@djensen Low Luck doesn’t have to be based on autohits. For example, you can sum the total power of what you would be rolling together, divide it by 5, then rolling as many dice hitting at 5, then rolling for the remainder. That would decrease randomness a lot if, say, you would otherwise be rolling most dice at 3 or less.

For example if rolling 5@1, 2@2, 4@3, 2@4, one could:

Low Luck:
Get 4 autohits and roll 1 dice at 5.

Custom Luck at 5/6:
Roll 5 dice at 5 and 1 dice at 4.

@imperious-leader said in More Announcements from Renegade:

They should team up with Beamdog and make online E40 and P40 as well as Global

Why not just only Global, completely ignoring E40 and P40? I think it’s fairly obvious the only reason they exist is commercially to split the Global game (and its price) in twain.

@bigwatcher said in AA50 on Steroids!:

Thanks to Oztea’s suggestions. I had been trying out to improve the current AA50 map and setups that can play on BBR for the past months. Just printed out a copy and test-played with my buddy… so far so good, still some minor balancing to do.
I wanted something in-between Anniversary and Global40…less rules and time consuming but bigger map. Since its a game im playing with my young son, i tried my best to add in some historical battles, figures and events into the map…inspired by Lt.Dan’s BBR Global40 map.
Next I will be doing up a 1940 setup.

Definitely better than the original, in my opinion.

Since you seem fairly serious on putting some historicity into the map (and realizing that is starting from Axis&Allies…) I’ll make a review on this, and, don’t worry, I’m not going to nit-pick on good enough names (like calling the Netherlands as Holland, which is acceptable, or calling Northern France as just France, which I find acceptable too):

