@Krieghund Thanks again for all your fast replies. And seems I am getting most issues right.
Having said that: being VERY far removed from your level of (tacit) knowledge of all things A&A among some of the guys (sorry no ladies unfortunately) that I play with I am known as ‘the guy that is looking for rules issues and strange/improbably combinations of rules…’ - and in this case: cards :)
Broken, Busted, or Both
-
So at the AAZ tournament, I think one of my opponents discovered an exploit that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of this version. I’ve reviewed the rules again–so if I’ve misunderstood something I would love to be corrected.
However, if my opponent is correct, I’m not playing this one again–and I’m not sure how they would fix this exploit.
Scenario; You’ve just taken Moscow. There are 12 zombies, and you have 3 German tanks.
Opponent sends in 1 fighter. Zombies cannot hit this plane, but it prompts a Zombies Bite step. The zombies kill the 3 German tanks, but cannot kill the UK plane. Since all the defenders are dead, the plane flies home. During the next “Zombies Control Territories” step (Japan), control of Moscow is lost (>4-5 Zs there) and the Axis do not win. During the next round, they could move more units into Moscow–but the UK will prompt another punt+bunt battle at that time.
This move doesn’t require a fighter–it just requires any unit that can be sacrificed as an attacker that’s in range, where there are enough Zs to do more than 1 unit worth of kills on average (6-10 minimum). Say 12 zombies roll–thats 2 D casualties vs 1 potential Attacker casualty. If its an infantry, who cares. If its a fighter, you don’t even lose it as long as all the defenders are killed.
He repeatedly used this exploit, attacking or sacrificing wherever the result would be an average of 1+ unit lost by defender in return for 1 lost attacker. 1 attacker for each prompted attack is all it takes.
At that point, I could have continued in the tourney (I lost…to the exploit), but didn’t bother.
Not sure who didn’t see the cheeze factor on this one, but as far as I can tell, it prevents the Axis from winning (Axis can’t effectively take moscow between the repeated zombie rages and the counterattacks). Of course it could go both ways but typically were seeing the proper size for zombie stax in the Russia/E Europe area. And whether it was intended or not, its still lame.
Maybe I’m wrong–I sure didn’t come up with it, though I suspected it might be in here somewhere.
-
Geez, that’s an insanely strong strategy by your opponent. I definitely didn’t come up with that idea in particular (best I ever managed was an Allied strat to purposely suicide into territories to trigger the “Zombie Apocalypse” game-end condition.
I honestly don’t know how I’d deal with a strategy like that by the UK/US as the Axis. Seems like a game design oversight to me, and a pretty bad one.
-
@taamvan said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
Scenario; You’ve just taken Moscow. There are 12 zombies, and you have 3 German tanks.
Opponent sends in 1 fighter. Zombies cannot hit this plane, but it prompts a Zombies Bite step. The zombies kill the 3 German tanks, but cannot kill the UK plane. Since all the defenders are dead, the plane flies home. During the next “Zombies Control Territories” step (Japan), control of Moscow is lost (>4-5 Zs there) and the Axis do not win. During the next round, they could move more units into Moscow–but the UK will prompt another punt+bunt battle at that time.So say this is:
Germany takes Moscow.
Then UK (UK’s turn comes after Germany’s) conducts this move with attacking with just a lone fighter.
Then Japan’s turn and during PHASE 3 the Zs take control of Moscow.This move doesn’t require a fighter–it just requires any unit that can be sacrificed as an attacker that’s in range, where there are enough Zs to do more than 1 unit worth of kills on average (6-10 minimum). Say 12 zombies roll–thats 2 D casualties vs 1 potential Attacker casualty. If its an infantry, who cares. If its a fighter, you don’t even lose it as long as all the defenders are killed.
Yes, 12 Zs will probably hit 2 defening units. So yes, that’'s probably two German tanks gone. Out of three. Will probably leave one German tank in Mosow.
And that British fighter can maybe alos score a hit against these German units.
Remember: both the attacking units hit by the Zs (as per A die roll at the special Z dice) and the defending units hit by the Zs (as per D rolled) are NOT removed immediatelly. They are hit. But just perform a regular round of combat.(…)
Maybe I’m wrong–I sure didn’t come up with it, though I suspected it might be in here somewhere.
Good you bring this up. Maybe a rules fix for this is needed. But first: please all share your ideas on HOW to counter this in the framework of the normal AAZ rules.
-
“Remember: both the attacking units hit by the Zs (as per A die roll at the special Z dice) and the defending units hit by the Zs (as per D rolled) are NOT removed immediatelly. They are hit. But just perform a regular round of combat.”
That is a good point. I thought these were first strikes, but they are not. Thanks for the clarification, but I believe the cheeze factor still remains.
