@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
-
@taamvan Well, that’s another strategic angle. The defender needs to weigh that possibility, and consider the ramifications of leaving a zombie in a territory and an attacker’s ability to capitalize on the situation.
Note how AAZ OOB is similar to 1941, but, it has artillery. This provides another strategic consideration to balance- do you buy more arty to sacrifice in order to keep the zombie hord numbers lower or not? Then the Z4 rounds come into play with a 2:3 chance of hitting a zombie on attack when faced with all zombies. -
@Krieghund said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
Since the Zombie Apocalypse can occur only at the end of a round (not any turn), only the USSR can prevent it in this way.
True. I was aware of that of course. But what ran into my mind was the following. If this Z Apocalypse occurs say during the German turn then the UK or Japan can also think: wow, the least thing I can do is reduce the value of Z-held areas to make it not hit the Z Apocalypse ‘limit’ anymore.
But yes, of course you are right: the check for ‘ZA’ is after the end of a complete round yes…I’m not sure of the exact reason the delayed zombie control rule was implemented, but it could have been to simply have one point in time where zombie control was applied, and thus streamline play.
Good point. I hope the game developers will speak out on this one.
Personally I think these specific rules are rather confusing. So personally I would have opted for simply:- If at the end of a player’s turn an area only has Zs on it then place a Z control marker on that territory.
- In case of any specific action (cards) : place an Z control marker immediatelly. Like for example: a card says to place a Z in a neutral territory.
Maybe this approach is a bit ‘EuroGames’-like. But I think it can work here. And is more intuitive.
But other opinions are welcome of course.It could also have been done to give each power the ability to combat move all units out of a zombie-occupied territory and then noncombat move other units in without losing control.
Krieghund, you are the rules expert. But I dare to disagree on this one. But correct me if I am wrong please.
Any change of ‘ownership’ happens at the end of a player’s turn. So if you move out all your units during your combat move that area is still owned by you (or your ally). OK, so now there are only Zs there. But in the non-combat phase you can non-combat move any unit that did not move yet into a friendly area. And that area is still friendly at that very moment.
-
@Krieghund said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
Blitz is a specific kind of CM. alot of people use it interchangeably with “move 1 then fight” when the first move would have otherwise been a NCM
Very true. You can say in case of a blitz Krieg first you ‘non-comat move’ and then you combat move into the area you attack. Still, I would not use these words here to avoid confusion.
But @krieghund will provide us with the right wording of course…Not really. In the case of a blitz, the first move is not a noncombat move, because the territory is hostile. It takes a combat move to enter a hostile territory, even an unoccupied one.
Of course it is not a ‘non-combat move’ as it does not take place in the NC phase. That’s why I wrote: you could call it a non-combat move… but I wouldn’t use that word (in this very context).
It’s probably best to compare a normal (non-blitz) two-space tank move to the movement of a battleship. A battleship may move two spaces, but only if the first space is friendly. If the battleship enters a hostile space, it must stop moving. The same applies to a tank, but in addition the tank also has the ability to blitz.
A blitz is a special two-space move that may only be done if the first space of movement is an unoccupied hostile territory (both conditions are relevant). However, to further complicate things, the second move of a blitz may actually be into a friendly territory. So the first space of a blitz move is actually a single-space combat move, while the second is a single-space move that my be either a combat or a noncombat move.
Thanks for clarifying this.
Still: I would not use the term ‘noncombat move’ here. It is an non-hostile move during the combat movement phase I would say…The important thing to understand is that if the first space isn’t both unoccupied and hostile, the move is not a blitz.
Krieghund says it best! So I justed ‘bolded’ this one. Thanks.
And as this is all about AAZ this brings us to:First territory is:
- Z controlled (that is: hostile) and contains no Zs… Blitz yes/no?
- Z controlled (that is: hostile) and contains one or more Zs. Blitz yes/no?