• RIO DE ORO would be better called SPANISH SAHARA.
• FRENCH CENTRAL AFRICA makes me think you are referring to FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFRICA. The territory is the eastern (and less important) part of FRENCH WEST AFRICA, so it can be called simply NIGER (as the territory you have drawn appears to be almost only Niger plus the British colonies) or, more correctly, EASTERN FRENCH WEST AFRICA. However, it would be better making it British and calling it NIGERIA (or NIGERIA GOLD COAST) because Nigeria was arguably the most important African colony at the time. Alternatively, I guess you can change the name from FRENCH CENTRAL AFRICA to CENTRAL FRENCH AFRICA, but I don’t like this idea.
• ANGOLA is completely outside of Angola. That is mostly SOUTH WEST AFRICA (which was British, game-wise). I understand and agree ANGOLA is wanted on the map, but I just suggest cutting a piece of BELGIAN CONGO for representing it.
• KENYA is completely or near-to-completely outside Kenya: better calling it SOUTHERN ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN or UGANDA.
• ANGLO-EGYPT SUDAN should be called ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN.
• I understand that the map generally follows the convention of naming the main part of a territory as just the whole territory, but it is really weird to see a name like UNITED KINGDOM next to SCOTLAND (even calling it GREAT BRITAIN would be too much): I would consider renaming UNITED KINGDOM to ENGLAND.
• BALKANS would be much better called as YOUGOSLAVIA. Also, make sure to use the pre-WW2 borders with Italy (Istria was Italian!).
• Since it borders BELORUSSIA across the marshes, EASTERN UKRAINE is more like NORTHERN UKRAINE, or rather just UKRAINE if it comprises the city of Kiev and you follow the (RUSSIA-territory-like) convention of naming the main part of a territory as just the whole territory. If EASTERN UKRAINE is UKRAINE, then UKRAINE has to be renamed to something like SOUTHERN UKRAINE.
• I understand that the point is not having a territory with the same name as its victory city, but seeing VOLGOGRAD is horrible. I suggest calling it STALINGRAD even if it is the same name as the victory city. If that is unacceptable, maybe call the territory STALINGRAD PROVINCE or STALINGRAD OBLAST or ROSTOV or maybe VOLGA.
• SAMARA must be renamed to KUYBYSHEV. By the way, that was the new capital of the Soviet Union from late 1941 until 1943.
• A territory north of Moscow that spans as wide as to border Belorussia in the west and Tunguska in the east is a major challenge for naming (and for making sense as a zone to start with). Consider splitting it west-east into two territories, calling them VOLOGDA and KHANTY-MANSI NATIONAL OKRUG, respectively.
• The Siberian territories as a whole don’t really make sense and some names are just wrong as names (for the period, at least). I’m just going mostly to ignore all the names there and try to find good enough new ones based on their borders, also with respect to lake Baikal as drawn: rename NOVOSIBIRSK to OMSK, rename TUNGUSKA to NOVOSIBIRKS, rename EVENKI NATIONAL OKRUG to KRASNOYARSK (albeit it can retain the name as a second-best alternative), rename YAKUT S.S.R. to IRKUTSK, rename STANOVOY KHREBET (or however it is spelled in the map) to BURYAT-MONGOLIAN A.S.S.R., rename BURYATIA to WESTERN YAKUT A.S.S.R., rename SIBERIA to YAKUT A.S.S.R. (and have the Yakutsk city in it if anywhere), rename SOVIET FAR EAST to NORTHERN SOVIET FAR EAST or NORTHERN KHABAROVSK or maybe KAMCHATKA. As for AMUR, I don’t think there are really much better names for a territory that goes from Chita to Primorye, but it may be better renamed to KHABAROVSK if renaming SOVIET FAR EAST to NORTHERN KHABAROVSK.
• KANSU would be much better called SINKIANG.
• NINGSIA would be better called KANSU if renaming KANSU to SINKIANG.
• HOPEH is completely misplaced by a long shot (so much that I wonder if that is a misspelling of HUPEH): it can instead be called SZECHWAN (where the provisional capital of China, Chungking, was located). If you meant and want it to be HUPEH (which I advice against too), then I strongly suggest renaming SIKANG to SZECHWAN, instead.
• JEHOL would be better called HOPEH.
• TAIWAN (Formosa) would be better called FORMOSA (Taiwan), mostly for consistency with KOREA (Chosen).
• EAST INDIES would be better called DUTCH EAST INDIES or JAVA SUMATRA (and, no, this is not like renaming Madagascar to French Madagascar: East Indies is a much larger area than the Dutch part of it, largely overlapping the Malay Archipelago and comprising at least the Philippines).
• CENTRAL UNITED STATES is largely outside the conglomerations of States known as “West North Central” (whose westernmost States were North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska), “East North Central” (whose westernmost State was Wisconsin), “West South Central” (whose westernmost State was Texas) and “East South Central” (whose westernmost State was Mississippi): I highly recommend renaming CENTRAL UNITED STATES to MOUNTAIN UNITED STATES. Moreover, once CENTRAL UNITED STATES is renamed to MOUNTAIN UNITED STATES, WESTERN UNITED STATES should be renamed to PACIFIC UNITED STATES. Moreover, if actually wanting to have CENTRAL UNITED STATES, I suggest splitting ESTERN UNITED STATES in two, vertically about on the border between Alabama and Georgia, calling the western part of it as CENTRAL UNITED STATES and the eastern part as ATLANTIC UNITED STATES. As a final note, to have the two westernmost areas of the United States (which, as drawn, are clearly Pacific and Mountain) having a total production of 16 out of 28 is crazy, especially for the time: they were nowhere near that important (but similar observations could be made for other parts of the map, like China). Also, Alaska was almost worthless, and the Aleutians were the definition of worthless.

Of course, I realize that some of the above name-changes will require moving city names around on the map, but I think that’s fairly obvious in every case.

Moreover, if the French roundel means “Vichy-France aligned”, that is wrong for FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFRICA. If the game starts at the start of Barbarossa, Iraq should be British or British-aligned.

Also, I want to point out that, in the setup tables, you are using the country flag for every power but using the army war flag for Japan only, whereas I see that the capital of Japan is arguably correctly flagged on the board (although that looks more like the air force roundel than the national flag), but inconsistently with the flag on the tables, while all other flags are consistent between what you have for the capitals and what you have for the setup tables.

