Thanks for reply, so it sounds like most of us agree that the rule is written poorly and that there is a logical “AA” way to interpret it, thanks!
Axis and Allies and Zombies at Origins
-
@DouchemanMacgee:
I dont get this sentiment. By FAR the most popular COD modes have always been the nazi zombie modes. This isnt a new thing. Zombies have been added to WW2 since….forever…
I don’t understand the rage either, but if you spend 5 minutes going through this sub-board you’ll see endless waves of posts by thin-skinned folks complaining about the zombies, so I figured I’d throw them a bone.
Basic 1942 AA50 is balanced. If NO’s are a problem…then its the NO rules that are the issue, not the base AA50 game.
In either revised or AA50 42 (sans NO’s), the bid is still 1 unit, which is pretty damn good.
IIRC NOs are a built in part of AA50, and turning them off is a house-rule. I’ve argued that G40 would be more balanced if NOs were turned off there as well, but the community/metagame/balance mods have developed around NOs for like 6 years now, so there’s no sense trying to change things.
I disagree on you regarding AA50 42 scenario’s balance, but that’s pretty far off topic and we can both agree that AA50 42 is more balanced than the likes of 42SE and G40, so I’m willing to drop the issue.
Look on page 23 of the manual. NO’s are optional. They are NOT part of the basic game balance.
I had this same issue with Greg when we previewed AAZ. He wanted to play with the “special” card text, which adds alot of special happenings. I did not. I wanted to see if the base game was balanced first.
If NO’s are not balanced (I dont play with them honestly), then its that issue that needs fixing, not the base game or changing setup, etc.
-
@Charles:
You purchase units at the end of the Turn ? What is the reason for that ?
Its getting too simple, man
Youre so right, man.
IMHO, the purchase order is an issue. You cannot “change” the phases in this way, and then try to add a 42Z expansion mode to 1942. Changing the phase order directly impacts the way the game plays. If I could change only one thing, this would be it.
-
seems simple enough to change the order of sequence. Doesn’t seem like a major house rule.
I see why they did it. It simplifies the game by taking the guess work out of what you need since you can see what is now needed and where.
This would go a long way to helping young players get into the game. Less bad choices/frustrations.
This game is definitely shaping up to be a great intro game into A&A. Higher IPC numbers on the territories means more purchases/choices. A full line up of pieces. Money. Optional rules.
An ability to transfer the rules to 1942.2 is very intriguing as once the AAZ gets stale/old, you can move up to a harder/ more complex version. Then finally do away with the zombie component altogether.
Having been with A&A since 1987, gaps between version releases are no big issue. 15+ years between MB and Revised. Everyone got spoiled with revised/1942/G40 era. (technically the second editions should have been released as first as WOTC used us as play testers for those last 1st ed releases.)
A&A shouldn’t see a major overhaul/remake until 2021 or so going by the release history and then only if something new can be added.
MB second edition-1987 / Revised-2004 / 1942.2-2012. So 17 years / 8 years.
Doing other eras, like WWI, is an option for the future of the series. I think battles/campaigns are done as we haven’t seen anything since 2007.
Personally, I think this game has gone as far as it can within the price and size restrictions of the market. Adding more types of units and enlarging the board bring it into the tabletop miniatures wargame sphere.
Time will tell though.
-
Personally, I think this game has gone as far as it can within the price and size restrictions of the market. Adding more types of units and enlarging the board bring it into the tabletop miniatures wargame sphere.
Didn’t they already try a line of A&A minis? I swear they did back in like the 2008-2012 time period and it did badly.
Look on page 23 of the manual. NO’s are optional. They are NOT part of the basic game balance.
I’ve never played with NOs in any A&A game, but I never knew they were optional in the rules, thanks. Do they even run tournaments for AA50 with NOs turned off?
I had this same issue with Greg when we previewed AAZ. He wanted to play with the “special” card text, which adds alot of special happenings. I did not. I wanted to see if the base game was balanced first.
If NO’s are not balanced (I dont play with them honestly), then its that issue that needs fixing, not the base game or changing setup, etc.
I’ll have to try playing a round of AAZ with the zombies, but given everything I’ve heard so far, I’ll probably house rule either them or the Zombie Cards out of the game completely. It’s mostly the cards I take issue with. A&A is already very luck-intensive (Yes I know LL exists), and I accept/appreciate that aspect of the game, but I feel like adding another layer of luck on top of that would be overkill.
-
@DouchemanMacgee:
I’ve never played with NOs in any A&A game, but I never knew they were optional in the rules, thanks. Do they even run tournaments for AA50 with NOs turned off?
Gencon A&A tournaments (Indianapolis 8/1-8/5) do not use NO’s. Neither did Origins (Columbus OH, this past June).
-
I disagree on you regarding AA50 42 scenario’s balance, but that’s pretty far off topic and we can both agree that AA50 42 is more balanced than the likes of 42SE and G40, so I’m willing to drop the issue.
If you disagree with AA50 not being the most balanced of the games, please enlighten us why?
I am complete agreement with Squirecam…there is no OTB AA game that is more balanced…
-
In my experience AA50.42 is pretty balanced, But Milton Bradley is probably more balanced… but that’s not practical as a tournament option with Germany getting a healthy bid
-
If you disagree with AA50 not being the most balanced of the games, please enlighten us why?
I am complete agreement with Squirecam…there is no OTB AA game that is more balanced…
To clear the air, AA50 42 with NOs turned on is a mess and Axis stomp every time. AA50 42 scenario without NOs is well balanced, and what I will be discussing.
Revised and possible Classic are more balanced than AA50 42 scenario w/o NOs. I say this for two reasons:
A: Japan’s starting position in the 42 scenario is incredibly powerful. You can stack Burma with enough force to take India whenever you want and constantly be threatening to dump your entire FTR Stack on East Ukraine if and when Germany decides to seriously stack it.B: Italy’s starting fleet is strong enough that it can stick around for a few rounds. In a tournament setting, this will usually allow the European Axis to hold on long enough for Japan to sweep India/Australia and run out the clock.
Classic and Revised have their own issues as well, but I personally don’t see them being as much of an issue as the points I mention above.
I’ll stress that all three games (AA50 no NOs, Classic, Revised) are all very well balanced. It’s just my subjective opinion that Revised is the most balanced version overall.
@Imperious:
In my experience AA50.42 is pretty balanced, But Milton Bradley is probably more balanced… but that’s not practical as a tournament option with Germany getting a healthy bid
The problem with Classic compared to other versions is that you really don’t know who’s winning after just 5-6 hours, unless someone makes a huge mistake or both players are playing extremely quickly.
-
The Classic A&A winner is usually determined when the big Eastern Front infantry stack is dealt with between Germany and Russia… dicing usually plays a role in that one way or another. Most Classic games I recall are determined by whoever wins that battle.
-
Japan can always lend a hand in that battle by opening a second front.
Suggested Topics
