Posts made by Midnight_Reaper

HBG has some commander pieces as well:
https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Commanders-Global-War-1936-Expansion_p_2969.html

-Midnight_Reaper

@iwillnevergrowup said in Xeno Games is No More:

@midnight_reaper said in Xeno Games is No More:

{snip}
Other than name recognition or the rights to a different piece of the Xeno Games legacy I don’t see anybody making a play.

{snip}
Do you want a piece of that Xeno pie, since it’s up north of the US?

Honestly, I feel it’s just name recognition at this point so it’s not really something I’d consider tbh. We’ve got our own line of games (with more coming) and our own line of pieces and accessories already.

Which I feel goes to the point of what I said before - there’s really no reason to try to get those rights. Low how the mighty have fallen.

-Midnight_Reaper

@iwillnevergrowup said in Xeno Games is No More:

@midnight_reaper said in Xeno Games is No More:

What this means for fans of Xeno Games, including The World at War, remains to be seen.

I’d wager it means that all support for Xeno Games products, including WaW, is finished and they will never produce any copies or parts again.

Someone else may take up the mantle and buy the rights to it if there is enough value in it, but it’s probably a hard sell.

Yeah, I don’t see anyone lining up to grab that Xeno Games IP. The map and the rules have been available for free online for years. At one point the rules were up in plain text for anyone to see on the Xeno Games website itself.

The pieces were once one of the only games in town but were never all that great. There are much better alternatives now so I don’t think anyone’s going after those.

Other than name recognition or the rights to a different piece of the Xeno Games legacy I don’t see anybody making a play.

Speaking of making a play, @iwillnevergrowup, Xeno Games was moved to Canada from Florida in the early 2000s. The website has the email address and the phone number of the current proprietor. That phone number has an area code of 450 - which is for the suburbs of Montreal. Do you want a piece of that Xeno pie, since it’s up north of the US?

Just a thought.

-Midnight_Reaper

While researching something else I ran across the Xeno Games home page (http://www.xenogames.ca/) and noticed a new announcement:

Feb 18, 2021: That day has finally come. Xeno Games 
is now sold out of everything and discontinuing 
operations. A fond farewell to this wonderful journey 
that began 19 years ago, when I purchased the 
remaining stock and games of Xeno from Frank Zenau. 
It was a pleasure to be involved with the World at 
War as its publisher during its remaining lifetime. 
It was a pleasure to interact with all the wonderful 
people in the wargaming community. A fond farewell 
to Xeno, the World at War, and to you all. This site 
will be closed down soon. Regards and best wishes! 

What this means for fans of Xeno Games, including The World at War, remains to be seen.

-Midnight_Reaper

And a file, purporting to have all of the “3.5 edition rules” for Axis and Allies, is available on BoardGameGeek. You tell me how accurate that rule set is.

It does have Two-Hit Battleships listed as optional rules, along with: Paratroop Units, Scorched Earth, No Weapons Development, No New Industrial Complexes, Kamikazes, One Panama Sea Zone, Always Active AA Guns and Submerging Submarines.

But as I don’t know what exactly constitutes the 3rd edition rules, I’m just calling things as I see them.

-Midnight_Reaper

@pestrov-0 Youngstown hasn’t been online here in about 10 years, so I think you missed him. Hopefully someone else in your area will hit you up.

-Midnight_Reaper

Rule 6: Battleships must be hit twice to be destroyed. I think they repair right away, I’m not entirely certain on the repair part. But the need to hit them twice to kill them, I’m certain of that.

-Midnight_Reaper

@kwaspek104 I assume the discussion is about the Larry Harris Tournament Rules for Axis & Allies Revised. Why they are skipping over Revised on the way to LHTR is unknown to me.

