Now that the Anniversary Edition is back in print, is there any reason to play 1942 2nd edition instead? It seems that at least one scenario of AA50 is mostly balanced, and 1942 is heavily Axis-favored. AA50 also has Italy and China as well as very good tech rules.
42 2nd edition offers AAAs as well as a more viable KJF strategy.
It’s a cheaper game that a lot more people already own. I don’t think it’s going anywhere.
I don’t see 1942.2 and Anniversary as being different versions of the same game, unlike the case of 1942.2 having superseded 1942.1. Rather, I think of Anniversary as occupying a middle ground between 1942.2 and Global 1940.2 in terms of size and complexity.
I actually kinda agree with all three previous posts, including the OP, as they all make valid points. There is a clear evolution (not revolution) between each “modern” edition of A&A… 1941, 1942.2, Anniversary and Global… each version is cheaper, less-complex and shorter in-time to play than the next, which will appeal to different groups of people.
The thing about Anniversary, it’s a closer-kin of 1942.2 than it is to Global, which is really hands-down the most complex, biggest and longest-to-play version of A&A by a long shot (which kinda goes along with what calvinhobbesliker said), but it is still a step inbetween 1942.2 and Global (like CWO Marc mentioned). Obviously 1942.2 also has a pretty established user-base, both by affordability, playability and time on market (like zoooma mentioned).
My personal opinion, Anniversary is the end-all-be-all version of the Classic/1942 standard formula of A&A gameplay. Global is a beast of its own, and certainly the most detailed and rewarding version, but man, the cost and time-commitment of Global is massive compared to the Classic/1942 style of gameplay. Like calvinhobbesliker suggested, I can totally see some people (self-including) preferring Anniversary over 1942.2 because they do share such similar styles of play, but 1942.2 is cheaper and has an established base, and is quicker to play, so it will always be preferred by some I imagine.
Hmm, why is 1942 quicker to play? Is it just because it’s 5 players instead of 6+China?
It could be superseded, I believe.
Anniversary has more European territories, making the Russo-German struggle more fun.
I know I would always rather play this than 1942, because of the two new nations and NOs. (Even though, as usual , the NOs are easier to attain as the Axis, whilst the Allies struggle to gain them in game.)
Players who have both games or know the difference, could adopt the newer rules regarding AA, if they saw fit. The AA unit as a nation owned and destroyable one, is a good rules upgrade.
Hmm, why is 1942 quicker to play? Is it just because it’s 5 players instead of 6+China?
That’s going to add to game time, there’s no way it wouldn’t… Italy (small as it is) is simply going to add more game time, even in a two-player game, because it’s an extra round of purchases, moves, combat, etc, etc… multiplied by however many turns are in the game… the more complicated China rules plus the more territories in eastern Europe will also add to game length over 1942.2… not necessarily by a significant amount (like Global compared to any other A&A game), but I would say Anniversary with the extra territories and extra nation will be at least the same amount longer over 1942.2 as 1942.2 is over 1941.
Having said that, once again, it might add an hour or two to gameplay over 1942.2, but like Wittmann stated, I’d personally still rather play Anniversary over 1942.2… its just a better rounded game.
Both games are great! If you ask my right now, I would rather play anniversary but I still have lots of love for 1942.2. I’m currently playing 1942.2 on YouTube with Hunter Jones and Sam Kenny. So even though I really really like anniversary right now, 1942.2 is never going away from me.
Agree in general with all that is said here. 42.2 is good for a faster game, with sharper sculpts and generous pieces for $42 price than the 1941 version ($14) 1941 board ripped in half by toddler.
Anniversary is different. That is it main selling point (@ $80). It has some of the features of global, most of the full unit set, and can be played in a reasonable amount of time.
Speaking to Tourney play, Greg said that while 42.2, Anniversary, Classic and G42 events would remain, that the wider availability of Anniversary could create an Invitational division, where the final winners of Gencon, Origins, Battle of TN and 2 wildcards from the other tourney winners would all play in an upper ladder.
42.2 is the largest tourney draw, then classic, then g42, then anniversary (4-6) boards. That can change now, since before most people didn’t even have the board.
1941 2-3 hours
1942.2 2.5-4 hours
Classic 3-4.5 hours
WW 1 4-5 hours
Ikusa 4 hours
Fortress America 4-5 hours
Anniversary 5-7 hours more if you’re drinking
G42 7 hours during tourney more in open play
G40 8 hours during YG tourney rules more in open play
all times are averages for games where people actively play and not argue or go out to smoke every 5 minutes
*Condensed for Forum topic
@taamvan:
1941Â Â 2-3 hours
1942.2Â 2.5-4 hours
Classic 3-4.5 hours
Anniversary 5-7 hours more if you’re drinking
Global 7-8 hours during tourney, more in open playall times are averages for games where people actively play and not argue or go out to smoke every 5 minutes
Where you getting the numbers from (the box or personal experience?). I mostly agree, but I can’t see Classic taking more time than 42.2, and a 42.2 game that lasts under 3 hours is only if someone quit early due to some really bad dice. My personal experience, I’d switch Classic and 1942.2 around, otherwise keeping the numbers in the time slots the same. I know you used the disclaimer of #Tourney for Global, but 7-8 hours is but a fraction of the time a typical proper “at home” game of Global would last.
personal experience at 170+ games and tournaments
Good point about those two–I haven’t played classic in a while but it goes fairly ploddingly and slowly when I watch the games–42.2 simply comes to a clearer resolution without stalemate faster.
That may be because dave and I played it 52 times last year…so we got faster and started to give up faster when the writing was on the wall.
Yes, those are structured tourney time limits, the game will take much longer if you don’t find ways to limit that. G40 had no tournament possibility at all until YG developed rules that allow any agreed-upon cutoff (end of day, # hours, # turns, we give up we’re tired count the score…)
Without that, I would have written;
G40 - infinite (or seems like it)
G42 - at least 2 sessions or until beer is depleted and board flipped during #ragequit
G40 - infinite (or seems like it)
G42 - at least 2 sessions or until beer is depleted and board flipped during #ragequit
:rolling_on_the_floor_laughing: I have never played G40 (played P40.1 once), but that’s definitely how it appears, given what just P40 was like.
I’ve owned AAA since the first print run, but is has seen considerably less table time than 42.2.
Italy and China I think are more of a nuisance to play than really fun, and without NO Italy isn’t going anywhere anyway. And this might be minor, but the IC in India in 42.2 makes for far more interesting play in the Pacific and KJF is actually not completely outmatched by KGF.
And out of interest
@calvinhobbesliker:
It seems that at least one scenario of AA50 is mostly balanced, and 1942 is heavily Axis-favored.
Which is that, 42 with NO? Because it can’t be any of the 41s, without NO Germany is dead, with NO there is no stopping Japan.
I meant that 1942 w/o NO in Anniversary is balanced and 1942.2 is unbalanced in the Axis’ favor.
I haven’t played 1942.2, but for me the famed viability of a KJF strategy is a huge draw over AA50 (which I have played).
In the Gamemaster edition, Revised*, AA50**, and 42 1st edition all require a KGF strategy for optimal Allied play. This makes 1942 2nd edition a very new experience to entice me with.
I have not played G40 2nd edition yet (only 1st edition). I understand that is also a KJF game, so for those of you who play that, perhaps KJF is less of a lure. I have also not played A&A: 1941, and have no idea as to the correct strategies there.
** I have only played the 1941 scenario (with NOs), and cannot attest to the other variations.
