AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

[General 6 Stars]

I do have NA’s and Tech in my 40 game. The charts I made are posted in the Global War thread.  The Tech is not over powering and I don’t have Heavy Bombers for Tech.

[zooooma]

@SS:

I get on a bomber attacking D6 at 4 aves 3.35 per roll.

It hits 4 times and misses twice.  Average hits = (1+1+1+1+0+0) / 6 = .67 hits.

How can you average more than 1 hit on a single die?

[General 6 Stars]

Sorry thought you meant ave die roll.  Ave hit still higher for me.

[zooooma]

@SS:

Sorry thought you meant ave die roll.  Ave hit still higher for me.

Average die roll is 3.5
(1+2+3+4+5+6) / 6 = 3.5

How are you calculated averages?

[zooooma]

@SS:

Based off half a 6 is ave is 3.0 but its a bit higher than that.

If there were a ‘0’ on the die (7 sides) it would average 3 - the midpoint between 0 and 6

There is no zero (which is why it’s a bit higher), and the midpoint between 1 and 6 is 3.5

@SS:

If you roll 2D6’s 10 times on dice tester comes out to ave 20 die = 11 hits.

20 die rolls is statistically insignificant.  My math on the other hand is air tight.

[General 6 Stars]

:-D

[zooooma]

To make it very simple, a Bomber hits 2/3 times.  So with 20 Bombers (or 10 AA50 HBs), 2/3 of those 20 dice will hit (on average).

20 dice @4 will hit 13.333 times, on average.

Incidentally, if you think 10 HBs average 11 hits, thats only 1.1 hits each - less than the average I calculated at 1.33 hit each.

[General 6 Stars]

I agree with ya. Yes some 20 die rolls I got with tester did give me 14 hits and 13 hits. I just went a bit lower in case there were 9 hits and 8 hits on tester.

But we all know ave die rolls don’t happen in our games.  :evil: :evil: :evil:

I go to bed many nights dreaming of ave die rolls in my games.  :-D

[gamerman01]

@SS:

I go to bed many nights dreaming of ave die rolls in my games.  :-D

Ahh, I’ve heard this before…. my lifelong A&A buddy says this a lot  :lol:

[Krieghund]

From the FAQ:

Page 12, Breakthrough Chart 2 – Heavy Bombers: The second sentence should replaced with: “You roll two dice for each bomber and select the best result when you attack or make a strategic bombing raid.”

[zooooma]

I’ve done a little digging since I posed the question…

It turns out that “rule” was in a PDF at HGD; but it doesn’t seem to have ever made it into an official AH document:
http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

The Avalon Hill website no longer supports AA50, so it’s very unlikely this will ever become official.

[Krieghund]

I can assure you that it’s official, as all material posted by Larry or myself on the HGD site is official (in fact, it’s the only source for official information on out of print games, as the AH site no longer supports them).  While the link to the FAQ no longer exists on the AH site, the page is actually still there.  As you can see, the erratum in question is in there, so it was also official published by AH.

[Panther]

@zooooma:

http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

This document is outdated (March 2009). The last official FAQ (as mentioned by Krieghund) has been from September 2014.

[zooooma]

@P@nther:

@zooooma:

http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

This document is outdated (March 2009). The last official FAQ (as mentioned by Krieghund) has been from September 2014.

If AH released a more up-to-date FAQ, lead me too it!  Kreighund’s link takes me to a designer site - not an official Avalon Hill source.

AFAIK this proposed errata was never published by the producers of the game; who have the final only “official” word.

That thread (not even a PDF anymore) is about as official as LHTR for Revised.  These are fine option for so inclined tournament organisers, but they do not supplant the official rules.

[Panther]

@zooooma:

@P@nther:

@zooooma:

http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

This document is outdated (March 2009). The last official FAQ (as mentioned by Krieghund) has been from September 2014.

If AH released a more up-to-date FAQ, lead me too it!  Kreighund’s link takes me to a designer site - not an official Avalon Hill source.

AFAIK this proposed errata was never published by the producers of the game; who have the final only “official” word.

That thread (not even a PDF anymore) is about as official as LHTR for Revised.

I was referring to Krieghund’s following post:

@Krieghund:

I can assure you that it’s official, as all material posted by Larry or myself on the HGD site is official (in fact, it’s the only source for official information on out of print games, as the AH site no longer supports them).  While the link to the FAQ no longer exists on the AH site, the page is actually still there.  As you can see, the erratum in question is in there, so it was also official published by AH.

The link behind the words “still there” is :

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AxAl-AnEd_Errata.pdf

[zooooma]

@P@nther:

I was referring to Krieghund’s following post:

@Krieghund:

I can assure you that it’s official, as all material posted by Larry or myself on the HGD site is official (in fact, it’s the only source for official information on out of print games, as the AH site no longer supports them).  While the link to the FAQ no longer exists on the AH site, the page is actually still there.  As you can see, the erratum in question is in there, so it was also official published by AH.

The link behind the words “still there” is :

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AxAl-AnEd_Errata.pdf

Sorry - I missed that.
Thanks guys!

I suspect I will play by my out-of-date FAQ.  Not quite a house rule - just an older rules set,
Those nerfed HBs are truly garbage - scarcely better than regular Bombers.  :x

[Krieghund]

@zooooma:

If AH released a more up-to-date FAQ, lead me too it!  Kreighund’s link takes me to a designer site - not an official Avalon Hill source.

AFAIK this proposed errata was never published by the producers of the game; who have the final only “official” word.

That thread (not even a PDF anymore) is about as official as LHTR for Revised.  These are fine option for so inclined tournament organisers, but they do not supplant the official rules.

As I said, the publisher has dropped support for out-of-print games, so the designer’s site is the only official source of information for them that currently exists (save for disconnected web pages).  In any case, the FAQs that AH publishes come from the designer, and the ones on his site are the same as the ones that are (or used to be) on the publisher’s site.

[zooooma]

This is kind of academic, seeing as AH FAQ & HGD FAQ are on the same page…

But I would argue that IF AH had not officially endorsed that FAQ it would not be official.  Dropping support is kind of irrelevant.  Star Wars: Queens Gambit is oop and unsupported - that doesn’t mean the designers can make “official” changes to the rules.  Rather it means the official rules are set in stone.

Again, this is academic.  WotC got behind HGD 100%.  If AH chose not to recognise the change, then we’d have a fun debate!

[General 6 Stars]

:roll:

[zooooma]

Be cool man.
:-P

I had good cause to believe AH had not officially endorsed this rule - the FAQ link I followed came from this site!

When a designer retroactively wants to change a game rule after it’s published, and the publisher (apparently) does not acknowledge the change - it’s a very reasonable and defensible position that the publisher has the official word.

It’s not by fault AA.org has an out of date link and WotC has taken their link down.  No need for the eye-rolls, they’re not very friendly.  :)