Young Grasshopper's G40 House Rules

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?

    The Axis/Allies control the entire Burma road as well as Hong Kong and Shanghai

    Also, does the the Russia one include just the originally axis territories on mainland Europe, or does it also include originally pro-axis territories, islands, and axis territories outside Europe (e.g. middle east, Africa, Korea)?  Just want to clarify because this is similar to the NO


  • @variance:

    To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?

    The Axis/Allies control the entire Burma road as well as Hong Kong and Shanghai

    I like the new Russia one

    “Entire” means all of the allies only. Pacific side pertains to Anzac, India.

    Yes any extra things for Russia is always welcomed ! And all.  :-D

    I may use this rule in my tech tree or event cards in my game.

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    I was thinking entire as in all of the territories through which the Burma road passes; not ‘control of the road’ in the sense that the road may be closed by the axis holding just 1 of the territories.

    Would like to see some language on the Russia one.  Same deal as the NO or different?

  • Sponsor

    @SS:

    YG for your Break though tech chart #1 for ROCKETS is an airbase gets a shot at a facility 4 spaces away. So no AAA gun involved with this correct ?
    Your just using a built in AAA gun in base correct ?

    Correct, no AAA required… It’s 1 rocket from each operational airbase.

  • Sponsor

    @SS:

    Am also assuming your MASS PRODUCTION tech doesn’t over favor the allies ?
    In the Pacific ?

    No, in fact it’s most useful for Japan if they build minor ICs in Asia because they produce 5 each.

  • Sponsor

    @variance:

    To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?

    The term “Burma Road” has always ment all the territories that connect it… I don’t see any misunderstanding.

  • Sponsor

    @variance:

    Also, does the the Russia one include just the originally axis territories on mainland Europe, or does it also include originally pro-axis territories, islands, and axis territories outside Europe (e.g. middle east, Africa, Korea)?  Just want to clarify because this is similar to the NO

    “6 original Axis territories”

    • does not include pro-neutrals
    • can be any Axis original anywhere on the map
    • it is different than the “Spread of Communism” NO
    • Islands would count as long as it’s an Axis original territory
    • they must be controlled by Russia, not by the Allies as a whole
  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    great. thanks!


  • For the UK submarine NO, what sea zones does the Atlantic include? I just want to make sure. I think it’s a good rule, you can’t simply put a sub in the med or in the white sea. plus I like to build subs with germany anyways :)

  • Sponsor

    @Genghis:

    For the UK submarine NO, what sea zones does the Atlantic include? I just want to make sure. I think it’s a good rule, you can’t simply put a sub in the med or in the white sea. plus I like to build subs with germany anyways :)

    Hey Buddy, great to hear from ya… really enjoyed meeting you at the event… I’ve cleared up the language on this revised UK NO, hope it helps.

    UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)

    • 5 IPC’s if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic, (This area consists of all szs west of and including szs 70 and 91, it also includes all szs west of the Norwegian Straits except for szs 112, 125, 126 and 127).

  • @Young:

    @variance:

    To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?

    The term “Burma Road” has always ment all the territories that connect it… I don’t see any misunderstanding.

    I agree that the language is a little confusing more for the Axis Objective than the Allies.
    For the Allies to have the road open, they must control the entire road.
    But for the Axis to close the road they only need to control one territory within the road.
    One might argue that for the Axis, that because holding one territory changes the status of the road for the Allies and closes the entire road, they control the road.

    New players don’t know what things have always meant. With having a lesser experienced gaming group, I know there would be discuss at my table with the current language.

    That’s why I would favor adding “entire road” to the objective even if it was in parentheses.


  • YG  what is the starting Axis total income ? 66 ? and how did you arrive to 142 icp total for axis to get a token. To get this token axis pretty much control 2/3 territories ?

  • Sponsor

    @Wildcat6305:

    @Young:

    @variance:

    To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?

    The term “Burma Road” has always ment all the territories that connect it… I don’t see any misunderstanding.

    I agree that the language is a little confusing more for the Axis Objective than the Allies.
    For the Allies to have the road open, they must control the entire road.
    But for the Axis to close the road they only need to control one territory within the road.
    One might argue that for the Axis, that because holding one territory changes the status of the road for the Allies and closes the entire road, they control the road.

