Nomenclature

in my table top test of Anniversary edition, which I just got, i have only needed the battleboard a few times, when units greater than 10 on attack and defense.
It’s interesting how bad dice rolls can doom a larger attack force and reshape the game drastically. In this game the dominant countries have each had a really bad turn of dice rolls change their fate. Another thing for dice is the technology rolls, so far, only 1 country has one and many many IPUs were spent trying to get them, which also affected the games early stages for Germany.

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

@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)?

No. I did not edit the post because I amended this answer in a later post in this thread (which was made before I edited the posts).

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:

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.

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?

The second one, as I stated in my amended post above.

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?

Yes, that’s 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.

I think this was all covered adequately in the “Offloading in Both Combat and Noncombat Movement” thread that you linked. There’s no reason to go over it again.

As a side note, I apologize for not consulting that thread before I answered here initially. I was going from memory, which is always a bad thing to do when dealing with Revised OOB, for reasons discussed in that thread.

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”.

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).

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).

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?

Yes.

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?

This grouping is correct.

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.

For Classic and Revised LHTR and later, all are illegal.
For Europe, Pacific, and LHTR OOB, all are legal.

4c181f6e-66ba-48c7-9dda-c7b30a7cc211-image.png

Lol this combat between a destroyer and a sub lasted for 13 rounds. What is your longest DD vs sub battle ever?

After a 10 year hiatus, I’m back! Since then…

Life- 3 to 6 kids
Got into other games ex. TI4, Memoir 44, WOTR, Root, TMars etc.
Renegade has revived this brand! So good!
Got 2 young boys (8 and 5) getting to that boardgaming age. Time to shake off the dust on this old favorite.

Used to PBF and Triple A here for several years, Con tourneys and the like. Probably won’t go that far anymore, but looking forward to reinvesting in the AA line and playing with my boys and a couple friends again a few times a year. Curious to dig up old strategies I used to use (KGF, KJF, Sealion and other variants) for AA50, G40. Looking forward to the tactical games as well. Will they revive AA minis and War at Sea also? That would be cool.

Introduction
Hello! I’m sorry if this is posted in the wrong place. I’m new to the forum, but not A&A, and I’m inquiring about a way to help new players.

Lately, I’ve been reading through the rules to Spring 1942, 1914, and the 1940 versions as I’ve tried to form a new gaming group. In my opinion, these rule books are vastly too wordy. (Examples below.)

To that end, I’m wondering whether anybody has rewritten the rule books to make them more concise–and if not, whether anybody would find it a valuable thing for me to do.

To be clear, I’m not asking for a set of beginner-oriented house rules; I’m asking about alternative drafts of the rule books with equivalent gameplay.

Examples
I’ve noticed a few kinds of ways that the rule book can be improved. Here I provide a description and an example for each. (All excerpts are from Pacific 1940, 2e.)

Eliminating redundant explanations and examples

Air Defense: An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. Each AAA unit in the territory may fire up to 3 shots, but each attacking air unit may only be fired upon once. In other words, the total number of air defense dice rolled is 3 times the number of AAA units, or the number of attacking air units, whichever is the lesser. For example, 5 fighters attacking a territory containing 2 AAA units would have 5 shots fired against them, while those same 5 fighters would have only 3 shots fired against them if there were only 1 defending AAA unit.

This can be drastically shortened by eliminating the redundant examples and explanations:

Air Defense: An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. The AAA units in the territory collectively fire a number of shots equal 3 per AAA unit, or 1 per attacking air unit—whichever is fewer. Roll 1 die per shot.

Even the remaining sentences could be shortened considerably, but that’s beyond the scope of this point.

Eliminating redundant caveats

Add 2 to each die rolled for a strategic bomber (but not for tactical bombers), then total the result.

I don’t think that this parenthetical note is necessary. If the instruction didn’t mean to exclude tactical bombers, then it would have said “strategic or tactical bomber”, or simply “bomber”. It should read:

Add 2 to each die rolled for a strategic bomber, then total the result.

Utilizing existing keywords

Strategic Bombing Raid: A strategic bomber can either participate in normal combat, or make a direct attack against an enemy industrial complex, air base, or naval base. Such an attack on a facility is a strategic bombing raid (see “Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids,” page 16).

The word “facilities” is used a dozen times throughout the document, and the meaning of that term is explained in the Unit Profiles section. This should read:

Strategic Bombing Raid: A strategic bomber can either participate in normal combat, or make a direct attack against an enemy facility. Such an attack is a strategic bombing raid (see “Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids,” page 16).

Introducing new keywords

I don’t have a clean before-and-after for this one, but I’ll provide two ideas.

The mechanics of offshore bombardment, anti-aircraft fire, escort & interceptor fire, and perhaps even kamikaze strikes seem like they could be usefully generalized to the concept of “opening fire”.

Just as battleships and carriers are grouped into “capital ships”, it may be helpful to group battleships and cruisers into “gunships”—ships that are capable of offshore bombardment.

This technique can negatively impact readability if it’s overused or used poorly, so I would appreciate specific suggestions here.

Side-barring historical context

I sincerely appreciate the historical nature of A&A, but the free flow between historical context and the instructions themselves makes finding a rule unnecessarily difficult.

While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for Chinese units. They can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

This can be split to an instruction section:

Chinese units can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

…and a flavor-text section:

While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for Chinese units.

Ideally, I would place this section in a box on the side of the page, similarly to the Combined Arms graphic.

Conclusion
I know that was long-winded, but I think that underscores my point; there are a lot of ways that the rules can be made more concise.

I’d be happy to hear any of the following:

whether you think that a rewrite like the one I envision would be useful to new players critiques of the techniques that I’ve identified, or the ways that I’ve used them in the examples ideas for new keywords if I were to rewrite the entire instruction book, would anyone have the time, interest, and graphic design skill to turn the new version into a pretty booklet?

If you’ve made it this far, then thank you very much for your time and your consideration. GL HF!

@Manzgame The Revised game from 2004 had a map that folded that way, but it was smaller than both the Classic 1984 map and the current 1942 map.

They are bean counters. No doubt about it. They want exact results with no luck. All life is luck and games are simulations of life.

I don’t vilify anything. Its accurate reporting of facts and theirs nothing glamorous of low luck. To me its only value is for play testing of games, not actual games.

Bean counters are also mostly Rule Lawyers. They argue rules all day if possible.

@Nuts

👍👍