AA50-41 Tech Tourney sign-up (sign-ups CLOSED)

Heading back up to your logic up above–its not “units that can (in some situations) retreat”. It is units in this situation that can retreat (attacking tts yes defending ones no). That rule is written as it is to cover the situations where submerged subs, unhittable units (subs vs planes) or amphibious assaults where some units can retreat and others cant.

As a lawyer–I get what you’re trying to do and say that the rule doesn’t say what its supposed to say. As Krieg points out, that’s up for debate. Many lawsuits are about this kind of thing.

But that’s not because its dogma Canon law its because the other outcome is insensible, contradictory, gamey, requires a tortured reading of the language devised over multiple editions and revisons of the game to try and cover so many different situations.

there is no such thing as a perfect document try to write one

Thanks for the clarification.

On page 5

Shouldn’t “fighter” be replaced with “cruiser” in the first line of the answer. The defender has a sub and cruiser, the attacker has the fighter.

Q. Assume there’s a sea zone that contains an enemy sub and cruiser, and that I attack it with a destroyer and a fighter. If the defender scores two hits in the first combat round, can I take the hit from the cruiser on my destroyer, saving my fighter, since the sub can’t hit it?
A. No. Because you have a destroyer, the defender’s sub rolls in Step 4 along with his or her fighter cruiser. Since both defending units roll in the same combat step and all dice are rolled in a step before applying casualties, the two hits are applied together. Therefore, you must apply both hits if possible. The only way to apply both hits is to take the cruiser hit on the fighter and the sub hit on the destroyer.

I agree for more than just the financial reasons.

A Pac Strategy is SOOO easy in this game to pull off, even a rookie can do it!  (With the Allies.)  Japan literally cannot be everywhere with it’s navy at once like it could in Classic and (to a lesser extent) revised.  Too many new sea zones let you hide your fleet around.  If Japan splits up to protect all avenues of approach (notice that they would have to move into range of your fleet to block you after starting out of range) then you can focus your firepower to destroy their smaller fleet(s).

Here’s a list of the rules that have changed: http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/Anniversary_Rules_Changes.pdf

Here’s an article on new rules: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=1682

Agreed - there’s really no advantage to having a bunch of units compared to keeping the IPCs to produce those units.

And in general there’s no advantage keeping IPCs, unless you want to build a surprise super-navy or something.

I more than agree with templeton on the freedom to players idea. I appreciate the game offers a nice historical point of view, but it is the idea of being able to do the “what if” playing that makes it really exciting.

Well said!

I agree with your rational, but I do feel that Paratroopers belong in the game.  I don’t know the solution though.  Perhaps they could only be used in attacks where at least 1 other unit is also attacking the same territory by land or by sea.  (I would make an exception for islands and perhaps undefended territories.)