-Midnight_Reaper

@fatoumas said in Eligible moves:

@midnight_reaper yes. It helped me a lot. One clarification about my first query. The same applies if on that battle there wanst a destroyer? E.g. UK has the carrier and a fighter, while the Germany has a sub and a fighter. So Germany hits the carrier and the UK doesnt hit a unit on first round of battle. Germany decide to retreat. So subs can retreat by moving on next sea zone? I am asking because, now there is not a destroyer. And subs cant hit the plane, so maybe they cant retreat in another sea zone and only the fighter can move and land on another territory?

When units retreat, either land units on land or naval units at sea, they must retreat to a territory where at least one of the land or naval units moved from during combat movement. (Land units doing an amphibious landing are not allowed to retreat, but that is outside the scope of this question.) In your case, you have 1 submarine and 1 fighter. To end this fight, you have 2 options: retreat or submerge submarine, then retreat.

Retreat: You can retreat as I outlined in my last answer. If you choose to retreat, then you can only retreat to SZ 9 or SZ 15, depending on whether your submarine came from SZ 9 or SZ 15 to attack SZ 14. Your fighter would still hang around until non-combat movement, as discussed previously. What you can not do is retreat your submarine to any other sea zones. You must retreat from whence you came.

Submerge Submarine: If you feel you must retain control of SZ 14, where the combat took place, and you feel like trying your luck against the defending fighter one more time, then you can submerge your submarine instead of retreating. When you submerge a submarine, it quits the fight but doesn’t leave the sea zone. Because you have to start another round of combat in order to submerge, your fighter would have to stay and fight 1 more round before calling off the fight. While this would give you the opportunity to finish off that British fighter, it would also give the British another chance to kill your fighter. See page 16 for submerging in combat and page 27 for submarine-specific rules.

In your specific case, I would retreat instead of submerge if it was me. But now you know what I think your options are.

My 2 IPCs,

-Midnight_Reaper

@fatoumas said in Eligible moves:

Pls find below 2 questions regarding the rules:

1. On see zone 14 when game starts there is a UK carrier and a fighter. Assuming that Germany attacks on SZ 14 with 2 subs, 1 destroyer and 1 plane. Germany rolls the dice and hits the carrier. UK rolls the dice but doesnt hit any unit. Germany decide to retreat. So the G fighter can land on an area (based on the moves left) and destroyer can retreat to SZ 15. What about the subs? can they also retreat to SZ 15? or they should stay on SZ14?

If there is still a defender (in your case, the UK fighter), all of your sea units can withdraw. If they do leave, all of them must go and all they go to the same sea zone. At least one of your sea units must have moved from your zone of withdrawal. In this case, that would be sending your destroyer and both of your submarines to either SZ 9 or SZ 15.

As for your plane, if you call a retreat then the fighting stops. The plane will stay where it is (in this case, SZ 14) until non-combat movement, at which time it will need to find a landing zone. (That is “rules as written”. If your play group all agrees to land planes after their combat but before the end of the
Conduct Combat Phase, then you do you.) See page 17 of the A&A 1941 rule book for the exact wording.

@fatoumas said in Eligible moves:

2. During non combat move phase, can a transport load and offload units if there is an enemy sub on sz? For example assuming that Norway Finland already captured by UK and there is 1 UK inf. UK transport is on SZ3. On SZ 6 there is an enemy (e.g. Germany sub).
   Can the UK transport move from SZ 3 to SZ 6 load the UK inf and then offload it on United Kigdom

In short, what you ask is legal.

Moving a loaded UK transport, during Noncombat Movement, from SZ 3 to SZ 6, in the presence of an enemy sub, is legal.

Mind you, SZ 3 touches Norway Finland, so there is no need to move from SZ 3 to SZ 6 in order to land troops in Norway Finland.

See page 20 for moving transports during non-combat movement. A particular point in that rule is the friendly vs. hostile sea zone. See page 13 for a discussion of how enemy submarines do not make a sea zone hostile.

I hope that helps.

-Midnight_Reaper

@insanehoshi said in Amerika- full experience?:

@pyrix137 I thought Amerika was a stand alone board game?

Amerika is a stand alone game. That said, HBG has about a million expansions for Amerika - some grand, some miniscule.