    New players don’t know what things have always meant. With having a lesser experienced gaming group, I know there would be discuss at my table with the current language.

    That’s why I would favor adding “entire road” to the objective even if it was in parentheses.

    Understood… so I revised both VOs to read as follows…

    Asia
    -The Axis control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Hong Kong and Shanghai
    (FOW) *Japan

    Asia
    -The Allies control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Hong Kong and Shanghai
    (FOW) *The United Kingdom


  • I concur with Wildcat6305 that it would be clearer for YG’s Victory Objectives to distinguish between the Allied and Axis objectives pertaining to the Burma Road, because they’re different objectives.  The Allied objective is to control the Burma Road, by holding all of it; the Axis objective is to cut off (or block or interdict or shut down) the Burma Road, by holding one or more of the territories it traverses.

    The Allies are the only ones who get any economic benefit from controlling the Burma Road, and in order to do so they need to control all of it.  As the OOB rules say, “When all of the territories this road passes through are controlled by the Allies during China’s Collect Income phase, China receives a bonus income of 6 IPCs per turn” and “Allied powers must control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan for this to occur.”

    It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.  Saying that the Axis needs to “Axis control all territories connecting the Burma Road” contradicts what the OOB rules say.  Moreover, the Axis gains no income from the Burma Road even if it “controls” all of it, so from this perspective too it’s potentially misleading to give the Axis a goal of “controlling” the Burma Road.

  • Sponsor

    @SS:

    YG  what is the starting Axis total income ? 66 ? and how did you arrive to 142 icp total for axis to get a token. To get this token axis pretty much control 2/3 territories ?

    Hey SS,

    Starting Axis income is 30 (Germany) + 26 (Japan) + 10 (Italy) = 66 IPCs

    How I came to the 142 mark is by adding up all the IPC values of every territory that has an IPC value, and half of that is 142. Therefore, if the Axis controls half of all available territory values… than they get a token.

  • Sponsor

    @CWO:

    It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.

    Yes, That is oob rules… however, with my token achievement system, the Axis must control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Shanghai and Hong Kong.


  • @Young:

    @CWO:

    It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.

    Yes, That is oob rules… however, with my token achievement system, the Axis must control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Shanghai and Hong Kong.

    I think the main difference is YG’s requirement is for a Victory Objective, not a National Objective. So there needs to be a higher bar. A NO would merely be close the road, but the VO needs to be control all the territories. That keeps the intergrity in the system, because in the European theater it is being slugged out for N. Africa, so you need an equally challenging VO in the Pacific. (Not the those are the only two VOs in the system, just easy examples)

  • Sponsor

    AXIS “ASIA” TOKEN HAS BEEN MODIFIED!
    Asia
    -The Axis control Hong Kong, Shanghai, Malaya, and Calcutta
    (FOW) *Japan


  • In our group, we are testing a modification to the ANZAC national objective to require Cairo AND Malaya while at war with Germany and Italy to get 5 IPCs. This way if Japan wants to declare war early, they have the option to deny two bonuses by taking Malaya, but they also have to take philippines to deny the american bonus. So they have to choose. They can’t do everything: money islands, philippines, malaya, yunnan etc. If they don’t declare war early, then Anzac will be able to build up better for the inevitable declaration later on.

    In the tournament we consistently had over 40 IPCs with anzac with not enough complexes to build units. I find if America gets an extra 5 and they bring everything they have against Japan PLUS anzac consistently gets over 30 in income, it might be too much for the allies.

  • Sponsor

    @Genghis:

    In our group, we are testing a modification to the ANZAC national objective to require Cairo AND Malaya while at war with Germany and Italy to get 5 IPCs. This way if Japan wants to declare war early, they have the option to deny two bonuses by taking Malaya, but they also have to take philippines to deny the american bonus. So they have to choose. They can’t do everything: money islands, philippines, malaya, yunnan etc. If they don’t declare war early, then Anzac will be able to build up better for the inevitable declaration later on.

    In the tournament we consistently had over 40 IPCs with anzac with not enough complexes to build units. I find if America gets an extra 5 and they bring everything they have against Japan PLUS anzac consistently gets over 30 in income, it might be too much for the allies.

    Couldn’t you just buy a minor IC for Queensland?

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 1
  • 48
  • 13
  • 311
  • 10
  • 1
  • 10
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

55

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts