Worst Rule Distortions and Misinterpretations


  • @Caesar:

    I honestly wanted to add a very complex rule where certain units do better against others but it forces the attacker to actually assign attacks during combat. It will slow the game down but make it interesting. For example. Fighters do 4 against other fighters, 5 against bombers, 3 against tanks, 2 against infantry, and 1 against any naval unit.

    Yeah I tried something like that once but the battle board ended up looking so complicated I was scared away from it.

  • '17 '16

    The simpler I got in that direction was to create a Fg Cost 7 with Attack @2 and Defense @2, which target air first.
    Allowing TcB Cost 8 Attack @3 Defense @2 to target any ground units.

    Fighters work very well if you start rolling planes first.
    Adding TcB targeting is manageable too.
    Combining both need a bit more focus when rolling dice. It slow things a little.

    But now, that I read that TcBs as an Anti-Tank weapon was more a myth than reality, I would keep only Fighter as a targeting unit.
    And it is within A&A game mechanisms if you look at 1914 planes.


  • The only rule I ever got wrong in my life was the rule where you can capture allied territories and claim them if their capital was under control by the enemy. My friend corrected me about this but he did so thinking that should be the rule via logic and didn’t know himself that was an actual rule.

    On the other side, he once tried to argue that liberating a territory should be under his control and not return to the original owner. This came up when he once played UK and he liberated several Soviet and US territories back when China used to be US instead of itself. I told him this isn’t the 1950’s.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Caesar:

    On the other side, he once tried to argue that liberating a territory should be under his control and not return to the original owner. This came up when he once played UK and he liberated several Soviet and US territories back when China used to be US instead of itself. I told him this isn’t the 1950’s.

    :lol:

  • '17

    @Der:

    We’ve played with classic transports for years with no complaints. Why do so many balk at transports sinking a battleship but they are still fine with foot soldiers shooting down strategic bombers? Its all abstracted to a certain degree.� Â

    No. A foot Soldier in the game does not single handedly shoot down strategic bombers. That would be ridiculous. An infantry unit on the board of axis and allies represents an unknown size unit. Due to the size of the territory and battle representations on the board (even dropping 1 infantry on an island in the pacific represents at least the size of a division). Most infantry divisions have organic internal Anti-Air Artillery. So, it’s not like there couldn’t have been an internal capability. Albeit, not as good as the capability of an entire unit of AAA, as represented on the board or in real life.


  • @Baron:

    The simpler I got in that direction was to create a Fg Cost 7 with Attack @2 and Defense @2, which target air first.
    Allowing TcB Cost 8 Attack @3 Defense @2 to target any ground units.

    Fighters work very well if you start rolling planes first.
    Adding TcB targeting is manageable too.
    Combining both need a bit more focus when rolling dice. It slow things a little.

    But now, that I read that TcBs as an Anti-Tank weapon was more a myth than reality, I would keep only Fighter as a targeting unit.
    And it is within A&A game mechanisms if you look at 1914 planes.

    Of all the house rules I’ve read on the different forums, this idea of a cheaper, less powerful fighter that targets air units intrigues me the most.  The TcB idea would seem to lend itself more toward naval battles with a division between fighters and dive bombers/torpedo planes, in which case targeting of naval units would make perfect sense.


  • I tell people to picture land units a battalion size, aircraft as a wing, and naval as itself meaning 1 for 1.

  • '17 '16

    @Caesar:

    I tell people to picture land units a battalion size, aircraft as a wing, and naval as itself meaning 1 for 1.

    Nice distortion.  :-)

    But can it lead to misinterpretations?

  • '17 '16

    @Staples:

    @Baron:

    The simpler I got in that direction was to create a Fg Cost 7 with Attack @2 and Defense @2, which target air first.
    Allowing TcB Cost 8 Attack @3 Defense @2 to target any ground units.

    Fighters work very well if you start rolling planes first.
    Adding TcB targeting is manageable too.
    Combining both need a bit more focus when rolling dice. It slow things a little.

    But now, that I read that TcBs as an Anti-Tank weapon was more a myth than reality, I would keep only Fighter as a targeting unit.
    And it is within A&A game mechanisms if you look at 1914 planes.

    Of all the house rules I’ve read on the different forums, this idea of a cheaper, less powerful fighter that targets air units intrigues me the most.  The TcB idea would seem to lend itself more toward naval battles with a division between fighters and dive bombers/torpedo planes, in which case targeting of naval units would make perfect sense.

    When I played, Destroyer at 8 IPCs were less use as fodder compared to Fighter at 7 IPCs.
    Usually, I found that loosing planes before boats was a better depiction than the actual OOB where Fighters D@4 remain in SZ while all Carriers has been sunk because of their poor defense @2.

    A Carrier at 16 IPCs defending @2 was kept last compared to a Fg Defending @2 for 7 IPCs.
    The other difference to make it works correctly in Naval Operation is to make Carriers able to hold 3 planes.
    You can use TcB A2-3 (A3 with Tank or Fg) D2 C7 or C8, it works. (But you have to adjust your setup 2 OOBs Fgs gives 3 weaker Fgs.)


  • @Baron:

    @Caesar:

    I tell people to picture land units a battalion size, aircraft as a wing, and naval as itself meaning 1 for 1.

    Nice distortion.  :-)

    But can it lead to misinterpretations?

    I just tell them that because of logic issues like how in the hell can an infantry shoot down a bomber? You have to use some imagination with the game. Unless you do exactly what I wanted to do make units have strength and weakness because if I had my way, infantry cannot shoot at aircraft.


  • @Der:

    @Caesar:

    I honestly wanted to add a very complex rule where certain units do better against others but it forces the attacker to actually assign attacks during combat. It will slow the game down but make it interesting. For example. Fighters do 4 against other fighters, 5 against bombers, 3 against tanks, 2 against infantry, and 1 against any naval unit.

    Yeah I tried something like that once but the battle board ended up looking so complicated I was scared away from it.

    Yeah, you would have to come up with a whole new battle board but that also means that attack would end up picking what gets destroyed instead of the defense doing that.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    You guys would probably really like the OOP, Guadalcanal edition, as you roll from a battle box and match your dice to specific casualty types.


  • Sure but I refer WWII has a whole vs a single battle.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 14
  • 1
  • 15
  • 39
  • 8
  • 22
  • 7
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts