Why was the game created w/out unit descriptions, like in the other versions of A&A? I, and I’m sure others found this very helpful! I hope when the 2nd edition version of this game comes out, they print unit descriptions in the back of the rule book…
It says the link is expired.
Here it is:
To answer your inital question…The same reason there wasn’t enough pieces or IPCs or the game could only be won by one side–
money.
Or time.
The rule book shows evidence of being somewhat rushed, and not subjected to adequate proof reading.
To answer your inital question…The same reason there wasn’t enough pieces or IPCs or the game could only be won by one side–
money.
What do you mean there wasn’t enough IPCs?
I think he meant money
I agree w/Loki and Flashman. This was poorly put together. Let’s hope they release a 2nd edition, like with Global 1940 and make things better…
The reason there are no unit descriptions is simply because we felt they weren’t necessary. All land units have the same movement, and their combat values are printed on the battle board. All sea units except cruisers have the same movement, and their combat values are simple and intuitive. The prices of everything are printed in the mobilization zone. In addition, the rules for combat and movement in this game are much simpler than in WW-II A&A games. With only around eight pages of rules actually concerning the units, it seemed unnecessary to summarize them.
The reason there are no unit descriptions is simply because we felt they weren’t necessary. All land units have the same movement, and their combat values are printed on the battle board. All sea units except cruisers have the same movement, and their combat values are simple and intuitive. The prices of everything are printed in the mobilization zone. In addition, the rules for combat and movement in this game are much simpler than in WW-II A&A games. With only around eight pages of rules actually concerning the units, it seemed unnecessary to summarize them.
Allow me to rebute… Obviously your feeling that they weren’t necessary was not correct. Referring to the naval units movement and combat values being “simple and intuitive” is a terrible statement of reason. Simple and intuitive to whom?! Someone who has never played an Axis&Allies game before would not find these things “Simple & Intuitive”, instead they would have trouble finding them in the Un-Intuitive rule book. Not to mention the fact that not all naval units move the same AND there are special rules governing Subs. As for IPC the values being on the game board, that is true. They are printed there in 0.8 bold font and only one way up, NOT easy to read from accross the map/table and impossible to read while somones purchased stack is sitting there (most of the time). Which brings me to that mess you call a National Production tracker in the Sahara Desert, which ironically is a good place to put it because it gets about just as much use as a giant desert would. How in the name of everything that is simple and organized could you ever expect players to manager 16 roundels (beside a stack of un-mobilized units) on that tiny billiard style score-keeper? Really? This play-tested well? I love the game, I think it is a great variant with unique mechanics and does capture the antiquitous qualities of the war to end all wars. But, the physical game itself is just poorly put together once again. Not enough pieces, not enough chips, no IPCs (again! really? you suggest we use a pad and pencil?), incomplete battle-board (where are the naval unit descriptions?), terrible (just terrible!) national production chart and an un-intuitive “half-done” rule set. Great game Larry, terrible execution Wizards of the Coast. This game is not playable out of the box, we added our own IPC’s, used a National production chart from Global, added chips and pieces from another game and have clipped excerpts from the rule book to keep as quick reference guides. I guess we had to finish the game before we played it. There is just no defending some of the “decisions” that were made in the produciton of this game, a lot of it just feels like laziness or glaring over-sights.
Allow me to rebute… Obviously your feeling that they weren’t necessary was not correct. Referring to the naval units movement and combat values being “simple and intuitive” is a terrible statement of reason. Simple and intuitive to whom?! Someone who has never played an Axis&Allies game before would not find these things “Simple & Intuitive”, instead they would have trouble finding them in the Un-Intuitive rule book. Not to mention the fact that not all naval units move the same AND there are special rules governing Subs. As for IPC the values being on the game board, that is true. They are printed there in 0.8 bold font and only one way up, NOT easy to read from accross the map/table and impossible to read while somones purchased stack is sitting there (most of the time). Which brings me to that mess you call a National Production tracker in the Sahara Desert, which ironically is a good place to put it because it gets about just as much use as a giant desert would. How in the name of everything that is simple and organized could you ever expect players to manager 16 roundels (beside a stack of un-mobilized units) on that tiny billiard style score-keeper? Really? This play-tested well? I love the game, I think it is a great variant with unique mechanics and does capture the antiquitous qualities of the war to end all wars. But, the physical game itself is just poorly put together once again. Not enough pieces, not enough chips, no IPCs (again! really? you suggest we use a pad and pencil?), incomplete battle-board (where are the naval unit descriptions?), terrible (just terrible!) national production chart and an un-intuitive “half-done” rule set. Great game Larry, terrible execution Wizards of the Coast. This game is not playable out of the box, we added our own IPC’s, used a National production chart from Global, added chips and pieces from another game and have clipped excerpts from the rule book to keep as quick reference guides. I guess we had to finish the game before we played it. There is just no defending some of the “decisions” that were made in the produciton of this game, a lot of it just feels like laziness or glaring over-sights.