I am a fan of the Super Heavy Bomber expansions (B-36 Bombers, Silverbirds, and the rest: Target Amerika Bomber Projects).

But I think that there are two things to recommend you get if you want to really go for it. The first simple and cheap, the second anything but.

First: get more dice: Amerika Custom Dice: D12, 6 dice for $3. You will be rolling dice, why not make sure to get enough?

Second: Bring in the Heavies! This link takes you to all of the heavy attack units you could want: tanks, tank destroyers, fighters, and bombers. This is where to go to beef up your Amerika experience. The pieces are color coordinated, so make sure to get the right colors for your powers.

My 2 IPCs,

-Midnight_Reaper

@nolimit said in Global 1940 2nd Edition Standard Units but with Altered Costs:

{snip} for Cruisers I give the option of upgrading them to capital warships at a cost of 5 Ipcs off a coastal Factory in placing unit phase, they would take an extra hit!!!

How do you tell the capital ship Cruisers from the regular Cruisers?

-Midnight_Reaper

You got pinged on this because I messed up the formatting at the top of the post. My comment was directed at Imperious Leader, not you. Your handle got tied to this post due to my error.

I just wanted to provide my perspective on this topic, you now have it.

-Midnight_Reaper

@imperious-leader said in Just Got Axis And Allies Nova:

@playing-kid No they exist, they were made. You want a picture?

They do exist. I have a few in my basement. Would you like a picture?

But having sheets of cardboard, full of cardboard chit units, do not a set of rules make. As near as I can tell, they printed those sheets while they were considering what the rules to a new expansion / edition of Axis & Allies should be. Those rules were never completed, as Milton Bradley bought A&A from Nova Games first.

Some references:

From the HGD (Harris Game Designs) forum: Axis and Allies Nova Games Edition Expansion Rules: come a synopsis of an article from Armchair General. In that posted synopsis is a reply from none other than Larry Harris himself, giving his version of events.

The Armchair General page in specific is a review of the A&A Miniatures line, with a title of: “Axis & Allies: 1939-1945 Game Review”. Buried at the bottom, in the comments to the article, are a pair of comments from someone purporting to be Joseph Angiolillo. In the rulebook for NGD A&A , there is a “Joseph Angiolillo” listed as the developer, right underneath “Lawrence Harris” as the game designer.

In those comments, Joe tells his tale of the would-be France/China expansion: “It is interesting to see how far Axis & Allies has come since I redesigned Larry Harris’ original design for publication through Nova Game Designs (I developed the game and designed the combat system and other elements of the game). If you were fortunate enough to have obtained the China and French counter sheet, you will see that I was working on a game which would start in 1939…”

It is from those comments, on HGD and Armchair General, that give me the evidence to state that: there are cardboard counter sheets, done in the style of NGD A&A, with units for France and units for China (France gets the A-Bomb). That is a real thing, I’ve held it in my hands.

There may have one point been a set of working notes, perhaps with a modified or new map, that explained what the new game would be and where those new units would go. If they ever existed, no body knows where they are or what they might have said.

The expansion sheets exist, but there are no rules to go with them. I do intend to make up some rules for such a thing, but they will be just as unofficial as other home rules.

-Midnight_Reaper

@imperious-leader said in Just Got Axis And Allies Nova:

@playing-kid The rules are cut off from the bottoms of all pages… I tried to find any reference to China…even the word China and nothing was said. Im thinking its on the cut off part?

I just remember all the blue areas were under US control. I cant imagine Mexico not being part of US or that US does not collect that income… Also note they latter made a counter sheet for France and possibly somebody else.