@Panther Actually, that game he is referring to has only a resemblance to any Axis & Allies boardgames, and it is actually both strategic and tactic (though you can avoid the tactic part by autoresolving battles). Well, I call it tactic, but anyways it is “real time” battles resolution.

Just saying he wants to play something quite different from anything you can get with what you mentioned.

I’m assuming you never played that Axis & Allies videogame, here.

@the_good_captain said in National Objectives vs balance:

Question for serious players of Anniversary:

Do you play with NOs? If you do what is the bid like?

I have found it pretty heavily in favor of the axis so generally leave this optional rule to the side but am still curious.

In the 1941 scenario of the mentioned game, the NOs have four main effects, in order of importance:

1. They unbalance the game in favour of Axis to the point where no good player would seriously competitively play it without a bid (of course, as long as you are not using Low Luck, the randomness will assure a decent chance for Allies to win). This is particularly upsetting as the game without NOs is actually highly balanced (a rare case in the franchise if I may say so).
2. They reduce the importance of bombing raiding, especially of the bombing raiding of Germany (as Germany should have more income whilst the bombing cap is still 20). I believe you don’t need to use the interceptor rule as long as you are using NOs (though bombing raiding is of course still very strong with no interception).
3. They speed up the game a lot, easily cutting out a few hours of gameplay to get your win against a stubborn opponent (especially the +10 Soviet NO). Meaning that, when the game starts going in favour of one side, the NOs help the unbalance to grow faster.
4. They make the game significantly more luck-driven (as bad dice making you unable to take a territory may cause you to lose NOs income too).

---

As long as you are not using some Low Luck house-rules, I would say a bid of about 9 for either scenario (either 3 infantry or 1 artillery and 1 armour) to the Allies (likely all to Russia) may make for a balanced game while using the NOs but not using Tech.

If you are using some Low Luck rules, I would say bidding with NOs becomes virtually mandatory, and, in the 1941 scenario, the bid should be higher (maybe as high as 15).

@playing-kid said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:

There were photographs of the original 1942 prototype Larry Harris made of Axis & Allies in the 1970’s on there. Does anyone have those preserved

Exklusive Bilder aus dem “private War Room” und von der Ursprungsversion von Axis and Allies

@bigwatcher You’re welcomed.

However, I was pondering again my suggestion of splitting the VOLOGDA territory in two, calling them VOLOGDA and KHANTY-MANSI NATIONAL OKRUG. Unfortunately, that would not fit with how and where the Ural mountains are drawn, since the current VOLOGDA territory appears to be all west of the Urals as drawn (so it cannot comprise KHANTY-MANSIA) (By the way, the Ural mountains are rather small mountains, so they are not realistically impassable.).

So now I’m oriented to see the VOLOGDA territory as being an area spanning about from the Vologda province to the Kirov province and possibly also the Perm province: it can be still split in two vertically, calling them VOLOGDA and KIROV, or it can be left as a single territory.

Here are the new rename changes for Siberia, which do not imply redrawing any borders nor splitting any territories:
NENETSIA->KOMI A.S.S.R.
URALS->EASTERN KOMI A.S.S.R.
VOLOGDA->VOLOGDA
SAMARA->KUYBYSHEV
NOVOSIBIRSK->BASHKIR A.S.S.R.
TUNGUSKA->OMSK
EVENKI NATIONAL OKRUG->NOVOSIBIRSK
YAKUT S.S.R.->KRASNOYARSK
STANOVOY KHREBET->BURYAT-MONGOLIAN A.S.S.R.
BURYATIA->WESTERN YAKUT A.S.S.R.
SIBERIA->YAKUT A.S.S.R.
SOVIET FAR EAST->NORTHERN KHABAROVSK
AMUR->KHABAROVSK

As for territory changes:

• I would merge NENETSIA and URALS into a single territory called KOMI A.S.S.R. (because those areas as drawn are currently very narrow east-west in reality).
• I would split VOLOGDA vertically into two territories, called VOLOGDA and KIROV.