The plane still cannot be hit by the zombies, and in the 1-land-unit example, its sacrificed no matter what. This makes taking and holding a capital a very difficult proposition.
Keep in mind too that the Tournament rules remove cards from the deck and flatten the tech, so that certain things that might overcome this disadvantage (chainsaw tanks or winning 3 fighters from one victory) don’t exist.
-
@taamvan said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
That is a good point. I thought these were first strikes, but they are not. Nonetheless, this makes taking and holding a capital a very difficult proposition.
No. These Z-hits are not ‘first strikes’.
I hope people come up with ideas to counter this under the current rules.
Remember: you often get at least some technologies during the course of the game.
The deck includes 12 ‘get a free technology’ cards: Anti-Z Technology. And also 6 Research Mission cards. So after a few turns there is a good chance you own at least some technologies. Of course same is true for your opponents…Still, the basics of this strategy/issue remain unaltered by technology. It reminds me of the famous/infamous Battleship Background Fire issue. What?
The Battleship Background Fire issue. Some versions of Axis and Allies (I include Xeno Games’s World at War and Europe at War here) have the rule that all surface ships in a seazone from which you conduct an ampibious attack (invasion) perform a ‘background fire’.
This makes sense.But what happened was that some people performed the following:
- invade an enemy-held coastal area with 1 (yes: ONE) infantry unit
- have all these battleships and cruisers (depending of the specific version) fire
- result: you score at least a few hits. Under some rules versions they are even removed immediatelly (without firing back)! And you only lose that one single infantry.
So many agreed on this fix: “The number of naval units peforming background fire is limited to the amount of land units talking part in the actual landing.”
Makes sense I would say.
This might be an option to pursue here.
Idea for now: “The number of casualties inflicted by the Zs on the DEFENDER is limited to the number of land units of the ATTACKER that take part in the actual combat.”
What do you all think?
-
@thrasher1 Sounds great. I also refer to your “background fire” concept as a punt–your exact wording closed that exploit in the Global Rules.
I’ll propose it to Greg for inclusion in next years “Tournament Rules”, whether they errata this detail, or not.
-
It’s the Taam&thrasher fix :)
Just kidding.I spend a lot of time trying to fix these Europe at War rules. Xeno Games provided us with a nice game. But the rules were (very much) broken. So I learned a lot about fixing rules and especially defining rules during the course of our FixEAW period.
Having said that:
A general remark. If you playtest rules or if you try to come up with your own rules always ‘explore the extremes’. Rules are often rather ‘general’ and even more so: written in rather general terms.
So please also take a look at the more extreme cases:
- What if you attack with NO land units?
- What if you attack with a minimum of land units and maximum of naval units (see example above)?
- What if you attack with air units only?
And so on…
-
Taam,
You think this fix is also needed in case of attacking an area containing both enemy units and Zs with ONLY air units?
EDIT: Let me clarify this. You think this fix is needed in all of these cases. Or only in some cases?
Of course you take a big risk here. You can lose expensive air units because of the enemy units firing at you. Still, if there are really a lot of Zs then these Zs will also hit a considerable amount of defening units (as per D on the special dice).
Again: by attacking the area you ‘trigger’ the Zs to attack (fire on) the defending units too…
-
@thrasher1 No one can expect flawless games. And at some point, they have to end the period of testing and goofing around and put a final copy to the factory.
Still,
AAZ 1942 Setup completely misprinted and Zombie Rise left in without rules, baltic states omitted from card deck
AA50 reprint exactly as original game with broken 1941 setup and illogical setup order on cards
42.2 Wrong Incomes Printed for 2 powers, required 3rd edition patch
Global First edition um…needed a second editionI’m not sore about all this I know how hard a perfect product is to make.
-
@thrasher1 as for your rule, it should be max zombie casualities against defender = total attacker units, regardless of type.
But by messing with this part, we’re going to create unintended new consequences and for all we know they saw bringing in 1 tank against 3 zoms and 3 enemy units as perfectly legit play and just didn’t consider how that would play out when its happening all over the board and both teams are trying to manipulate the zombies.
And the Tourney rules are quite different–with fewer ways to avoid zombie anger or kill them. So that’s affecting the result too.
-
If we limit this to AAZ here:
Yes. I agree. No game can be testing perfectly. Especially a game like AAZ with cards… there are so many combinations possible: cards with each other, cards with technologies, tech with allies (or not). And so on.
Still: I had expected at least some issues that are still in the rules now to had been tackled (guess this sentence is not 100 % correct, sorry!)If you playtest, test at least: stacking of cards. And: specific wording of cards and technologies.
