@commando-brado Players choose their own casualties.
Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A
-
Well, again, not a question. But an addditon… AAZ rules are sometimes a bit unclear. It might be good to cover some of the common rules misunderstandings.
-
@thrasher1 said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:
let someone from the official AAZ team please tell what is exactly meant by these terms. And if our interpretations are right.
I’m always monitoring these boards, but @Panther does such a great job that I seldom have to post anymore. Also, as @smo63 said, he has a direct line to the designers of this game.
As far as the FAQ is concerned, it is being worked on, but I haven’t been told yet when it can be expected.
-
@thrasher1 now i get it i agree the timing and capture of zombie territory is odd
-
@taamvan said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:
@thrasher1 now i get it i agree the timing and capture of zombie territory is odd
taamvan,
Yes. I think AAZ rules set would be less complex if gaining control (placing a control marker) by Zs would be at the end of the game. However, this would have (at least) two implications:
(1) The player who is losing control to Zs will lose the IPCs of that very area immediatelly.
(2) These IPC values count to the Z apocalypse check immediatelly.
Maybe we will hear more about the reasons why this very rule was implemented.
-
Thanks for reply. Looking foward to the FAQ.
-
Any chance you can give your interpreation on this issue:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32350/axis-allies-and-zombies-q-a/17
(Playing two Z cards).
-
I have asked twice about how Zombie card “stacking” should work, but I have yet to receive an answer. @smo63, have you heard anything about this issue in your discussions?
-
Krieghund,
Looking forward to further clarifications.
Regarding ‘stacking of cards’ I think common sense indicates you play one card, implement the effects. And then play another card, implement the effects on the situation that just occured (after playing the first card).
Again, this goes against the general principle of ‘state of the map at the beginning of the game’ dictates what you can do or not.
( https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32350/axis-allies-and-zombies-q-a/17 ) -
Guys, this is my intention on how to handle the stacking of the Zombie Cards: Remove all but 1 of the “Escalation” Cards from the deck before play begins. Whenever a “Zombie Rise” or “Escalation” Card is drawn, and after all cards are played this turn, the remaining text will now read: “Remove this card from the game. Do not shuffle the discard pile back into the deck.” Also, after the first “Zombie Rise” or “Escalation” cards is drawn, you may not draw the other card as one of the next 2 cards. If so, draw 2 more cards, play those cards and then reshuffle the “Zombie Rise” or “Escalation” that was drawn as the 1st or 2nd card, back into the deck.
Also, from Scott at WotC on the return fire from BB bombardment of land units: The intent is that they can return fire. I’ll take a look at the text. If it’s ambiguous (or wrong) we’ll address that in an Errata or FAQ.
Hope this helps:grinning:
-
@smo63 I suppose because you do not like the “recursion” (drawing escalation then another escalation)? Or that there are too many in the deck? They took the mechanic from Pandemic, though it works a bit differently there.
Also, this doesn’t address stacking itself; what if both cards are the same “$1 per zombie killed this turn” and you draw two of those. Is it $2 per zombie? Seems right.
And I think Zombie Rise and Escalation are the same card with different names–why not keep 2 escalations to avoid the confusion (it sounds like you are retaining two (2) “draw two (2) further cards” cards.
Confusing, I know. We only have 5 more months to hash it out. ;)
-
@smo63 said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:
Also, from Scott at WotC on the return fire from BB bombardment of land units: The intent is that they can return fire. I’ll take a look at the text. If it’s ambiguous (or wrong) we’ll address that in an Errata or FAQ.
Also they need to elaborate on the non-existing “opening fire step”, see https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1234065 , please.
They simply copy-pasted the wording from the Revised rulebook, here, even without introducing Offshore Bombardment during the Amphibious Assault rules.
Don't always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start … and better check what TripleA has done.
-
@taamvan Half dozen one way and half dozen the other. I just choose to use the 2 cards with different names. I thought that would be easier. But then again, I am just a mere Tolarian and what do I know…?:space_invader: And yes, I am only keeping 2 draws 2 cards because I believe it helps streamline the process and keeps from the over the confusion of this stacking problem?
As for the stacking, I am not following you. Am i missing something? If the first card drawn says, get 1 IPC for each zombie killed this turn and the next one says the same, then yes, you get 2 IPCs for each zombie killed. I am not sure where there is confusion regarding this? Again, I have not read through all the post so…it might help if I do that.
-
@smo63 Got it. Just thought the explanation would be shorter the other way (as few people would understand why the Zombie Rise card has a different name–it was a last change or mistake IIRC).
You are not the only person who has said “dang, why are there so many of these escalation cards”—in Pandemic you dont shuffle the escalations back into the deck!
Yes, you and I agree on your second point. There was just some discussion and confusion regarding “stacking” of the effect and without an official answer, some unclarity. If a bonus repeats, you double it. That’s my understanding.