The above is, at the end, merely a compromise to temperate the huge distortions inherent in the drawing. I believe that they make more sense than my previous suggestions if you look at the Urals as drawn, but make matters some whorse with respect to western China (Sinkiang) as drawn. If you look at China and Mongolia, the current NOVOSIBIRSK territory (which I suggest to rename to BASHKIR A.S.S.R.) would be actually eastern Kazakhstan, SAMARA would be western Kazakhstan and KAZAKH S.S.R. would be southern Kazakhstan plus Kyrgyzstan, plus Uzbekistan (or at least its Kara-Kalpakian part), plus Tajikistan.

@tmtm1 It does not have a rule-book. I’m not a player, but I know everyone just plays it as the TripleA program makes it work beside what is detailed in the game’s notes.

So, if you want to play it as “people” do, practically, you have to know the TripleA behaviour and make yourself a “mental rulebook” out of it, then collate what is detailed in the World At War notes as if they are “erratas” of this “rulebook” given by the program’s behaviour.

Obviously, persons also except for the program’s problems (mainly whatever obvious bug), but this may become a highly disputable matter.

@redrum is currently the owner of the map (unless he is not any longer), so, if you need an “official” ruling whenever you and your opponent are in disagreement, I guess you may make a question in the official map’s thread at the TripleA forum and hope for an answer (just like you would ask any map-maker how his or her game is supposed to work).

A fifth point may be that they considerably increase the complexity of the game.

It is quite unfair (and likely quite unfun for them) to play with NOs if any number of the players are still in the process of learning the rules. NOs, like tech, are more for players who are starting getting bored of the basic game yet not bored enough to move on.

---

As to add my personal opinion, I theorically dislike NOs in Anniversary, even not considering the unbalance that they cause, because I think every territory giving its own income is good enough and cleaner and I do not believe the game needs more money (which turns into more units to stack on the board and manage), but practically recognize that they are a good thing to make the game reach a conclusion faster (if you like to finish games within 12 hours) and to offset the dominance of bombing raiding (if you don’t want to use the interceptor optional rule, which I believe virtually kills bombing raiding as a strategy, rather than rebalancing it).

@DoManMacgee said in Rules clarification for rolling separately:

I thought Column Rolling literally only existed in Classic 2nd Edition (maybe 3rd too, I don’t remember completely).

It has been clarified progressive “column” rolling was the process for Classic 1st and 2nd editions, but not for Classic 3rd edition, and for no Axis & Allies games thereafter.

@Krieghund How about if the carrier in the Indian sea zone is instead 1 more sea zone away from the other two Japanese carriers (for example, is in a sea zone to the south of the Indian one) so that there is a sea zone between of them? Can only one of the Indochinese sea zone carriers still move to the sea zone of the lone carrier (even though in this case it is making a 2 movements move and, during the first movement, there would be 3 carrier groups in play for the Japanese)?

@The_Good_Captain said in Piece count limit question:

@Krieghund

Or can you purchase it at the top of the turn so long as the two carriers on the board are grouped by the end of the turn.

Based on @Krieghund’s answer, I understand that you don’t necessarily need to group them. It is of course legal to place the new one if you have the existing ones in the same zone by the end of the Non-Combat Move phase (as you say), but it is also legal if you have at least one of them in a sea zone where you can place the new one (as you would just add a chip underneath it).

As a matter of being legal to purchase a carrier, what I understand it is that it is always legal regardless: just you will lose it if you cannot then place it.

@Krieghund I assume it is even legal to purchase a carrier in Classic in a situation in which you are certain that you will not be able to place it and even intentionally so (losing it for sure). Right? (I do realize you would never do it but by mistake in practice.)

Just my opinion, then I would say that Classic and every game which does this should have in the box a white/non-coloured piece for every unit type so that anyone on its turn can use that piece for purchase without causing confusion with units’ limits (as with using extra pieces) or (better and cheaper) provide a dedicated “Purchase Chart” in which to put chips over the images of the units (every chip meaning one of these units being purchased).

However, it is certainly not difficult to use proxies in Classic for carriers: those Soviet carriers (or at very least one) are going to remain in the tray!