-
@taamvan said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
@thrasher1 as for your rule, it should be max zombie casualities against defender = total attacker units, regardless of type.
But by messing with this part, we’re going to create unintended new consequences and for all we know they saw bringing in 1 tank against 3 zoms and 3 enemy units as perfectly legit play and just didn’t consider how that would play out when its happening all over the board and both teams are trying to manipulate the zombies.
So let’s first see if people can come up with a counter-strategy for this…
And the Tourney rules are quite different–with fewer ways to avoid zombie anger or kill them. So that’s affecting the result too.
How do you think this broadly influences gameplay for AAZ?
-
Taam,
There might also be an issue with the Z Camouflage card:
“In each territory you attack this turn, Zs do not roll for the first round of that combat.”
But in this ‘scenario’ (see first posting here) you actually do want the Zs to ‘attack’ (fire on both you, the attacker, and the defender).
Which leads to the question: may you opt for NOT playing a card? I am pretty sure the anwer is: no.
-
What if a capital controlled by zombies counted as a vc for your opponent, such that you were required to retake it and not use the plane tactic?
-
@squirecam said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
What if a capital controlled by zombies counted as a vc for your opponent, such that you were required to retake it and not use the plane tactic?
But then you can still use this tactic for other areas: move in one plane or one land unit, trigger the Zs, lose that one unit, and let the Zs basically do your fight: they will hit at 1/6 for each Z…
But thanks for your idea. Please share all your ideas here…
-
Another great point sir. I’m not sure that this result was unintended by the designers, because there is so much in the deck that can produce capricious and powerful results (gaining 3 fighters from winning 1 battle). They may have come to the conclusion that there were so many dynamic and luck-driven outcomes that trying to limit or tighten down the zombie mechanic might go against the spirit of the tech or the special cards.
Putting my copy up for sale on FB Mktplace next week.
-
@taamvan said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
Another great point sir. I’m not sure that this result was unintended by the designers, because there is so much in the deck that can produce capricious and powerful results (gaining 3 fighters from winning 1 battle). They may have come to the conclusion that there were so many dynamic and luck-driven outcomes that trying to limit or tighten down the zombie mechanic might go against the spirit of the tech or the special cards.
Thanks. Just sharing my ideas here. That’s all :)
But glad you like my input.Yes. The cards can have some disturbing effects too. So indeed, yes, maybe ‘strange’ outcomes like the one you decribe in your original posting here fits this game rather well.
Putting my copy up for sale on FB Mktplace next week.
Please don’t. Please keep your game of AAZ and share your experiences and ideas here.
So people like @Krieghund can pass the info (questions, issues) to the creators of the AAZ game and we finally get a good and decent FAQ. And yes, maybe the game needs some tinkering…One of the ideas that I think will eventually end up in a revised version of the rules will be the max two cards.
Getting three or four cards during one turn really is too much. -
What if zombie hits were limited to the # of attacking units then. You can bring in 1 fighter. But the zombies couldn’t get more than 1 defensive hit. If you brought 3 fighters, they get 3. It could prevent the 1 fighter strategy at least. As stated above it seems like the only way out.
-
As I understood it, yes, his tanks my stand a chance at being “killed” by the zombies. However, they would remain casualties and take a shot at the plane. Yes, zombies can’t kill the plane; but the tank casualties can.
Plus, add in the fact that there is a 1/6 chance for zombies to kill a defender and a 1/3 chance for them to kill attacking ground units.
Plus, remember to remove any killed zombies during EVERY roll. I was in the AAZ tournament too and we forgot to remove killed zombies a LOT during our rolls.
-
Sq & Tw,
@twmattox said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
As I understood it, yes, his tanks my stand a chance at being “killed” by the zombies. However, they would remain casualties and take a shot at the plane. Yes, zombies can’t kill the plane; but the tank casualties can.
This is what they probably did wrong at that tournament. If Z hits would be ‘first kills’ then yes… this strategy of sacricing one unit to trigger Z ‘attacks’ would be much more tempting (and powerful).
But this is NOT the case. So yes, these victim of Zs do fire in regular combat. So yes they can hit that lone infantry or - and then it gets really expensive - that lone fighter.Plus, add in the fact that there is a 1/6 chance for zombies to kill a defender and a 1/3 chance for them to kill attacking ground units.
True. But if you sacrifice one land unit then you really do not care about this. Or the fact that Zs hit you as an attacker at twice the rate then that of the defender. Also: the defening units will probably also score some hits. And then again: you are sacrificing that very lone land unit…
Plus, remember to remove any killed zombies during EVERY roll. I was in the AAZ tournament too and we forgot to remove killed zombies a LOT during our rolls.
You mean when Attacker or Defender score a (6) and thus destroy a Z?
Suggested Topics
