Group Details Private

Official Answers

no description available

  • RE: Global 1942 Scenario by Larry Harris

    @17Mark71 Look here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/20575/oztea-s-1942-global-setup

    @barney I have edited in that link into your above posting to point to the new forum link.

    posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
  • RE: Army count for 2nd edition

    @Patchman123 You can download/save these screenshots of the above tables (klick on them before to enlarge them):

    table_pieces.png

    table_stuff.PNG

    posted in Axis & Allies Europe 1940
  • RE: Combat Rules
    1. The Turkish Straits are entirely contained within the territory of Constantinople, so moving from Constantinople to Bulgaria does not require crossing the straits. As the straits are contained within a single territory and not at a border between territories, transports are never needed to cross them.
    2. It doesn’t matter what the odds are. Fighters may attack a hostile territory as long as at least one infantry also attacks (all of the units end their move in the same territory, so the infantry satisfies the fighters’ land unit requirement). Of course, if there is only one infantry, all of the fighters will have to be taken as casualties before it can be taken (see page 19 of the rulebook).
    posted in Axis & Allies 1914
  • RE: Post League Game Results Here

    Recorded

    posted in League
  • RE: IJN and USN sea battle at Tokyo

    @Smack You are correct. In this edition repairs are done during the “Purchase and Repair Units Phase”, which is over for the current Japanese turn.

    posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
  • RE: Q&A with Axis & Allies Online Developers, Beamdog

    @djensen I fully agree. That’s why I say they complement each other, indeed!

    posted in Axis & Allies Online
  • RE: Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A

    @smo63 said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:

    Also they need to elaborate on the non-existing “opening fire step”, see https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1234065 , please.

    They simply copy-pasted the wording from the Revised rulebook, here, even without introducing Offshore Bombardment during the Amphibious Assault rules.

    Panther, I know you have been around this forum for a while now…years, correct. And I would only assume that you do know how to play AA at least the basics.

    If this is the case, then why would you need anyone to elaborate anything as far as the mechanics of how to play AA. Yes, I understand the zombie portion of it, but just use some common sense. And what is so pressing that some continually demand errata for the questions to the larger picture that keeps you up at night…

    Thank you, yes indeed I might have some knowledge about the basics/the rules, maybe that is why @Krieghund appointed me as rules deputy some years ago.

    What I am requesting here is some precision and some efforts about wording the rules from WotC. When I am asked for clarifications about the rules by other users I am used to give (and users are used to get) those clarfications supported by quoting the rules and / or the official FAQ.

    “Common sense” is nice, but sometimes misleading. When offshore bombardment is not part of the Amphibious Assault rules but appears only in the units characteristics of the battleship - and is worded there exactly like it was in Revised - what is common sense here?

    a) Offshore bombardment has not been intended to be part of the AAZ rules (see 1941 edition) at all?
    b) It was intended but is worded poorly and (still) missing in the Amphibious Assault part of the rules, too?

    I usually discuss issues like this one with @Krieghund, but we agreed that “common sense” allows for both interpretations.

    Users often don’t ask for “common sense” but want evidence/quotes from the rules/FAQ.

    All I have been asking for in this topic has been

    • a correction of the AAZ 1942 2nd ed. setup that should have been ready from day 1 of the release
    • a rewording of the Amphibious Assault rules to introduce Offshore Bombardment (including but not limited to the “fire back”-aspect), so that it matches the AAZ-ruleset (instead of the Revised ruleset). At least we know now from Scott’s words that Offshore Bombardment is a part of the AAZ-ruleset.

    I can’t see anything wrong with these requests.

    Doing a good ‘job’ for the community is what motivates me. Thank you for asking!

    (PS: Actually it does not keep me up at night. I wrote my posting you refer to at about 6.30 pm. My timezone is 6 to 9 hours ahead of yours (depending on where you live). So I do get enough sleep. 🙂 )

    posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
  • RE: Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A

    @smo63 said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:

    Also, from Scott at WotC on the return fire from BB bombardment of land units: The intent is that they can return fire. I’ll take a look at the text. If it’s ambiguous (or wrong) we’ll address that in an Errata or FAQ.

    Also they need to elaborate on the non-existing “opening fire step”, see https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1234065 , please.

    They simply copy-pasted the wording from the Revised rulebook, here, even without introducing Offshore Bombardment during the Amphibious Assault rules.

    posted in Axis & Allies & Zombies
  • RE: Q&A with Axis & Allies Online Developers, Beamdog

    @DoManMacgee Don’t forget defending submarines losing their submersible ability.
    Maybe all that ‘streamlining’ has not the biggest impact in 1942 2nd Ed., we’ll see how it plays out.

    But I am thinking a step further here: In case they ever want to adapt Global 1940 they need to remove find solutions for some more defender’s decisions, such as Kamikaze, Scramble, Interceptors.

    It is that lack of interaction with the defending player that makes it a special game for me.
    I don’t say that this ‘streamlining’ is wrong or bad, I am open for that new experience instead.
    It is just different.

    posted in Axis & Allies Online