Honestly, if I did not see this official ruling, I would have been quite certain that, in order to have more carriers, you must take care that all your carriers are in a single stack at start turn. I definitely though that the Classic game rules were strictly intended absolutely to make sure that you never have to proxy miniatures. That is just my feeling.

I really wonder if this matter of allowing for proxying pieces during purchase was deliberately accepted by Larry Harris or just overlooked at the moment of writing the rules (as well as rewriting them in the Second Edition)? I’m almost guessing the second, but Larry must have had a lot of games under its belt when the FAQ were finalized.

@Krieghund I know that you have already given the official answer.

At the root of your answer there is the clarification that units bought and still on the Chart are not “in play” until they are placed and that the units’ limit is only for units “in play”.

That’s all good and fine in theory (or in a virtual port of the game or for board-owners with extra pieces), but in practice you still need 3 carrier pieces here to play like that and have only 2!

To do as you say, I would need to have 2 carrier pieces on the board plus a 3rd carrier piece to put on the Reference Chart.

The rules say

Pick out the units you wish to buy from your tray

, but there is no “carrier” unit in the tray that I can pick! They are both “in play”. Thereafter, it proceeds to instruct me to put the carrier piece (I do not have) on the Reference Chart and so on.

Put all the newly purchased units on top of the colored symbol on your country on your Reference Chart. They remain there until the end of your turn when you position them on the gameboard.

Moreover, the FAQ say that

The only exception to this absolute limit is chips; if you run out of chips you can use anything else as a substitute: pennies, beads, slips of paper, or whatever works for your game.

This makes me understand that I cannot use anything to proxy anything else but chips, but, in this case (assuming I did not buy more pieces or cannibalized a box), I would need to proxy the carrier piece, either by using an actual proxy or by writing on a piece of paper that I bought a carrier.

I’m just wondering what is your practical suggestion about what to do in this case. Clearly, we cannot follow the instructions in the rules here.

(I’m also actually curious if you remember what you actually did when you had this problem while playing Classic. I guess that you always had extra pieces at hand?)

(Again, I’m not contesting your official answer: I’m just trying to clarify your answer and make sense of it for me.)

@Krieghund said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:

@Cernel Cases 1 and 2 are legal in versions up to and including Revised OOB, but not legal in Revised LHTR or later. Cases 3 through 5 are not legal in any version.

Sorry to request what I already asked (but not requested), but can you please edit the first sentence of this post of yours to

Cases 1 and 2 are legal in Revised OOB and the original Europe and Pacific, but not legal in the Classic Editions nor in Revised LHTR or later.

?

I know that you do not have to, and that you already said that

I did not edit the post because I amended this answer in a later post in this thread

, but I really think that anyone reading this thread will have a REALLY VERY HARD time understanding the actual answer by reading the entire thread so may instead take your (unfortunately wrong) answer at your first post in this thread as the official ruling on the matter.

It’s not too much of a problem for me, but I just think that this thread would be a lot more helpful as a reference if the right answer is given straight up at the first reply.

Moreover, if I would want to show someone this thread as proof, it would be much easier to do so if the first answer is already correct.

I think that, so long as you edit the post by leaving the old test striked-through in its entirety (as you have done in the cases in which you did edit) instead of deleting it, there will be no prejudice of understanding for the rest of the thread. (Deleting is good too though.)

Thank you (and thanks again for answering)!

(If you refuse to edit your first answer, I guess I may summarise this post in a new one and hope that you answer again, so I’ll have a good reference, not requiring everyone (I would be showing this thread as proof) going through a lot to get the actual ultimate answer. Would that be fine with you?)

(Also, one minor thing: at your last post obviously (for me and you but maybe not for everyone else) you meant to write “Revised OOB” and instead wrote “LHTR OOB” if you may please edit that too.)

@Witt said in Axis & Allies Dunkirk:

Blimey! Madness.
I thought it was a very long post and must have taken a lot of time amd effort . Perhaps , alarm bells should have rung.

As Panther has asked , Please confirm if this is the case @FranceNeedsMorePower

I am very worried about AI taking over the world, so would be good to know and have a policy or a little chat about it , if this post is not a human’s work.

