what is alpha 3.9?
what is alpha 3.9?
What some people choose to call the final version of Alpha 3 which included a slight german naval shuffle, etc etc etc
what is alpha 3.9?
What some people choose to call the final version of Alpha 3 which included a slight german naval shuffle, etc etc etc
Thank you. Just now looking into A&A again after long hiatus. Where can I find said version, and when was its release? The latest update (Feb 2012) on HGD says it includes changes to Germany, but I don’t see any that are in green.
Also, how strong is the consensus for this new version? Do people still play Alpha 2 here, or does pretty much everyone feel the worthiness of moving on to the latest Alpha 3?
what is alpha 3.9?
What some people choose to call the final version of Alpha 3 which included a slight german naval shuffle, etc etc etc
Thank you. Just now looking into A&A again after long hiatus. Where can I find said version, and when was its release? The latest update (Feb 2012) on HGD says it includes changes to Germany, but I don’t see any that are in green.
Also, how strong is the consensus for this new version? Do people still play Alpha 2 here, or does pretty much everyone feel the worthiness of moving on to the latest Alpha 3?
SZ114 is the change. True, it’s not in green. Personally I don’t refer to OOB setup charts and setup based on the alpha changes, so the green/red highlight is irrelevant (to me) unless tracking the changes for some reason.
I’m not sure if consensus or even worthiness should be a factor any more. This appears to be the final version and is going to supercede the first edition OOB rules with the 2nd edition printing. Alpha 2 exists only as a playtesting option that developed into Alpha 3. If you feel it’s better, or don’t want to change to the new setup, that’s your prerogative, but the official version IS and WILL BE the 2nd Edition printing, which is based on Alpha 3 (probably already to print).
can fighters do convoy disruption?
can fighters do convoy disruption?
on carriers, according to the latest rules, yes:
Each carrier based aircraft, including jets (see the optional rule Research & Development) rolls 2 dice. Submarine including Super submarines (again, the optional rule) rolls 2 dice.
All surface warships, except an aircraft carrier, rolls 1 die.
All rolls of 3 or less are counted. This total is the number of IPCs the turn player will lose due to convoy disruption(s).
can fighters do convoy disruption?
on carriers, according to the latest rules, yes:
Each carrier based aircraft, including jets (see the optional rule Research & Development) rolls 2 dice. Submarine including Super submarines (again, the optional rule) rolls 2 dice.
All surface warships, except an aircraft carrier, rolls 1 die.
All rolls of 3 or less are counted. This total is the number of IPCs the turn player will lose due to convoy disruption(s).
thanks!
can fighters do convoy disruption?
on carriers, according to the latest rules, yes:
Each carrier based aircraft, including jets (see the optional rule Research & Development) rolls 2 dice. Submarine including Super submarines (again, the optional rule) rolls 2 dice.
All surface warships, except an aircraft carrier, rolls 1 die.
All rolls of 3 or less are counted. This total is the number of IPCs the turn player will lose due to convoy disruption(s).thanks!
the russian n.o. about pro axis neutrals….do they mean any pro -axis, or only ones that start the game that way?
when not at war with usa can japan end its turn within 2 spaces of the allusian islands? it says not within 2 spaces of Alaska territories, so i was wondering?
can fighters do convoy disruption?
on carriers, according to the latest rules, yes:
Each carrier based aircraft, including jets (see the optional rule Research & Development) rolls 2 dice. Submarine including Super submarines (again, the optional rule) rolls 2 dice.
All surface warships, except an aircraft carrier, rolls 1 die.
All rolls of 3 or less are counted. This total is the number of IPCs the turn player will lose due to convoy disruption(s).thanks!
the russian n.o. about pro axis neutrals….do they mean any pro -axis, or only ones that start the game that way?
I’d be very surprised if it included strict neutrals turned pro-axis.
when not at war with usa can japan end its turn within 2 spaces of the allusian islands? it says not within 2 spaces of Alaska territories, so i was wondering?
pretty sure it’s just Alaska or WUS.
Pro Axis neutrals means countries that are pro axis that have not been activated by an Axis power yet. Meaning, Iraq starts as pro-axis. If Iraq is activated by Germany, Italy or Japan, then it is no longer pro-axis. It is a territory controlled by the Axis power that activated it.
