Yep. Finally AAZ hit our table again. Actually in the incarnation of ‘Axis and Allies 1942 Second Edtion’ + Zs…
For now we have two rules questions. And these have probably been covered. So feel free to link to an older topic/thread.
(1) Not deploying all your forces inside an area when attacking Zs present in that very area
What happened:
Zs controlled West Mexico (area directly below Western US). There were also Zs present inside Western US area.
US player wanted to attack Zs that controlled West Mexico area. Using some units from Western US.
OK, these units can move into West Mexico during the COMBAT PHASE.
Some units were left inside Western US. These attacked the Zs presen there during the COMBAT PHASE.
I guess this is still all ‘legal’.
But what if instead of attacking West Mexico the US player just wanted some units in Western US NOT to attack the Zs inside that area… but move them into friendly (this is important!) Western Canada?
Technically these units can only move during the COMBAT MOVEMENT PHASE. Or is ‘avoiding’ combat also allowed in the combat movement phase? I guess that is the case. But then when is this very move conducted? As it might otherwise ‘interere’ with ‘real’ non-combat movement of units into that very (friendly!) area…
Am I too strict here?
(2) Z Cards
If a card says: “You get X if you kill at least 3 Zs during combat” does this:
(2a) Include Zs killed by your opponent? The defender. In case you attack an enemy held area.
(2b) Newly ‘created’ Zs? Or must the ‘net effect’ be: three less Zs?
Looking forward to the aswers and responsed. And again: we had a GREAT time playing!
@thrasher1
(1) The presence of zombies does not itself make a territory hostile - it’s about who controls it. If you control a territory that contains zombies, it’s just like a territory you control that doesn’t contain zombies, with one exception: you are allowed to in effect treat it as a hostile territory if it contains zombies. This means you can make a combat movement into it and/or attack it, and also that units may combat move out of it if you’re attacking it. Other than that, the normal rules of combat movement, combat, and noncombat movement apply.
In your example, the units in Western US could legally do all of the things you mentioned. If they attack the zombies in Western US, any units not attacking would need to move out in combat movement, to either hostile or friendly territories. The only way to move out in noncombat movement would be to not attack the zombies.
(2) I can’t find a card that gives you something “if you kill at least 3 zombies”. You must be referring to “Research Mission”, which grants you a technology “if at least 3 zombies are destroyed”. In this case, it doesn’t matter who destroys them, and it doesn’t matter whether or how many new zombies are created.
Yes. I refererd to RESEARCH MISSION card.
We interpreted this as:
“The active player must destroy as many Zs that the ‘net effect’ is three Zs less on the board after the combat.”
So two things must occur:
AND
OK, so we were wrong. But under the official rule isn’t it often maybe to easy to ‘forfill’ this card and thus get the bonus?
@thrasher1 I don’t think it’s any easier than some of the other ones.
@Krieghund said in AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night):
@thrasher1 I don’t think it’s any easier than some of the other ones.
… easier then ‘forfilling’ one of the other AAZ cards you mean?
Thanks for VERY fast reply BTW.
Just compiling some (rules) issues we got into when playing AAZ. And again: it was fun!
In the same vein we interpreted the SALVAGE OPERATION card wrongly.
We thought that the ACTIVE player got one IPC per destroyed Z that was destroyed by himself.
So this introduces some bookkeeping but not an awful lot. If the attacker destroys a Z jus put that aside and at the end of the combat replace 'em with 1 IPC each.
Here we did NOT follow the ‘net effect’ argument that I line out here:
One more question…
Z CONSCRIPTION card
I think this has been covered before. But just asking for now:
(1) Do ICs and AA guns (and Mobilization Centers) qualify as a unit in the context of this card?
My guess: yes.
(2) But… what if you have lost control of one of your areas containing an IC… to Zs? Then this IC is no longer yours I guess? So then that IC cannot be used in the context of this card?
(3) If you have unit in an area controlled by an ally and you use this card… then this Z gets replaced by one of YOUR infantry. Is this correct?
Following up on this:
Z DOMESTICATION card
If you have an unit in an area controlled by one of your allies and you play this game then I guess YOU get the money?
And not your ally…
BTW: Card says ‘units’ but I guess one unit is enough…
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night):
… easier then ‘forfilling’ one of the other AAZ cards you mean?
Yes.
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night):
One more question…
Z CONSCRIPTION card
I think this has been covered before. But just asking for now:
(1) Do ICs and AA guns (and Mobilization Centers) qualify as a unit in the context of this card?
My guess: yes.
Yes.
(2) But… what if you have lost control of one of your areas containing an IC… to Zs? Then this IC is no longer yours I guess? So then that IC cannot be used in the context of this card?
Correct.
(3) If you have unit in an area controlled by an ally and you use this card… then this Z gets replaced by one of YOUR infantry. Is this correct?
Yes.
@thrasher1 said in AAZ Rules Questions (We just played the game this very night):
Following up on this:
Z DOMESTICATION card
If you have an unit in an area controlled by one of your allies and you play this game then I guess YOU get the money?
And not your ally…BTW: Card says ‘units’ but I guess one unit is enough…
Correct.
@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 :)