In the delightful brightness of the far future, there is only AI.

About the near future instead, I’m guessing that virtually all board-games will be made by AI or at least mostly by it. The editors will just tell the AI the general concept of the game and the main game dynamics, and the AI will fill up the rest, creating the board-game itself and writing the rule-book.

And of course we will have the AI answering all our questions within 1 second in forum and elsewhere.

Maybe the new Axis&Allies we’ll be playing 20 years from now will be made by AI.

I’m curious about what AI experts like @redrum think about it though. Am I being too optimistic?

@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

If it helps, over 10 years ago I created such a document comparing and contrasting AA50, AAR OOB, and AAR LHTR. It may make a good starting point:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1726

Is this anywhere to be found?

@Krieghund said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:

@Cernel Cases 1 and 2 are legal in versions up to and including Revised OOB, but not legal in Revised LHTR or later. Cases 3 through 5 are not legal in any version.

Even though you stated
@Krieghund said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:

@Cernel Forget what I said here to the contrary, and go with the prior rulings. I have edited my above answers in accordance with this.

I’ve seen that you have not yet edited this post.

Does this mean that, in this case, you stand by this latest clarification of yours (which should be taken as prevalent)?

I’m asking because, talking about Classic 2nd Edition, you previously stated that
@Krieghund said in Axis&Allies Classic 2nd Edition Transports Rules Questions:

3. Do the Revised OOB rule that, during Non Combat Movement, you can only either load or unload a transport that hasn’t offloaded any units yet and that has taken part in a victorious sea battle applies to Classic 2nd Edition too? If not, what could such a transport do? (I suppose it doesn’t, and a transport that participated in combat cannot load or move anymore at all, but it can offload units that were already loaded before the turn, as well as you cannot offload units to friendly land territories during Combat Movement, in any case)

If the transport moved and/or offloaded in combat movement or participated in combat, it can’t do anything in noncombat movement, including offload any units.

and answered
@Krieghund said in Axis&Allies Classic 2nd Edition Transports Rules Questions:

@Cernel:

This is true all the same for the first, the second and the third editions of Classic, right?

Yes.

to the question on if this applies to every Classic game.

Then, I summarized your clarifications stating that

@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

Only for Revised OOB, and the original Europe and Pacific, but not Classic nor any games from Revised LHTR onwards, there is the special exception that a transport can be in a sea battle, then offload units (in a friendly territory) during Non Combat Move, but this rule applies only to already loaded units (at start turn) (thus only for transports that had any of those). Correct?

to which you said

@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

Yes, that’s correct.

So, summarizing, it seems that, to my first two cases at the first post of this topic, specifically
@Cernel said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:

1. A transport has one or two units already on board at the start of the turn, does not load any more units, moves into a hostile sea zone during the same turn and does not offload any units during Combat Move, partakes to a successful sea battle without being removed and offloads any number of its cargo into an own or allied territory during the subsequent Non-Combat Move phase.

2. A transport has one or two units already on board at the start of the turn, starts the turn inside a hostile sea zone and neither moves nor loads any units nor offloads any units during Combat Move, partakes to a successful sea battle without being removed and offloads any number of its cargo into an own or allied territory during the subsequent Non-Combat Move phase.

we have two possible official answers (both from you).

In this topic, you said that
@Krieghund said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:

@Cernel Cases 1 and 2 are legal in versions up to and including Revised OOB, but not legal in Revised LHTR or later.

whereas, based on what you said previously and I quoted at this post, I understand that your answer based on those answers would be something like

Cases 1 and 2 are legal in Revised OOB and the original Europe and Pacific, but not legal in the Classic games nor in Revised LHTR or later.

Which one is the correct ruling?

If you will, please don’t just tell me to go with whatever you said previously: if you are going with the previous rulings, I’d like to know on what they are based.

Would it be because of the concept that cargo inside a transport which took part in a battle is considered having taken part in the battle too (and therefore cannot do anything during the subsequent Noncombat Move phase) coupled with the fact that every Classic rules-book is missing a special rule like the one in Revised OOB stating that

Transports that have
been in combat may either load
or offload (not both) during this
phase, but not if they have
retreated from combat this turn.

