@taamvan OK, I’ve discussed this with Larry. I have apparently erred on the side of “realism”. While my answer made sense from that point of view, it over-complicates the rules in play. To keep the rule simple, moving units using an ally’s transport is in effect the same as moving them with your own, with the exceptions that a) they must be offloaded on a later turn than when they were loaded, and b) the transport moves on its owner’s turn, if at all. I will amend my answers above accordingly.
Krieghund
@Krieghund
Best posts made by Krieghund
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
RE: Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense
It always interests me from among the many, many things that are abstracted in the broad-brush approach of these games what certain players home in on as “unrealistic”. I guess it depends on either what each individual’s pet interest is or what game mechanism they dislike the most. In any case, the bonus movement from bases is simply a very broad abstraction of the logistical advantage they provide, and, like it or dislike it, they do add an element of strategy to the game.
-
RE: Playtesters Wanted for A&A: North Africa by Renegade Games
@imperious-leader Thanks, IL. I’m already on board!
-
RE: Submarine withdrawal question
@the_good_captain You may withdraw some or all of them. If a group withdraws together, they must all withdraw to the same sea zone.
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
@contango said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Question: During the same UK non-combat phase, can the UK land unit starting in United Kingdom load onto the US transport whilst the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into Normandy Bordeaux?
The rules say that allied units must remain on the transport for a round before offloading, even if the transport doesn’t have to move, strongly implying that the transport “moves within the sea zone” during the ally’s turn between the moving power’s turns. Applying that principle disallows a move such as this.
Yes, but loading must occur before offloading, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.Bonus Question 1: If the answer above is “yes”, would it still be “yes” if the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into United Kingdom?
While the above answer is “no”, it would be “yes” in this case. Since the two units loaded from and offloaded to the same territory, it would be OK. Of course, the only reason I can think of to do that is to trade an infantry for another unit type (or vice versa). Needless to say, the unit not on the transport must load before the unit already on the transport offloads, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.
Yes.Bonus Question 2: If the answer to the first question is “yes”, would it still be yes if neither of the UK land units were infantry? (is the spirit of the rules that loading always happens first and hence would not be allowable because two non-infantry units would be aboard the transport together, or could the offload be seen as happening first?)
This would not be allowed at all, as loading must occur before offloading.
-
RE: Larry Harris' website had been shut down - and is back again!
I have uploaded the FAQs for all of the OOP games (Classic, Europe, Pacific, Revised, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Guadalcanal, 1942 1st Edition) in their appropriate forums. Could someone please “sticky” them?
-
RE: Those blind U-Boat Commanders
@chaikov Yes, you’re interpreting the rules correctly.
However, WWII submarines didn’t “block” convoys. They attacked them, causing significant losses, but not stopping them altogether. Submarines were given the ability to pass through enemy units (countered by destroyers) in order to give them better survivability so they could live to attack on their own turn. This works both ways so that players can’t flood the board with cheap blockers and slow down game play.
I hope this helps.
-
RE: 2nd Edition Western Canada Misprint
@The-Lone-Wolf Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It’s in the FAQ, also available at Panther’s link above.
-
RE: Applying Casualties Question
@the_good_captain You have it right.
Unfortunately, it’s very common to run into people who have something wrong but insist they’re right. Misconceptions can be very deeply ingrained. When they concern game rules, I’ve often found they come from being taught the game by someone else who got it wrong without ever really reading the rules for oneself.
The first time I ever played Risk (in the 1970s), I was taught by an older boy at a community center. I enjoyed the game so much that I soon bought a copy for myself. After reading the rules, it was a very different (and better) game than I was taught.
-
RE: When USA not at War
There must be a certain amount of historical accuracy in order for the game to “feel like” the subject matter. Axis & Allies has always dealt with this accuracy at a macro level, striving for “feel” rather than simulation, and thus not dwelling on minutiae. It’s a fine line to walk, but some historical realities must be observed in order to maintain the ambiance. In this case, the restriction presents the feeling of threat without overly burdening the Japan player, as forcing avoidance of all USA territories would.
I won’t pretend that there aren’t game play reasons why this restriction is in place. If there weren’t, why burden the game with it? However, any such rule must be grounded in historical events and realities in order to not come off as “gamey” and ruin the feel of the experience.
All of that being said, the USA did rather famously (infamously?) allow the IJN to get within striking distance of Hawaii, as well as several other of its Pacific possessions, without raising much of a fuss until it was too late. I doubt the same would have been true if the mainland had been so threatened (my original post did make this distinction). In game terms, the “threat zone” of the mainland extends two sea zones out. Since the Hawaiian sea zone is outside of that radius, and since Hawaii could just as easily be attacked from Japanese-held territory (Marshall Islands), there was little point in game terms of excluding Japan from that sea zone.
