peter Goudswaard?

(Link to FAQ: https://mozai.com/writing/house_rules/a%26a.faq.txt )

@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

DJ: If and when new versions of A&A are released (I think Axis & Allies 1942 3rd Edition would be awesome), would some of the new rules be introduced? Recruitment centers? Combined purchase & deployment? No friendly fighters on your carriers? No friendly units on your transports? Event cards?

Regarding Event Cards: I personally would like to see an Events Cards expansion for the standard version of Axis and Allies. For now this is A&A 1942 Second Edition of course.
My friends and I thought about this in the early days (1990s) a lot. Why not simply add a deck of cards to the game. Would be rather cheap to produce by MB/Hasbro.

Even more off-topic: I never understond MB/Hasbro never came up with a simple ‘cruisers and artillery’ expansion. Just adding cruisers (or destroyers or escorts) and artillery to the Axis and Allies Classic game. Rather cheap to produce and I am sure many people would be willing to purchase such an expansion in the late 1980s or 1990s.

OK, this is a bit what-if-y but:

Scott van Essen said:

“In the case of the rules that let you share carriers and transports with your allies, we found that removing them saved more than half a page out of the rulebook and it made multiple sections that had been riddled with special cases and exceptions flow much more clearly. The clincher when I was weighing whether to cut those rules was when I realized that in the dozens upon dozens of playtest games I had played in and observed, I had never seen either of those rules used. That being said, since the majority of the cost of including those rules is in learning complexity, we included a note in the quick start rules inviting people to bring them back in if they so desire.”

OK, so say you will play with this ‘using allies transports’ rule. Then what about Technology 5: transporting Zs with your transport ?
I think the important thing to notice here is: who has this transport techology? That player can MOVE these Zs during its turn I would say. The other player (which does not have to have this technology) can load and unload these Zs during its own turn.

So I suggest that the player moving these Zs onto a transport does not have to have this technology. While the player moving his or her transport must have this technology.

@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

It’s a shame they didn’t study the “core rules” more, because they could have saved themselves a lot of grief by basing the Zombies off the Convoy Rules from G40. Something like having each Zombie in a territory lower its IPC value by 1, up to the value of the territory.

Personally I think this had also be a good approach. But this means each player must count the number of Zs. And even more: check if the number of Zs is bigger than the IPC value of that area.

@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

The other aborted ideas here make me think that the finished product is so much better than what we could have wound up with.

Which ideas you refer to? And why you think this is the case?

And it’s there: https://www.axisandallies.org/p/qa-with-axis-allies-zombies-game-designer-scott-van-essen-part-2/
Thanks for posting, David. Nice read!

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

This rule is intended to be more about theme than it is a bonus. Think of it as providing a safe place in the territory for survivors to gather.

Yes, I thought about this in a ‘thematic way’. And I liked that. Games like Axis and Allies (and Fortress America for sure!) are also a lot about the ‘atmoshpere’/feel.
Then again: I interpreted this issue as: if you have removed all Zs then the survivors will resurface and form a militia to support you: that one bonus infantry.

@Krieghund said in AAZ Rule Question: Desperate Meassures Card: DECOY TEAM:

Well, it’s half of the zombies in the territory, but essentially yes.

Thanks. This was just a typo of mine. I corrected this in my original posting:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1255428

Krieghund wrote:

“It also gives the controller a chance to noncombat move other units in to retain the territory, as it is still friendly at that time.”

Very good point. If possible you can indeed non-combat move one ore more units into that area that will otherwise turn Z-controlled during Phase 3 of the next player’s turn.
Good to focus on this specific situation. Thanks again!

@Krieghund said in AAZ Rule Question: Desperate Meassures Card: DECOY TEAM:

Not exactly. They don’t take control immediately if all player units are wiped out during combat, but they will take control in phase 3 of the next player’s turn. As a result, the power controlling the territory before the zombies wiped out all player units will only control it for part of your turn. By the time you do your combat moves, it will be zombie-controlled.

This is exactly what I meant. And to be honest: what I wrote down. But please correct me on my writings :)

So can we rephrase this as:

You may non-combat a Z from an area you have at least one unit in. In this regard an IC counts as a unit.

Thanks for your remarks, DMM. Krieghund is busy answering my questions. So I guess he will tackle this issue too coming time.

To quote myself:

“During the turn of the player before you the Zs were victorious in combat (that is: Phase 5). However the Zs do NOT take control of that area as that only happens during Phase 3 of a turn! So during your turn the last country that had units there (or the original owner) still controls that area. While there are Zs now.”

Just to be 100 % sure. This is the case? Zs do NOT take control (place a control marker) if they happen to be the only units left in an area after combat (Phase 5).
Was this intended by the game creators?
My experience is that new players automatically want to place a control marker there then. Immediatelly after combat (Phase 5). This will have the effect that the Zs might reach the 25 IPC level ‘faster’…

@Krieghund

Krieghund, can we rephrase this as:

Move one Z to an adjacent area that is not neutral?

EDIT:

This should read:

Move half of the Zs to an adjacent area that is not neutral

I was mixing up things here. See Krieghund’s anwer here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1255454

On the rule itself: we interpreted this rule wrongly. At this moment two things spring into my mind:

(1) It seems to me getting this bonus (especially when combined with the Hidden Supply Cache card) is too easy. But please elaborate on this, Kriegshund.

(2) It seems a bit strange to me, even a bit ‘unfair’, that you do not get this one infantry bonus when totally clearing an area of Zs if this area was not Z-controlled. This seems a harder task then just surviving one round of combat.

Krieghund, thanks for the answers (as always).

Can we just summarize this issue by saying:

You get the 1 infantry bonus if you remove the Z control marker?

So if a unit is not Z-controlled but has Zs in it… and even if you destroy them all: still no bonus.

Also please take a look at this situation arising:

During the turn of the player before you the Zs were victorious in combat (that is: Phase 5). However the Zs do NOT take control of that area as that only happens during Phase 3 of a turn! So during your turn the last country that had units there (or the original owner) still controls that area. While there are Zs now.
The question now is: does this area qualify as being ‘Z occupied’ as per DECOY TEAM card?

ZMCR says: you may non-combat move a Z from a territory your units occupy.

So this means that this territory may be controlled by your ally? While you have units there.

And this technology explicitely says ‘units’. But I guess having only one unit there is enough.
One last issue (but hey, I am fool-proof-reading the rules!)… does an IC qualify as a unit here? Is that relevant? Well, it might… Zs can have a presence in an area containing your factory. But these Zs do not take control of this area unless they are with more then IPC value of the area. So you can have this situation in which an area contains Zs… while you control the area because of this IC. The question is: in that very case may this technology be applied?

This issue might be related to: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32918/aaz-rule-question-non-combat-movement-after-attacking-zs-in-an-area-you-control

The card says: “Choose a Z occupied territory”.

It does not say: Z controlled. So you can apply this card to ANY area that contains Zs?
That very area does not have to be Z controlled? That area does not have to be controlled by you or an ally?
And finally the adjacent area you may move half of the Zs to can be any adjacent area: controlled by you / controlled by an ally / enemy controlled? Or even: neutral?
(Regarding that latter: that is probably NOT the case…)

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?

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’?

@Striker said in AAZ Rule Question: non-combat movement after attacking Zs in an area you control:

Page 15 says you can move out to escape combat.

Striker, thanks for reply. I thought about analogy between submerged submarines and Zs too. Seems the analogy is not 100 % though indeed.