If this is not the reason, what is the reason?

I understand that, as an official answerer, you can just limit yourself to say what’s what, but I would like to know the reasons behind the rulings at least for those which (apparently) changed over time or got answers at variance with each other if that is not too much to ask.

Let me also clarify that I’m not asking you again the same things which I’ve already asked you in the past just to see if you would still say the same things or waste your time. This was just meant to be comprehensive of every rules-sets from Classic 1st Edition to the latest games (practically everything except Nova and the games which are Axis & Allies in name only), and I was actually quite certain that your answers regarding Revised OOB and preceding would not change. I was more on the edge regarding Revised LHTR as (as I said) it did not look very clear to me on every point for the reasons I’ve already detailed. This topic was not meant to ask again the same things which I’ve already asked but to make sure I was not missing something else in the bigger picture.

In particular, in my previous topics, I was more focused on the matter of offloading both in Combat (either Combat Move or Conduct Combat) and Noncombat Move, whereas here I have been more focused on the matter of offloading in Noncombat Move from transports which took successfully part in combat (all my five cases at the first post are about such situations).

Trying to make a summary of a number of my topics, I believe that we can divide the matter into three main cases, namely “1”, “2” and “3”, the latter being actually “1+2”.

1. A transport with 2 units already on board at start turn offloads 1 unit during Combat Move (does not take part in any battles) and offloads the other unit during Noncombat Move (both units being offloaded into the same territory, which was enemy owned during Combat Move and is friendly during Noncombat Move).

2. A transport with 1 or 2 units already on board at start turn takes part in a battle (and does not offload any units during Conduct Combat) and offloads all or part of the units during Noncombat move (into a friendly territory).

3. A transport with 2 units already on board at start tun takes part in a battle and offloads 1 unit during Conduct Combat and offloads the other unit during Noncombat Move (both units being offloaded into the same territory, which was enemy owned during Conduct Combat and is friendly during Noncombat Move).

First of all, have we conclusively clarified that (for every rules-set) whether or not a transport moved before amphibiously offloading or taking part in a battle on the same turn is absolutely irrelevant for whatever it can do during Noncombat Move? Meaning that it would be completely pointless to split the aforementioned three cases into two cases each (for a total of six cases), stating whether the transport moved or not before offloading in Combat Move or taking part in combat. Correct?

Secondarily, are we splitting all actual (WW2 and strategic) Axis & Allies games from Classic 1st Edition to the most recent ones into two main groups each of which has either all the above three cases (“1”, “2” and “1+2”) legal or illegal, or are there any such games which have only some of the above three cases legal and the rest illegal?

Either way, I’d like to have the full list of them (Again, it does not need to be an actual list: something like “this full sequence of actions is illegal in every game since Revised LHTR but was legal in Revised OOB and every game beforehand” would be just as good.).

To be clear, I see two cases here.

If I take what you said at the post to which I’m replying now as prevailing over whatever you said in the past and I quoted at this post, what I understand is that,

• for the Classic games, 1 and 1+2 are illegal but 2 is legal.
• for Europe, Pacific and Revised OOB, 1, 2 and 1+2 are all legal.
• for Revised LHTR and later games, 1, 2 and 1+2 are all illegal.

If I take what you said in the past and I quoted at this post as prevailing over whatever you said at the post to which I’m replying now, what I understand is that,

• for the Classic games, Revised LHTR and later games, 1, 2 and 1+2 are all illegal.
• for Europe, Pacific and Revised OOB, 1, 2 and 1+2 are all legal.

(However, I’m quite unsure about (the original) Europe and Pacific.)

So take your time and let me/us know if you will. I understand that it’s a lot of rules-sets to be sure. Thank you.

@Cernel said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:

On this line of though, then I should be allowed to load 2 units onto a transport, have the transport taking part in a battle (no matter whether by moving it or not), offload the 2 units into an enemy territory during Conduct Combat (designating the territory during Combat Move) and load 1 or 2 units (which have not moved during this turn) onto the transport during the subsequent Noncombat Move phase.

