The Rules of Axis & Allies & Zombies

I find the simplification/removal of rules no one ever made use of refreshing (Using TTs/CVs other than your own, etc.) refreshing, but I’m still conflicted on the Zombie Rules. I’ll need to playtest before making a judgement, though.

I’d rather have had the Zombie Apocalypse trigger a draw (or double-loss) than have it trigger a final turn. I get that the intention is to speed up the game, but Allies will win the IPC race 90% of the time unless the Axis were already well on their way to victory anyway.

When does this drop? I’m too lazy to look it up myself.

around Halloween

alot of obscure and junk rules were pulled, and only about 20% of the overall ruleset changed, so you can skim the rules for whats different without worrying too much about whats not (subs are the same, for example).

You buy AND place at the end of your turn–this requires less cagy planning but eliminates an entire turn step…

Its clear that one of the mandates for this version was to do whatever was necessary to simplify without sacrificing the core concepts of AxA in the process.    G40 will still remain a definitive version because it has so many things this does not (NOs, full piece set), but this adds cards, which are really fun in Fortress America, Risk, Galactic Empire etc etc

@DouchemanMacgee:

I find the simplification/removal of rules no one ever made use of refreshing (Using TTs/CVs other than your own, etc.) refreshing, (…)

I do not agree. If these rules are hardly used then they are not problematic. Personally I sometime see it happen: US and UK using each other’s transports in West Pacific area… Mostly late game…

the effect is to streamline the game and remove complex situations that rarely occur.  Landing on other people carriers is fun, that was simply removed–but at the same time putting purchase and placement in the same phase means you can’t land on newly built carriers either because noncom is over before placement occurs rather than leaving this as an unusual exception to the normal turn order.

taamvan,

I see your point. Still I like these unususal situations :)

Will this combining of Purchase Phase and Place Phase be expanded to other A&A games? Personally I hope it is not. But it can be a good thing on this specific game…

While I always liked the idea that players have to buy before seeing what happens during their turn, there are many times when people want to go back and revise this and they are allowed to in most friendly games.  It does add some skill to plan what you to have to buy before you see how the chips fall…but it also adds a regressive complexity to the game that was eliminated by streamlining that one rule.

I don’t think that the things in this particular game are now canon changes made for games going forward;  I regarded this one as a kind of “Farewell Tour” for a very well fleshed out franchise and concept.

@taamvan:

I don’t think that the things in this particular game are now canon changes made for games going forward;  I regarded this one as a kind of “Farewell Tour” for a very well fleshed out franchise and concept.

What do you mean by this last sentence?
Also: you guys are at the launching party now? :)

@thrasher1:

@DouchemanMacgee:

I find the simplification/removal of rules no one ever made use of refreshing (Using TTs/CVs other than your own, etc.) refreshing, (…)

I do not agree. If these rules are hardly used then they are not problematic. Personally I sometime see it happen: US and UK using each other’s transports in West Pacific area… Mostly late game…

Those obscure rules have a place in the more advanced games, like G40/AA50/etc. But as taamvan pointed out this game is intended as an introductory-level game that is supposed to be easy to digest. The more nuanced rules of A&A (sub interactions with transports, sharing transports/carriers, etc.) are not easy to digest. You don’t have to look any further than the constant rules clarifications threads on the G40 and 42SE boards to see my point.

Heck, I can’t claim that I know every rule for A&A 100%. I think only like Panther and Krieghund do.

The only rule I have problems with is the first capital rule.

Yeah, i thought A&A was trying to move away from the JTDM more and more each edition.  Moscow falling=axis victory all but guarentees this to be the optimal strat for serious minded axis players and yet again the pacific will be ignored.   I’ll likely houserule VCs back in or require another capital besides moscow.

@DoManMacgee:

I find the simplification/removal of rules no one ever made use of refreshing (Using TTs/CVs other than your own, etc.) refreshing, but I’m still conflicted on the Zombie Rules. I’ll need to playtest before making a judgement, though.

I’d rather have had the Zombie Apocalypse trigger a draw (or double-loss) than have it trigger a final turn. I get that the intention is to speed up the game, but Allies will win the IPC race 90% of the time unless the Axis were already well on their way to victory anyway.

When does this drop? I’m too lazy to look it up myself.

The Zombie Apocalype trigger is way different than you think. Each nation fights for itself and the nation with the most ICP without a zombie in it wins.

@Caesar:

The Zombie Apocalype trigger is way different than you think. Each nation fights for itself and the nation with the most ICP without a zombie in it wins.

If that is the case , it might as well read “In case of apocalypse, America wins.” instead of the likely allied victory as a whole. (Continental America alone is worth 1 IPC less then entirety of starting german territory.  Britan and Russia have a snowballs chance in hell.  Even if Japan conquers the majority of pacific territories from US and Britian it STILL makes less then what America would be making.  A particularly successful Germany has the only other chance.)

While I’m very much ok with the zombie theme of this game to use as an introduction to A&A for my less historical gaming orientated friends and think it could have been fun in that regard, I’m sighing at victory conditions which have noteable faults that a regular player can point out in a few minutes.

Of course, untill the game is played a bunch this is not concrete, but I will be quite surprised if these predictions prove false.

1 zombie negates the territory, it sets it at 0.

@Caesar:

@DoManMacgee:

I’d rather have had the Zombie Apocalypse trigger a draw (or double-loss) than have it trigger a final turn. I get that the intention is to speed up the game, but Allies will win the IPC race 90% of the time unless the Axis were already well on their way to victory anyway.

The Zombie Apocalype trigger is way different than you think. Each nation fights for itself and the nation with the most ICP without a zombie in it wins.

That’s… Strange, to say the least. Reminds me of those old “6-Nation-Free-for-All” maps on TripleA.

According to the testers, originally there wasn’t a rule like that but when zombies over ran the world, each nation was forced into a defensive war that couldn’t win so they added the 25 dollar rule and it states that if this happens, then one turn remains and winner is picked based on the most secured territory. That’s the only way to win as a single nation in zombies.

I was pretty skeptical at first too but picked it up anyway to check out the experimental mechanics. It was more fun and interesting than I expected. Strategy can’t be taken too seriously, but at the same time the zombies create some brain crunching situations at times. It’s more of a beer and pretzels experience but that also makes it fun for mixing different skill levels at one table. And the board has proven good without the zombies to teach new players on. It seems like the 1942 se expansion could use some refinement, but I’m glad it’s included too.