-
@Terry-Pollock said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
I think the broken issue is that the tournament removed the cards. If you had chainsaw tanks, z-4 rounds, and DOTS, you’d have more tools to work on the Zombie problem- along with being able to move zombies and stuff.
I did not play with these tournament rules. But I like the limit of only two cards per player’s turn.
I’m new to AA, but from everything I’ve been reading, I love that zombies create a neutral variable that can be strategically applies like a fog of war. Some game re-caps seem like attempts at WWII Operation reenactments where if the dice rolls don’t pan out, one side surrenders, maybe re-set the board.
It can be fun. It can also be a bit annoying. Overall I like it, I like to see action in say West Canada or Venezuela. Also: as you almost always get at least one or two techs there is some variation in gameplay.
-
@Terry-Pollock said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
@taamvan Well, that’s another strategic angle. The defender needs to weigh that possibility, and consider the ramifications of leaving a zombie in a territory and an attacker’s ability to capitalize on the situation.
I am glad this topic was tackled in this very thread. Let’s hope others will post ideas/strategies to counter this.
And then maybe ‘my’ house rule (fix) is not even needed :) -
It could also have been done to give each power the ability to combat move all units out of a zombie-occupied territory and then noncombat move other units in without losing control.
Krieghund, you are the rules expert. But I dare to disagree on this one. But correct me if I am wrong please.
Any change of ‘ownership’ happens at the end of a player’s turn. So if you move out all your units during your combat move that area is still owned by you (or your ally). OK, so now there are only Zs there. But in the non-combat phase you can non-combat move any unit that did not move yet into a friendly area. And that area is still friendly at that very moment.
Yes, that was my point. If they had given control over to the zombies immediately upon their being the only units in the territory, then the territory would not have been friendly in noncombat movement, but they didn’t do it that way. However, changes of control do happen mid-turn in the case of attacks, so there was a precedent for doing it that way if they wanted to.
-
And as this is all about AAZ this brings us to:
First territory is:
- Z controlled (that is: hostile) and contains no Zs… Blitz yes/no?
Yes.
- Z controlled (that is: hostile) and contains one or more Zs. Blitz yes/no?
No.
-
@taamvan said in 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.
What if this happens in Axis and Allies 1942 Second Editon with Zs?
I ask this here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33827/aaz-1942-second-edition-rules-question-inspired-by-broken-busted-or-both -
@Krieghund said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
It could also have been done to give each power the ability to combat move all units out of a zombie-occupied territory and then noncombat move other units in without losing control.
Krieghund, you are the rules expert. But I dare to disagree on this one. But correct me if I am wrong please.
Any change of ‘ownership’ happens at the end of a player’s turn. So if you move out all your units during your combat move that area is still owned by you (or your ally). OK, so now there are only Zs there. But in the non-combat phase you can non-combat move any unit that did not move yet into a friendly area. And that area is still friendly at that very moment.
Yes, that was my point. If they had given control over to the zombies immediately upon their being the only units in the territory, then the territory would not have been friendly in noncombat movement, but they didn’t do it that way. However, changes of control do happen mid-turn in the case of attacks, so there was a precedent for doing it that way if they wanted to.
@Krieghund said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
Yes, that was my point. If they had given control over to the zombies immediately upon their being the only units in the territory, then the territory would not have been friendly in noncombat movement, but they didn’t do it that way.
The issue is: when does the ownership of an area change? After the combat? At the end of the combat phase? Or at the very end of the turn?
The - general - Axis and Allies rules seem to imply that this happens at the end of the combat phase, Why? Because you may non-combat move a unit (that did not move already) into an area you just took control of.
So if we follow this line of reasoning and if Zs also take control of an area at the end of the combat phase then you could not non-combat an unit into that area as it is not (no longer) controlled by you.
However, changes of control do happen mid-turn in the case of attacks, so there was a precedent for doing it that way if they wanted to.
