Take a Look:
Mysterious Hellcat.jpg
Spring 42 or Revised
-
If you were blind a few seconds ago, scroll up so you can read everything you need
-
3rd edition? What? Usually people mistakenly call Revised the 4th ed.
-
3rd edition? What? Usually people mistakenly call Revised the 4th ed.
So am I right or wrong
-
1st edition: Nova Games, 1981
2nd edition: Milton Bradley, 1986
3rd edition: Revised, 2004
4th edition: Anniversary, 2008
5th edition: Spring 1942, 2009I’ve played editions 2, 3, and 5, and I think they got better every time. Major improvements in Spring 1942 as compared to Revised are, imho:
a) No more using transports as cannon fodder
b) No tech
Too bad that they didn’t do a better job on the map (but Imperious Leader has helped us out there) and some of the other paper/cardboard components. It wouldn’t have bothered me spending some more money on a better edition component-wise. -
I thought the MB version has 3 different editions.
-
Calling Revised “3rd Edition” is a misnomer. The Nova, Milton Bradley and Avalon Hill versions of A&A are so different that they are completely different games. In addition, there were three editions of the MB version. Does that make the Nova version edition zero? And where do Anniversary and 1942 fit into this scheme? They’re certainly no more or less different from Revised than Revised is from Classic.
There is definitely a distinction between versions (publishers) of A&A and editions (releases by a publisher), and the nomenclature should reflect this. Here is the proper nomenclature (“global” games only):
A&A, Nova Version (“A&A Nova” or “AAN”)
A&A, MB Version, 1st Edition (“A&A Classic, 1st Edition” or “AAC1”)
A&A, MB Version, 2nd Edition (“A&A Classic, 2nd Edition” or “AAC2”)
A&A, MB Version, 3rd Edition (“A&A Classic, 3rd Edition” or “AAC3”*)
A&A, AH Version, 1st edition (“A&A Revised” or “AAR”)
A&A, AH Version, Anniversary Edition (“A&A Anniversary” or “AA50”)
A&A, AH Version, 1942 Edition (“A&A 1942” or “AA42”)
A&A, AH Version, 1940 Edition (“A&A 1940” or “AA40”)- The 2nd Edition rules of MB A&A are by far the most popular, to the point where the MB version became popularly known as simply “2nd Edition”. At the time that this name was first used, it was appropriate, but after the release of AAR it became outmoded and just served to confuse the issue. This lead AAR being erroneously dubbed the “4th Edition”.
-
@Herr:
1st edition: Nova Games, 1981
2nd edition: Milton Bradley, 1986
3rd edition: Revised, 2004
4th edition: Anniversary, 2008
5th edition: Spring 1942, 2009Personally i dont consider anniversary in that set… Anniversary had Major changes to the map and rules. while all the others had Small changes but kept the overall look and feel of classic A&A
I think the generations of A&A should be…
1st edition: Nova Games, 1981
2nd edition: Milton Bradley, 1986
3rd edition: Revised, 2004
4th edition: Spring 1942, 2009Anniversary Edition is more along the lines of a combined Europe and pacific game.
1st Edition: A&A Europe, 1999
1st Edition: A&A Pacific, 2001
2nd Edition: Anniversary
3rd Edition: A&A Europe 1940 & A&A Pacific 1940 -
Well any ways I fixed the poll.
-
My pick is Spring 42. Although I wish WotC would have included the marshaling cards like they did in Revised. And maybe the aircraft flight path markers.
-
tips hat
There’s no doubt that Krieghund must be considered the authoritative source in this matter. Thanks for the information, and you’re also quite correct in distinguishing between versions and editions. I didn’t even know that multiple editions of the Milton Bradley version existed.
-
AA42 tops Revised easily. Better ideas, unit costs, pieces and map.
AAR has been overly analyzed and boring. AA42 is a fresh start and fresh strategy.
-
@Imperious:
AA42 tops Revised easily. Better ideas, unit costs, pieces and map.
AAR has been overly analyzed and boring. AA42 is a fresh start and fresh strategy.
So what do you think of tech, do you like it, or think it littles the strategy.
-
@Imperious:
AA42 tops Revised easily. Better ideas, unit costs, pieces and map.
AAR has been overly analyzed and boring. AA42 is a fresh start and fresh strategy.
I agree 100%
@Dylan:So what do you think of tech, do you like it, or think it littles the strategy.
As Long as the Tech is a balanced list for the game, where any tech can be just as effective as any other, it can add to the strategy of the game. you do not want 1 tech that everyone goes for cause its overpowered, like the original A&A Heavy bombers. the anniversary edition tech is pretty good but needs some tweaks
-
Spring 42 as well. It is almost the same game as Revised (if you usually played Revised without the tech and NAs as I did) and the changes improve the whole game.
-
Someone finally voted for the Revised.
-
Well, to be fair, most of the Revised players probably ignore this thread. You might get the opposite effect if you post this same poll on the Revised board. I like '42 better though.
-
@SAS:
Well, to be fair, most of the Revised players probably ignore this thread. You might get the opposite effect if you post this same poll on the Revised board. I like '42 better though.
Also, probably most of the Revised players probably never played '42 so they can’t really compare both versions.
-
@Yoper:
Actually, most people consider the 1998 computer version as the 3rd Edition.
That’s because it was. It was the same as the MB version, except for a few minor rules changes. If you read the rule book, it says that it’s the 3rd Edition rules.
@Yoper:
Two versions for the original MB version. The 1991 clarification sheet is more of a FAQ than an edition.
True, the clarification sheet doesn’t count as an edition, but the 3rd Edition rules in the CD-ROM do.
@Yoper:
The Nova edition is considered a “0” edition.
That then is where the 4th Edition moniker comes from for the Revised Edition.
Anniversary isn’t classified as part of this progression simply because it is a step up from the base game.
AA42 would then become the 5th Edition.
As I pointed out earlier, the MB version’s having had 3 different editions really makes the whole edition numbering scheme not work at all.
-
@Yoper:
There are always going to be people who have certain names that they call the game or came into the game series mid-stream. That name may not be what you call it.
Just like in other threads where people talk about the abbreviations for the different units in the game. Different people use different abbreviations.True. The systems different people use partly reflect the way they look at the various games and editions. In my case, for instance, I’m only interested in the games having plastic micro-miniatures, so I disregard the original Nova Games version, the computer game versions, and the large-scale collectable A&A miniature lines of products. And I don’t bother distinguishing between rule revisions of the same game. So in my personal notes about the games, I call the MB global game AA1, the 1986 (2nd edition) global game AA2, and the 2009 (Spring 1942) global game AA3. The Anniversary Edition was a special limited-edition release, so I don’t number it like the core global games; instead, I call it AAAE. I likewise don’t use numbers for D-Day, Bulge or Guadalcanal, which I simply call AAD, AAB and AAG. My original designations for the original Europe (1999) and Pacific (2001) games were AAE and AAP, but I guess I’ll have to revise that to AAE1 and AAP1 because the names I’ve been using for Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940 are AAP2 and AAE2. I don’t have a designation for the Global 1940 game because I just regard it as a combination of AAP2 and AAE2, not a separate game that comes in its own box. It’s interesting to see in this thread the other approaches that other people have used to identify the different games, based on their particular needs and preferences.
-
@CWO:
…… So in my personal notes about the games, I call the MB global game AA1, the 1986 (2nd edition) global game AA2, and the 2009 (Spring 1942) global game AA3. …
What about Axis & Allies Revised (2004)? wouldnt that Global game be AA3 and the 2009 Spring 1942 be AA4
Suggested Topics