Can I do this?

I just realized that I covered this example previously when I stated
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

So, in practice, the special Revised OOB rule that transports that took part in victorious sea battles can load or offload, but not both, during Non Combat Move, applies only to transports sent into battle without loading nor offloading, for the first item (loading during Non Combat Move)

and you replied
@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

Yes, that’s correct.

So the answer to my “Can I do this?” question would be “no”.

Is this confirmed?

If this is confirmed, I’ll just point out again

that it makes no sense for the rule that “transports that have been in combat may either load or offload” to allow me to offload units which I cannot otherwise offload because of participating in a battle as cargo while not to allow me to load units which I cannot otherwise load because of having already offloaded one or more units on this turn. If this is an overriding rule, it should either be an overriding rule in every case or there should be some actual reasons why it is overriding in some cases but not in others.

So, again, let me know if I’m getting something wrong somewhere.

@Krieghund said in Some cases of transport-related rules across "Axis & Allies" games from Classic to the most recent ones:

However, the Revised OOB also states that

Transports that have
been in combat may either load
or offload (not both) during this
phase, but not if they have
retreated from combat this turn.

So, is this to be taken as a special rule which overrides the aforementioned general principle, making the already loaded units able to noncombat move despite having participated in combat?

Yes.

Okay, but a problem I see with considering this sentence as a special rule which overrides other rules is how do we decide which ones?

If it overrides any other rules, then I would argue (for consistency) that, just like it allows to offload units which the transport cannot otherwise offload, it should also allow to load units which the transport cannot otherwise load.

On this line of though, then I should be allowed to load 2 units onto a transport, have the transport taking part in a battle (no matter whether by moving it or not), offload the 2 units into an enemy territory during Conduct Combat (designating the territory during Combat Move) and load 1 or 2 units (which have not moved during this turn) onto the transport during the subsequent Noncombat Move phase.

Can I do this?

If the answer is no, I would then argue that it makes no sense for the rule that “transports that have been in combat may either load or offload” to allow me to offload units which I cannot otherwise offload because of participating in a battle as cargo while not to allow me to load units which I cannot otherwise load because of having already offloaded one or more units on this turn. If this is an overriding rule, it should either be an overriding rule in every case or there should be some actual reasons why it is overriding in some cases but not in others.

If the answer is yes, I would then argue that it makes no sense that a transport which has been in combat can somehow load units after having offloaded units on the same turn, whereas a transport that is just bridging (loading and offloading without moving) or loading-moving-offloading or moving-offloading or even just offloading without doing anything else cannot thereafter load any units on the same turn.

Possibly to avoid further inconsistencies, I will point out that the factual impossibility of loading after offloading on the same turn is in the rules-book for the bridging rules. From the rules-book:

Bridging: A transport can load and offload units without moving from the sea zone it is in. This is referred
to as “bridging.” Each such transport is still limited to its cargo capacity. It can offload only in one territory,
and once it offloads it cannot move or load cargo until the next round.

We already discussed about this, and this is an excerpt of what you said:
@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

I also agree that the bridging rules are in conflict with the standard transport rules, and that’s part of the problem in interpreting the standard rules. In fact, the bridging rules specifically state that a transport can’t load after unloading - it’s the standard rules that imply (not state) that it can. Should they be consistent? Absolutely. But can we apply rules for a specific situation (bridging) more broadly? Maybe…

We eventually reached the agreement that the impossibility of loading after offloading given by the bridging rules should be taken as a general impossibility just as if the rules-book would state that you cannot load anything after offloading anything on the same turn. This is where this agreement was concluded:
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

“You can never load anything onto a transport after having offloaded anything from the same transport, on the same turn (no exceptions)”.

to which you replied

Yes, as far as the strategic-level games go.

So either answer to my previous question (“Can I do this?”) is not a good answer any more for me on this point unless I can understand what I’m getting wrong if anything.

Regardless, I’m still interested in an answer to this question even if I will be uncomfortable with it one way or the other.