@Krieghund Thank you for the swift reply. I don’t think that thought crossed my opponent’s mind (we usually play Global, so the idea of attacking Germany…and leaving oneself open to counterattack…is not on the radar).
Zombies is a different game.
Broken, Busted, or Both
-
@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?
-
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?
Yes. At least 2/3 of our rolls we completely forgot to remove zombie casualties (rolled 6s). Unless we specifically stated we were attacking zombies we just completely forgot to remove them.
-
@thrasher1 They didnt do it wrong, I did. However, the point is not the value of the unit destroyed, its that it can stymy the end of the game repeatedly. Also, its extremely lame and not interesting as a game mechanic.
-
@taamvan Sorry, I disagree. I love the twist it adds. It is just difficult to remember the small new rules it adds (like the zombie deaths, buying units at the end of a turn, and remembering that when the zombies are greater than the IPC count of a capitol then the zombies take control).
Personally, I loved the game. I made a HUGE mistake early on (having read and played wrong my only other time playing). But, I still loved the game.
-
@twmattox My experience was the opposite. I’ve posted more about this game and (among the swamp crew) am one of the few who even bothered to play it. I tried to be positive about it and encouraged others to play it, I didn’t judge it until i’d played it quite a bit.
3/10
-
@twmattox said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
Yes. At least 2/3 of our rolls we completely forgot to remove zombie casualties (rolled 6s). Unless we specifically stated we were attacking zombies we just completely forgot to remove them.
I think the special dice help with this. But yes, if you do forget to assing the Z-hits, that makes quite an impact on the game.
General remark: yes, Zs are annoying and there are often a lot of them. But within a few turns almost all players have at least some technologies. And these can help to remove at least some of the Zs…
Also: some cards are handy in this regard.
Suggested Topics