Yes. But I would say this happens at the end of the combat phase. For all areas at the same time.
-
The issue is: when does the ownership of an area change? After the combat? At the end of the combat phase? Or at the very end of the turn?
The - general - Axis and Allies rules seem to imply that this happens at the end of the combat phase, Why? Because you may non-combat move a unit (that did not move already) into an area you just took control of.
It happens at the end of each individual combat, but for all practical purposes it happens at the end of the combat phase, as all combat is simultaneous.
So if we follow this line of reasoning and if Zs also take control of an area at the end of the combat phase then you could not non-combat an unit into that area as it is not (no longer) controlled by you.
However, changes of control do happen mid-turn in the case of attacks, so there was a precedent for doing it that way if they wanted to.
Yes. But I would say this happens at the end of the combat phase. For all areas at the same time.
That would be true if zombies followed the same rules as regular units, but they don’t. They have to wait until the next turn to take control.
-
@Krieghund said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
Then again: as the check for Z Apocalypse is at the end of his very turn. So a full turn to kick out some Zs…).
Since the Zombie Apocalypse can occur only at the end of a round (not any turn), only the USSR can prevent it in this way.
Yes. During the USSR’s turn these areas will get Z-controlled. And that might get you over the critical number for ZA. Then still: you and your opponents have a full ROUND to get you under this.
So maybe this aspect of the ‘unusual take over of control by Zs’ isn’t that important…@Krieghund, any idea if gameplay of AAZ would drastically change if Zs would follow the regular rules regarding taking control of an area?
-
Speaking about the tournament, how were the results in general? Did allies consistently have the advantage /axis bid required as predicted earliar?
In the interest of quicker games and making japan/axis easier I’ve been considering a house rule of moving Japan’s turn to after Germany for effectively simultaneous turns, (and maybe adding an infantry to india to counter a t1 rush.)
-
@Striker the result was that the clever player that figured out how to exploit the rules won the tournament with his partner.
-
I understand one player won quite handily with allies. I am wondering allies were favored across multiple games. Smorey hasn’t posted detailed results for zombies like hes done for other tourneys.
-
@Striker neither team is favored, in the absence of the exploit. However, Allies have a higher income and more territories, and more backfield territories, thus, they win.
The Axis have to attack Moscow in 3 turns and destroy it. They can do that, but they cannot hold it.
This game is more or less balanced in the OOB version, its just not fun or interesting IMO.
-
The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”
-
@Striker i’ve played it alot, and the other versions. I don’t spend time when I’m jogging hashing out my strategy for AAZ–there isn’t one. On the other hand, I spend hours strategizing over AA50, 42.2, G40/42.
The OOB version is luck driven and capricious. The tournament version is way better. I’m not sore I didn’t move on, I won the 42.2 tournament instead and I have no further desire to play this version.
-
@Striker said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”
Those little battles matter, especially if you need them to block an assault on Moscow.
-
@squirecam said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
@Striker said in Broken, Busted, or Both:
The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”
Those little battles matter, especially if you need them to block an assault on Moscow.
That justification can apply to zombie aggroing too?
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I find it equally eyerolling whether it’s one infantry halting the blitz of the entire opposing tank force or a single sacrificial lamb whipping the zombies into a frenzy against the territory owners. It’s very subjective to say one is fine and the other isn’t.
-
@Striker the single blocker thing actually ends up being very chesslike, especially if you can remove that blocker with an allied team before your turn. It may not be realistic, but neither are the territories in risk/axa or the way movement is presented, at all.
The War Game (and perhaps g36 idk) model this by having contingent moves–the blockers can each block 1 guy and the rest of the moves are each contingent upon what happens in each next square (so 10 ships, 1 destroyer blocking, 1 stays to fight the dd and 9 move on to face 3 ships, which can only block a maximum of 3 ships, so 6 can move on to the final movement square).
Its far more realistic, and a complete mess gameplay wise.
Suggested Topics
