@wittmann:
Marc, my original version says: 1941.
Interesting. The Anniversary box in the top picture I posted above says Spring 1942.
Do you not own one? Maybe Avalon Hill, themselves, got mixed up.
@wittmann:
Do you not own one? Maybe Avalon Hill, themselves, got mixed up.
I own one, but it’s at home and I’m at the office at the moment. But I’ve noticed that this picture says 1941…
http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/box-50th/
…so I’m puzzled about the box differences for the original.
It is the mistake of whomever made up the page. I cannot imagine they will change the start date , as there are two set ups. As you said, it will be the Anniversary mention that will have to be amended, somehow.
My box says “1941”, too. There have been both - “1941” and “1942” - box-versions sold.
Also, on BGG you can see images of as well 1941 as 1942 boxes of the Anniversary Edition.
@P@nther:
My box says “1941”, too. There have been both - “1941” and “1942” - box-versions sold.
Also, on BGG you can see images of as well 1941 as 1942 boxes.
Thanks for the info, which clears up the mystery. Much appreciated.
@wittmann:
Marc, my original version says: 1941.
Mine also says 1941
Here’s an updated version of the box comparison picture that includes both versions of the original box.
There actually are not two different versions of the original box floating around. The “1942” image was released as an advance announcement and is of a prototype. All of the production boxes say “1941”. BGG has the prototype version of the box as its main image, which is very confusing. It has led more than one person to question whether a copy of AA50 being sold online is authentic. I have asked them several times to change it to the production version, and they have done so every time, but then someone else (presumably the person that uploaded the prototype image) asks them to change it back again.
Brilliant. Thank you, Krieghund.
Yes, it was fascinating to learn this bit of behind-the-scenes information. The situation Krieghund describes sounds a bit like what happens in the movie industry when an upcoming film’s trailer – assembled while the film is still in post-production – includes a scene that was shot during production but which ultimately ends up on the cutting room during the editing process before the actual release. This can create confusion and disappointment for people who first saw the trailer and then see the released film and react by thinking, “Hey, wait a minute…wasn’t there supposed to be a scene where such-and-such happens?”
Wow! I just came across this news today. I have always wanted a “real” copy of this game, and now it seems that I will be able to get one!
Well at least there wasn’t a prototype version that says “Spring 1941: and there is peace in our time! 50th Anniversary Chamberlain Edition”
Well at least there wasn’t a prototype version that says “Spring 1941: and there is peace in our time! 50th Anniversary Chamberlain Edition”
That would probably have been called the “Munich 1938 Edition.” One interesting feature of such a game would have been the inclusion of Spain as a player nation fighting against itself.
There actually are not two different versions of the original box floating around. The “1942” image was released as an advance announcement and is of a prototype. All of the production boxes say “1941”. BGG has the prototype version of the box as its main image, which is very confusing. It has led more than one person to question whether a copy of AA50 being sold online is authentic. I have asked them several times to change it to the production version, and they have done so every time, but then someone else (presumably the person that uploaded the prototype image) asks them to change it back again.
One thing that actually puzzles me, I went to the link graciously provided by CWO Mark and while reading the page… it sounds like it is ALREADY available… (maybe it is my french canadian interpretation that read wrong) shouldn’t there be a “release date” on that page?
The Avalon Hill web page is in line with what Shelly said, which is that information about the game would be available there soon. The game itself will only be available in the fall. The formal release date announcement for A&A games tends to take the form of a Wizards of the Coast solicitation flyer that is made available to retailers – for example, this one for the 1914 game:
http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2012_12_19_AA1914_Solicitation_en_US.pdf
my box says 900+ pieces and ebay value over $500
Just for fun, I took the partial map board picture on the Avalon Hill website’s “Learn More” link for the reprint and compared it with the photos and data on knp7765’s “Evolution of Axis & Allies pieces – Take 2” thread (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23386.0). The sculpts that we see in the picture are consistent with the sculpts that were issued with the original Anniversary game: the British have Sherman tanks and have Spitfires with upcurved wings, and the Japanese have an artillery piece whose struts are closed. (Beginning with the 1942 game, the British have had Matilda tanks and flat-winged Spitfires, and the Japanese have had an artillery piece whose struts are open.) This doesn’t really tell us anything definitive about the reprint, since the picture may be one of the original game. If it’s a picture of the reprint, then either it’s an actual picture of the game as it will be produced (in which case the sculpts are the original designs) or it’s some sort of provisional picture that may or may not reflect the eventual sculpt components.
Just like the “1942” Box, I’m pretty sure its just a stock photo… very common thing in promoting reprints, even if it’s a redesign of any kind.
I wouldn’t put any stock into those photos as indicative of the upcoming reprint one way or another.
Just like the “1942” Box, I’m pretty sure its just a stock photo… very common thing in promoting reprints, even if it’s a redesign of any kind.
I wouldn’t put any stock into those photos as indicative of the upcoming reprint one way or another.
Agreed; as I mentioned, this doesn’t tell us anything definitive. There’s a certain amusing irony to the principle that one shouldn’t put any stock in a stock photo. :-D