I agree 100% with everything you said except the IPCs. I never used IPCs in any previous games, I always found the pen and paper is much easier to manage. I know I’m a minority here though.
Krieg I agree that the rulebook isn’t intuitive. We end up being often frustrated because we’re not sure where to find the rules - and not because the book is new to us. We end up saying things like “oh. that rule was in the xxx section”.
BUT, that being said, everything is forgettable except for the lack of units. I don’t remember the specifics, but you look at what units were produced for certain countries (for example 3 BBs for Italy… really?) vs the infantries for Germany. You end up having to be creative (using previous games’ units, using chips with nothing on top of them) to represent German infantries.
Great game! Equally poor execution.
Referring to the naval units movement and combat values being “simple and intuitive” is a terrible statement of reason.
You have misunderstood my statement. I said only that the naval combat values were simple and intuitive, not that movement was. (By the way, if those combat values are not intuitive enough for you, there’s a chart on page 20 of the Rulebook that summarizes them.)
Not to mention the fact that not all naval units move the same AND there are special rules governing Subs.
If you re-read my post, you’ll see that never said that they did. That would be covered by two of the eight pages of rules that I mentioned.
I’ll not respond to the remainder of your post, as it’s off-topic, except to say that I’m sorry you’re disappointed with the game.
Krieg I agree that the rulebook isn’t intuitive. We end up being often frustrated because we’re not sure where to find the rules - and not because the book is new to us. We end up saying things like “oh. that rule was in the xxx section”.
Statements like this frankly baffle me. The rules on movement are in the section on movement, the rules on combat are in the section on combat, etc. In the WW-II game rulebooks, I found myself constantly having to refer to three different places in the book to find a complete answer. In contrast, this rulebook follows a logical flow, starting with politics and then progressing through the game turn. All of the rules on any given topic (e.g. land movement, sea movement, land combat, sea combat, amphibious assaults) are either together on one page or at most spread across two pages. For example, if you want to know about battleship bombardment, all you need to do is go to the section on amphibious assault combat. What’s not intuitive about that?
On the other hand, I could see where someone who is not familiar with A&A games at all might not have the proper frame of reference to know where to look. Perhaps an index is all that is needed?
I don’t agree with the comments regarding the rulebook. The only thing is this has alot of different concepts from the other games. The rules are well organized and layed out to Kreighund’s credit.
Some people just like the unit descriptions part because they can usually find a quick reference to alot of rules just by reading them.
Thanks, IL, but I must say that it was a joint effort between Larry and myself.
I have to say that I’ve wondered if part of the problem that experienced A&A players have with this rulebook is simply that it does have a different structure than past ones. Perhaps they’re trying to use it in the same way as prior ones rather than adapting to its organization - “fighting the wrong war”, so to speak.
The response to it on this site has been overwhelmingly negative. However, on BGG most of the feedback (when it’s been mentioned at all) has been positive. That must mean something…
I have to agree with elrojo33 on one point, the IPC chart in the Sahara is some really awful, convoluted design for a game that has an MSRP of $100. Really, how difficult would it have been to include a separate IPC chart?
“Perhaps an index is all that is needed?”
This would be awesome.
If you’re looking for something in particular, check the index and see what page(s) relates to that
The index idea would be great. But I do miss the separate sections that tell you all you need to know about each unit (like the original and almost every rule book after it).
I will agree with Krieg that some sections of the older books required you to read up to 3 different pages to clarify a rule, that was annoying too, equally flawed.
Regarding the table on Pg.20 showing the movement and combat values of each naval unit, why not put that on the battle board? Or in several sections of this intuitive rule book, for example, reprint the table in the sections on combat and movement.
An index would help significantly. Good idea KH