The rules are cut off at the bottom. I need to scan the rule book I have on hand and post that… Anyways, the cutoff parts amount to a sentence at the end of some pages. The references that amount to no US Factories in China are: 1) Mostly available in the pdf that was posted and 2) Not actually put together in one place…

So, let’s tie this all together. A combined reading of the Nova Game Design A&A rules, amounting to no US factories in China:

Rule Section (5.0) The Playing Board (on page 2 of 11 in the pdf):
Paragraph 4 states, in part: Provinces are categorized by color according to who controls them … US controls the blue provinces. Gray, light blue … provinces are neutral and not controlled by anyone. Some provinces may contribute economical to one player, even though they are not controlled by any player…

Rule Section 12.4.3 Violating Neutrality (on page 5 of 11 in the pdf):
Section 12.4.3.1 states, in part: All neutrals … whether they are gray, light blue … “Pro-(blank)” neutrals mean that the neutral contributes economically to one player … It does not mean allied with.

This means that the US controls the blue provinces (no territories here, everything is a province instead) but not the light blue provinces. The light blue provinces are neutral, not controlled by the US. Some of the light blue provinces are worth money to, but are not controlled by, the US. The light blue (Pro U.S.) neutrals are not controlled or allied with the US.

We have established what control is and is not. We have established that light blue, (Pro U.S.) neutrals, such as Sinkiang, Tibet, and China, contribute money to but are not controlled by the US.

Now, placement of units. This is an area where the cutoff in the pdf matters. I will contribute necessary text as needed from my copy of the rules.

Rule Section 12.5 Placement of New Units (on pages 5 and 6 of 11 in the pdf):
The player places his new units … in any provinces he controls that also contain his industrial complex units. Only those industrial complex units that were

{cutoff text} controlled by him at the beginning of his player-turn may have new units placed with them. If he {/cutoff text}

bought any new industrial complex units, he places them last. They may be placed in any province he controls.

This means that you must have a factory (an “industrial complex unit”) in a province you control at the beginning of your turn in order to place any units in that province. If you buy factories, you place them last, after other units. In order to place a factory, you must control that province.

As the light blue Pro U.S. neutral provinces (such as China and Mexico) are not controlled by the U.S., you can’t put a factory there. You can’t place units where you don’t have factories. So, “Have the US build a factory in China and wreck Japan” might work really well, but does so is not within the rules, as I have laid out.

I will get to the France counter sheet / French expansion in my next post.

-Midnight_Reaper

P.S. Edited to correct formatting at the top of the post.

@rommel13579 said in Global 1940 Fixed Units Variants:

@rommel13579
And if somebody has their own fixed units, please post it here.

When you say, “fixed units”, what do you mean? Fixed how? Do you mean: more historical, better game balance, new setup, or something else? It’s hard to tell what you mean without further explanation from you…

-Midnight_Reaper

@the_good_captain said in [In defense of] AnA Classic...:

(…and yes, that was intentionally troll ;) )

As if I wasn’t trolling you ;-)

My point about transcripts still stands, though… :-p

-Midnight_Reaper

Thank you for posting your video. Two quick thoughts, worth what you paid for them:

1. Who said MB A&A (Milton Bradley (edition of) Axis & Allies) needed defending? Who was attacking it?
2. Your link doesn’t go to your video, it goes to your home page. Your video is available from your home page, but I was expecting to go to your video. Up to you what to do with your new-found knowledge.

-Midnight_Reaper

P.S. I don’t watch anybody’s video without what I think is an extremely good reason. So I didn’t watch yours. Sorry. Next time, transcript or go home. :-)

This game has been out of print for a couple years now. While there is talk of a reprint, I haven’t seen any definite announcements.

I think that you will either have to be patient and see what comes your way or bite the bullet and pay what it costs. Good luck either way!

-Midnight_Reaper

As of today (2021 0207), HBG is selling full copies of their Amerika game for $49.95. That is more than 1/2 off the retail price of $119.95. The pieces are in the second edition colors, the rest of the game is the same.

(First Edition Colors: Germans in Grey, Japan in Burnt Orange, Allies in OD Green. Second Edition Colors: Germans in Black, Japan in Yellow Gold, Allies in UK Tan.)

https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Amerika-Boxed-Game_p_1353.html

And now you know.

-Midnight_Reaper