Pro Axis neutrals means countries that are pro axis that have not been activated by an Axis power yet. Meaning, Iraq starts as pro-axis. If Iraq is activated by Germany, Italy or Japan, then it is no longer pro-axis. It is a territory controlled by the Axis power that activated it.
what I wondered was weather Russia could deliberately turn a country pro-axis just to capture it to collect the bonus.
Pro Axis neutrals means countries that are pro axis that have not been activated by an Axis power yet. Meaning, Iraq starts as pro-axis. If Iraq is activated by Germany, Italy or Japan, then it is no longer pro-axis. It is a territory controlled by the Axis power that activated it.
Wouldn’t Russia still collect the NO if taking Iraq from Germany or Italy? I think so.
Pro Axis neutrals means countries that are pro axis that have not been activated by an Axis power yet. Meaning, Iraq starts as pro-axis. If Iraq is activated by Germany, Italy or Japan, then it is no longer pro-axis. It is a territory controlled by the Axis power that activated it.
what I wondered was weather Russia could deliberately turn a country pro-axis just to capture it to collect the bonus.
This is part of why I think it is unlikely, but I guess RAW suggest otherwise.
It applies only to the territories that begin the game “pro-axis”. It would not apply to territories that begin true neutral, even if they switch allegiance later.
Pro Axis neutrals means countries that are pro axis that have not been activated by an Axis power yet. Meaning, Iraq starts as pro-axis. If Iraq is activated by Germany, Italy or Japan, then it is no longer pro-axis. It is a territory controlled by the Axis power that activated it.
Wouldn’t Russia still collect the NO if taking Iraq from Germany or Italy? I think so.
Pro Axis neutrals means countries that are pro axis that have not been activated by an Axis power yet. Meaning, Iraq starts as pro-axis. If Iraq is activated by Germany, Italy or Japan, then it is no longer pro-axis. It is a territory controlled by the Axis power that activated it.
what I wondered was weather Russia could deliberately turn a country pro-axis just to capture it to collect the bonus.
This is part of why I think it is unlikely, but I guess RAW suggest otherwise.
what is RAW?
Pro Axis neutrals means countries that are pro axis that have not been activated by an Axis power yet. Meaning, Iraq starts as pro-axis. If Iraq is activated by Germany, Italy or Japan, then it is no longer pro-axis. It is a territory controlled by the Axis power that activated it.
Wouldn’t Russia still collect the NO if taking Iraq from Germany or Italy? I think so.
Pro Axis neutrals means countries that are pro axis that have not been activated by an Axis power yet. Meaning, Iraq starts as pro-axis. If Iraq is activated by Germany, Italy or Japan, then it is no longer pro-axis. It is a territory controlled by the Axis power that activated it.
what I wondered was weather Russia could deliberately turn a country pro-axis just to capture it to collect the bonus.
This is part of why I think it is unlikely, but I guess RAW suggest otherwise.
what is RAW?
rules as written. essentially referring to the specific wording of the rules and not the errata or interpretations, although generally those are backed up convincingly by the wording of the rules.
Whether people refer to “RAW” as OOB specifically or if they include the official Alpha modifications isn’t always clear, although most people appear to have embraced Alpha 3 as the standard at this point, unless noted otherwise.
It applies only to the territories that begin the game “pro-axis”.� It would not apply to territories that begin true neutral, even if they switch allegiance later.
are you sure of this? it does not specify “original pro-axis”, but it does specify original German or Italian territories. one could infer from this that territories that become pro-axis would be included.
It applies only to the territories that begin the game “pro-axis”.� It would not apply to territories that begin true neutral, even if they switch allegiance later.
are you sure of this? it does not specify “original pro-axis”, but it does specify original German or Italian territories. one could infer from this that territories that become pro-axis would be included.
yes, I’m sure. The wording means “original german”, “original italian” and “original pro-axis”. By your interpretation of the wording it doesn’t specify original Italian, and that is NOT the case.
“3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.”
It applies only to the territories that begin the game “pro-axis”.� It would not apply to territories that begin true neutral, even if they switch allegiance later.
are you sure of this? it does not specify “original pro-axis”, but it does specify original German or Italian territories. one could infer from this that territories that become pro-axis would be included.
yes, I’m sure. The wording means “original german”, “original italian” and “original pro-axis”. By your interpretation of the wording it doesn’t specify original Italian, and that is NOT the case.
“3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.” ok, thanks.
Where can I find the correct set-up that shows England with AA guns?