Latest posts made by Krieghund
-
RE: Odd fighter/carrier move question
@aardvarkpepper said in Odd fighter/carrier move question:
@Krieghund Thanks for the reply.
You’re welcome.
I I read correctly, you’d say the sole stipulation is preserve as many fighters as possible, and nothing else matters? I’d agree there’s a good case to be made for that, as remembering all those details is a complication.
Yup.
But for those that will ask - then what is the purpose of the rulebook including that text about following through on fighter/carrier matchups?
The purpose of including that paragraph is to indicate that planned carrier moves/mobilizations must be executed as necessary, however exceptions are allowed when it is not necessary or it is impossible. Neither of these give permission to abandon fighters. I agree that permission to alter declared moves due to circumstances is not explicitly given (frankly, we didn’t think about that possibility), but the explicit requirement to land as many fighters as possible implies that.
Could it be that the rule really is that original fighter/carrier matchings must take precedence over landing the maximum number of fighters, and it’s just been effectively commonly house ruled?
No.
Or maybe the text about original intent is a holdover of awkward text. Before Renegade’s reprint, after all, there was the issue of 1942 Second Edition fighter (only) vs AA gun and “automatic destroy”.
No.
-
RE: Odd fighter/carrier move question
@aardvarkpepper You must land as many air units as you can. In this case, you must move carrier 1 to pick up fighters B and C. Declared carrier noncombat movements in the Combat Move phase are simply to demonstrate the possibility of landing fighters. The results of combat can change the situation, resulting in modifications to those plans and necessitating or allowing changing them.
-
RE: Do complexes prevent a blitz?
@The_Good_Captain Yes. Only “unoccupied” territories may be blitzed through.
-
RE: Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles
@PrivateerPuffin said in Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles:
1st question: Does the word may in excerpt #2 allow for fighters to be presumed as casualties?
No, but it allows for carriers to be.
2nd question: Does excerpt #3 mean that there can never be more fighters in a battle than you have spots on carriers (if there are no other islands or territories to land in).
Yes.
An example if my question is nonsensical.
Japan took Midway, Alaska, and Western Canada last turn. On the US turn. 4 US fighters from two carriers in SZ 56 used 2 movement to attack a fleet in SZ 64. 1 fighter from Western US then uses 3 of its movement to also attack the fleet. The Japan player says that isn’t allowed because the 4 fighters will need the carriers to land. The US player disagrees and says that they could take a fighter as a casualty, allowing for there to be an open spot on the carrier which the fighter from Western US can land on.The Japan player is correct.
During combat movement, you must be able to demonstrate possible safe landing zones for all attacking fighters. Once the combat starts, you may take carriers as casualties so that these safe landing zones are not maintained, usually in order to maximize the effectiveness of the attacking force. Once combat is over, all fighters that can still be landed must be (attacker’s choice of exactly which fighters, if there is a choice), and any that cannot are lost.
-
RE: Victory Condition Question
@The_Good_Captain Hmmm. It seems when I answered this before, I neglected to consult the FAQ. The answer here is correct, and the answer in the other thread is not. I have corrected it there. Sorry for any inconvenience.
-
RE: Victory Condition Question
@kwaspek104 Germany must hold both Moscow and Berlin for another round.
-
RE: Victory Condition Question
@kwaspek104 said in Victory Condition Question:
In the original manual it states:
“To win the game, the capturing player must still be in control of the enemy capital and his own capital at the beginning of his next turn.”
But in the official FAQ it states:
“Q. I’m confused; just how many capitals must Germany capture in order to win?
A. The Germans need to capture only one capital to win, but they must also control their own capital
(Germany) at the same time. You need to control both of those capitals, simultaneously, for one
complete round (the end of your turn until the end of your next turn).”Bold emphasis mine. Is it beginning of your next turn or the end of your next turn? For what it’s worth, the original Pacific manual “said beginning of next turn.”
It doesn’t matter, because if you control them at the beginning of your next turn you will also control them at the end of it. You can’t lose control of a territory during your own turn.
The next quick question is let’s say the US player conquers Berlin but Germany captures Moscow. Assuming the German player cannot recapture Berlin in the following turn, do the Allies have to recapture Moscow to officially win the game? Or does the game end because the US player retains his capital? To quote the manual:
“If you are one of the Allied powers (Great Britain, United States, or Soviet Union), you must occupy Germany and hold it until your next turn. You must also control your home country. (The Soviet player must retain control of Moscow.)”
The “home country” is the questionable part. It makes it seem like only the player conquering Germany must retain his capital, and other Allied capitals are irrelevant.
That’s correct. If the US captures Berlin, it doesn’t matter what happens to Moscow.