Here’s a shot at (rules) lawyering to help tighten up your proposed language; HTH
“At game start, remove all but 2 of the Escalation Cards and Zombie Rise from the deck. When Escalation is drawn do not shuffle it or the discard pile back into the deck. If you are resolving the first Escalation card and draw the other Escalation, discard it and draw again, then return the second Escalation back to the deck, and shuffle.”
-
Also they need to elaborate on the non-existing “opening fire step”, see https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1234065 , please.
They simply copy-pasted the wording from the Revised rulebook, here, even without introducing Offshore Bombardment during the Amphibious Assault rules.
Panther, I know you have been around this forum for a while now…years, correct. And I would only assume that you do know how to play AA at least the basics.
If this is the case, then why would you need anyone to elaborate anything as far as the mechanics of how to play AA. Yes, I understand the zombie portion of it, but just use some common sense. And what is so pressing that some continually demand errata for the questions to the larger picture that keeps you up at night…
-
@taamvan I like yours as well, but in this case, I think I will let Krieg choose which one would be his preferred way of stating it.
Here is my defense of my version. I believe it is less confusing when you use the 2 different names of the cards when reducing the number of escalation cards too 2. Again, just my opinion.
And I really feel galactically stupid but I am not up to date on the abbreviations? sorry, HTH? IIRC?
-
@smo63 The other thing I think should be done is, “Zombie Rise” Should read, add 2 or 3 zombies to any territory that already contain zombies. Something like that. It is kind of kooky that they are the same, but I don’t think we need to beat WotC up about this. Just make it something that works and go with it!
-
@smo63 Of course, I defer to you all. HTH “Hope This Helps” IIRC “If I Recall Correctly”
As to the BB rule, it doesn’t signal a change, so the rule is as it always has been (bombardments are not “first strikes” and permit a retaliation).
I think that was the plan with Zombie Rise, but it was not implemented, and so the name is just an artifact. And—2-3! One extra zombie would still create a lot of zombies!
I’d remove it completely, to avoid having to repeat the split reference to two identical cards with two different names (because only 16 people on the planet currently understand why Zombie Rise is a thing at all).
See you at Gencon!
-
@smo63 said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:
Also they need to elaborate on the non-existing “opening fire step”, see https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1234065 , please.
They simply copy-pasted the wording from the Revised rulebook, here, even without introducing Offshore Bombardment during the Amphibious Assault rules.
Panther, I know you have been around this forum for a while now…years, correct. And I would only assume that you do know how to play AA at least the basics.
If this is the case, then why would you need anyone to elaborate anything as far as the mechanics of how to play AA. Yes, I understand the zombie portion of it, but just use some common sense. And what is so pressing that some continually demand errata for the questions to the larger picture that keeps you up at night…
Thank you, yes indeed I might have some knowledge about the basics/the rules, maybe that is why @Krieghund appointed me as rules deputy some years ago.
What I am requesting here is some precision and some efforts about wording the rules from WotC. When I am asked for clarifications about the rules by other users I am used to give (and users are used to get) those clarfications supported by quoting the rules and / or the official FAQ.
“Common sense” is nice, but sometimes misleading. When offshore bombardment is not part of the Amphibious Assault rules but appears only in the units characteristics of the battleship - and is worded there exactly like it was in Revised - what is common sense here?
a) Offshore bombardment has not been intended to be part of the AAZ rules (see 1941 edition) at all?
b) It was intended but is worded poorly and (still) missing in the Amphibious Assault part of the rules, too?I usually discuss issues like this one with @Krieghund, but we agreed that “common sense” allows for both interpretations.
Users often don’t ask for “common sense” but want evidence/quotes from the rules/FAQ.
All I have been asking for in this topic has been
- a correction of the AAZ 1942 2nd ed. setup that should have been ready from day 1 of the release
- a rewording of the Amphibious Assault rules to introduce Offshore Bombardment (including but not limited to the “fire back”-aspect), so that it matches the AAZ-ruleset (instead of the Revised ruleset). At least we know now from Scott’s words that Offshore Bombardment is a part of the AAZ-ruleset.
I can’t see anything wrong with these requests.
Doing a good ‘job’ for the community is what motivates me. Thank you for asking!
(PS: Actually it does not keep me up at night. I wrote my posting you refer to at about 6.30 pm. My timezone is 6 to 9 hours ahead of yours (depending on where you live). So I do get enough sleep. :slightly_smiling_face: )
-
@taamvan :+1:
-
Hi all,
Do we know if WOTC are going to be putting out an official FAQ/Errata for this game any time soon? My gaming group want to start playing it and I will have to teach them all the rules, so would really prefer to have up-to-date knowledge.
Thank you so much for your help
Suggested Topics
